But here's one I'm not familiar with: The Science of ID: Biochemistry.
Maybe I'll give it a try.
Sunday, October 06, 2013
Teaching Biochemistry from an Intelligent Design Creationist Perspective
There are many ways to teach biochemistry. You can focus on the chemistry or emphasize biology. You can teach from a fuel metabolism perspective or you can teach to the MCAT. You can even teach biochemistry from an evolution perspective.
But here's one I'm not familiar with: The Science of ID: Biochemistry.
Maybe I'll give it a try.
But here's one I'm not familiar with: The Science of ID: Biochemistry.
Maybe I'll give it a try.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
27 comments :
Uh oh, there is a disturbance in the force. This is the official definition of IDC from the Disco Tute website:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "
And this is the definition from the image Larry posted:
"The theory of intelligent design holds that some natural objects are best explained by an intelligent cause because they contain the type of information and complexity which - in our experience - only ever come from the action of an intelligent mind."
Can't even the IDiots get their own definitions straight? No wonder nobody can figure out what the theory of "intelligent design" creationism is.
I don't see a significant difference in meaning. Apparently, you do. But what?
Hey Larry,
Looks like you are gonna have to update your textbooks with the new discoveries about protein folding. If the boys Arthur Horwich and Ulrich Hartl get a Nobel Prize, you will have to swallow your pride and move on...finally
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/5-scientific-breakthroughs-that-haven-t-won-a-nobel-prize-1.1485654
Believe it or not, I actually know a little bit about chaperones and how they catalyze protein folding since I began working on them back in 1974 and it was the main focus of my lab throughout the 1980s.
Their role in protein folding has been described in every one of my textbooks starting in 1987.
Louise, you need to understand that by the time a "breakthrough" is touted as a possible Nobel Prize it's very old hat to the majority of scientists. In this case, twenty years old.
Obviously, LouiseG didn't bother to look into any textbook.
BTW, LouiseG sounds a lot like JoeG.
For years the IDC definition has been a bald assertion followed by a negative argument against evolution. Also, "certain features" of the universe and living things that gave them the opportunity to invoke "fine tuning" of the universe.
Recently, in the last 5 years or so, there has been a push by the Tute to cloud the issue with "information," various "complexities" - specified, functional, functional specified, etc - and tie that to ONLY being a product of intelligence.
To me it looks like they're backing away from god of the gaps, i.e. what evolution can't do, and setting up a false and more gelatinous framework based on their hokey concept of "information." Of course, it doesn't fool us but it's not meant to fool us, it's meant to fool the rubes and donors, especially the donors.
OMG!!! I though they were getting a Nobel Prize for explaining how the proteins were able to fold in the warm pond without the cell membrane...
BTW: You probably know a bit or two about that? Which textbook should I look into for that info Larry?
SPARC: Have you looked that up yet?
LouiseG asks,
I though they were getting a Nobel Prize for explaining how the proteins were able to fold in the warm pond without the cell membrane...You probably know a bit or two about that? Which textbook should I look into for that info Larry?
The spontaneous folding of polypeptide chains into a specific three-dimensional conformation is covered in all biochemistry textbooks. You can read about the in vitro (i.e. in a test tube) studies of Christian Anfinsen (1916-1995) who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1972.
They keep advancing the frontiers of ID research. They have commissioned cutting-edge INFOGRAPHICS!
LouiseG, what is your relationship to Joe "security clearance" Gallien? I asked you before if you were his mother, and got no answer. Perhaps Joe just uses his mom's logon ID, since he lives in her basement.
What do you think about the experiments Joe describes below?
Query to Joe: What is your position that requires having done science?
Joe G: "Electronic engineer and research scientist."
Query to Joe: 'What experiments have you done?'
Joe G: "Many dealing with ion trap mobilty spectrometry & mass spectrometry. Many more dealing with electronic circuitry and electricity.
I can't get specific as it deals with security. If you can get a security clearance I could show you what I do.
Then there is astronomy. On any given night I can have 3 telescopes pointing skyward. 2 4,5" aps with a 910mm FL(one automated and one manual) as well as a 10" ap with an 1125mm FL.
And that is just the tip of the ole iceberg.
That doesn't count the experiments I conduct in my basement. Some labs would be jealous of the equipment I house & use there.
For example I now know that ticks are more attracted to watermelon rinds then they are to orange peels or orange slices. I also know that dragonflies play."
[Joe G reveals his top secret scientific research at ARN]
Louise, do you believe that Joe G is a real research scientist as he describes himself above? If you don't answer, I'll keep asking.
LouiseG, why did you describe chaperones, which every molecular biologist has known about since the 1980's, as "new discoveries"?
Why did you state that these allegedly "new discoveries" will disprove what Larry Moran has written? About what? Evolution? DNA? What!?
Don't BS, answer the question.
Just so you know, I'm working on a "fixed" version of the Discovery Institute's ID misinfographic that is the topic of this post. It will be hilarious. When I'm done, I'll tweet the link from DiogenesLamp0.
Louise, you need to understand that by the time a "breakthrough" is touted as a possible Nobel Prize it's very old hat to the majority of scientists. In this case, twenty years old.
As an example, if Peter Higgs is awarded the Nobel Prize in physics later this week, it will be based on work published nearly 50 years ago. The paper was published in 1964.
Ooo, ID uses this thing called the scientific method. They then proceed to use e.g. when they meant to use i.e. Can they get nothing right?
Perhaps they actually mean "e.g.", for some components (prediction, analysis) seem to be missing. It's a subtle reminder that their approach to the scientific method is somewhat selective.
I'm holding out for the ID version of gravity.
There is no dispute that ID is a set of scientific, convincing arguments against Darwin's evolution theories. However I am not sure what they really mean by 'Intelligent agent' and I am not convinced they have a viable explanation for evolution. So, in essence ID is nothing more than a set of arguments against Darwin. Now I am left in a state where I don't believe Darwin and I don't know what ID theory - if there is a theory -is.
If you simply reconsider your demonstratively false assertion that "ID is a set of scientific, convincing arguments", I think you'll find an easy way out of your dilemma. Distinguishing between "Darwin's evolution theories" and evolutionary theory as it actually now exists might help, too.
BTW, great blog, SELBLOG. Keep pumping out that research!
http://selblog-research.blogspot.ca/
Thanks for encouragement :-)
Seriously, don't you all (Darwin and ID guys) think both theories have so many holes that we need to look for a more robust alternative? Why are we stuck supporting either Darwin or ID when it is clear that Darwin , Neo Darwinism cannot fully explain evolution nor can ID (where is- and more important - what is the 'intelligent agent'?). I believe we need to look out for another more convincing theory of evolution
I'll keep my eyes peeled, but I actually find the current one pretty convincing. What's the problem area? Common Descent? Variation? Selection? Drift? Animals?
sez selblog: "There is no dispute that ID is a set of scientific, convincing arguments against Darwin's evolution theories."
You're right; there is no dispute about whether or not ID "is a set of scientific, convincing arguments against Darwin's evolution theories"—it isn't, end of discussion. From Dembski's Explanatory Filter, which automatically yields a false result of "yep, it's Designed" whenever it's applied to a phenomenon with a non-Design explanation of which the investigator is ignorant, to Behe's ignorantly resurrecting Muller's 1918 concept of "interlocking complexity" under the new name "irreducible complexity" and using this "irreducible complexity" as the basis for an evolution-can't-create-this argument with a flaw that even a high-school student can understand, to Dembski's incoherent and inconsistent notion of :complex specified information", to Behe anointing various biological system as Irreducibly Complex only for those systems to be empirically demonstrated to not be Irreducibly complex, to the Discovery Institute's explicit goal of replacing real science with "the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God"… Like I said, you are right that there's no dispute.
"However I am not sure what they really mean by 'Intelligent agent' and I am not convinced they have a viable explanation for evolution."
What the DI crew means by 'intelligent agent' is the God of the Bible, as witness Philip "Darwin On Trial" Johnson's assertion that ID is actually about the reality of God's existence, and Dembski's statement that ID is "the Logos of John's theology" with a fresh coat of paint, among many other pieces of evidence.
"So, in essence ID is nothing more than a set of arguments against Darwin."
More or less, yes.
"Now I am left in a state where I don't believe Darwin…"
Why not?
Seriously: Why don't you "believe Darwin"? Where's the sticking point(s)?
"…and I don't know what ID theory - if there is a theory -is."
Well, you needn't feel embarrassed to not know what ID theory is; ID-pushers don't know what ID theory is, either!
sez selblog: "Seriously, don't you all (Darwin and ID guys) think both theories have so many holes that we need to look for a more robust alternative?"
What sort of "holes" do you mean? As I understand it, sure, there are unanswered questions in evolutionary theory—but in addition to those unanswered questions, there's a hell of a lot of questions which evolutionary theory does answer. So… what 'holes' do you think there are in evolutionary theory? As for ID, well, ID has never been anything but old Creationist wine in shiny new ID bottles, and as such, ID is religious apologetics, not a scientific theory. [shrug]
"Why are we stuck supporting either Darwin or ID when it is clear that Darwin , Neo Darwinism cannot fully explain evolution nor can ID (where is- and more important - what is the 'intelligent agent'?). I believe we need to look out for another more convincing theory of evolution"
Whatever. [shrug] If you ever feel the urge to, like, identify any of the aspects of evolutionary theory which you regard as 'holes', we can discuss those 'holes" and see just how "hole"-y they really are.
Selblog, how about naming a couple of holes? What does "Neo Darwinism cannot fully explain evolution" mean? Does a theory have to "fully explain" anything? What do you find the more reasonable, that the prevailing, 160 years old ToE will continue being the only viable framework, the best explanation yet availble to account for the evidence? That the prospects of replacing the ToE with a "more convincing theory" are rather bleak?
In your opinion, which way does the evidence point if not at the ToE?
SELBLOG writes:
Thanks for encouragement :-)
Good snark is wasted on some people....
Re: "Seriously, don't you all (Darwin and ID guys) think both theories have so many holes that we need to look for a more robust alternative?"
We (not me, but biologists) already are looking for a more robust theory. It will be an outgrowth of, and still called, the Theory of Evolution. This theory started with Darwin and Wallace, and has changed and expanded a great deal since, and will continue to evolve. It has demonstrated extraordinary explanatory value, and those successes are not going to disappear. E.g., fossils of rabbits are not going to be found in Cambrian strata, and humans will continue to share 70% of their genes with sponges.
Sorry professed-ers My buddy asked me to ask you since you are such smart guys:"
. Can proteins self-assemble in the the pi-soup? (no cell membrane)
The reason why I ask is that proteins tend to "avoid" the connection" or an "attraction". So, what makes them so "loving" in a cell?
2. It is not may question but my brother has been asking me this question for months. Since I have no answer, I thought I would ask you, since you are such a smart guy; you and Larry that is.
"Enzymes are needed to produce ATP. However, energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. However, DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA.
However, proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with specific proteins. So, how is this ALL possible in view of evolutionary prospective?"
It was lovely to get your attention. I'm sure that we can humiliate some people...Larry and Diogenes are the front runners..... go.. go people go!
Post a Comment