Should schools teach kids that Darwinism is a lie, since school was the original place they introduced it?

Question

Irreducible complexity

Read this article that helps shed light on the impossibility of Darwinism. Science needs to start looking into other possibilities as to how we came to be.

Let this next generation be free of the grasp of religious DARWINISM and let science be FREE!

Irreducible complexity's not a very well known subject, but ever so important. By the time Darwin developed his theory of evolution, there was hardly any knowledge about the complexity of a cell.

http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm

tawaen, Incarnatrix of Evil No it hasn't. But nice try. Are you a teacher too?

The Other Left Evolution in action is my favorite line from you guys. It's like saying that a seed turning into a tree is proof of evolution. Who cares that cells refute the proof of Darwins theory didn't you just see that seed sprout?????

Matt J Was there a word in that whole essay that talked about God. Oh wait, you don't care your just flapping your jaw...(so to speak) Thanks for the uneducated opinion.

creatrix, temporary goth chick If evolution theories are progressing then why do scientist try so hard to refute the possibility of Intelligent design??? But you are right....not me. ;)

jonjon WOW, did you even read the essay I posted. CAN you read???

Silver Tongue did you know the silver tongue is from the bible? It's in Proverbs. Maybe you should read the bible. You might like knowing that Christians are actually intelligent.

Answer 1

first, that web page is ugly.
That deep blue background hurts my eyes.
I am pretty sure, YOU made that website and wrote that article.
So I suggest: change the damn background.

Now to answer the question.
I understand what it means. when you can not reduce a thing anymore without halter its function.
I understand, that if we say, a cell is the smallest part of any live form, how the hell that cell came into existence, when its so complex.
Even if there is no answer to that yet, its also not the answer to simply say, god created the cell and let it free to wander earth.
I believe in "trial and error". That means, that that working cell as we know it today, was not the first one to be. It was just the first one to work. Before that, there were many and many other cells or other thing we did not ever see, that did not work out. Planet earth had plenty of time, to go through that trial and error period, and it took that cell pretty long time to work.
If there is a god, he would created that working cell in no time, and not in billions of years.
So your irreducible complexity Theory is fine with some subjects, but it will not prove Darwin wrong, nor prove that there is a god. Evolution is a fact, you can recreate it in an experiment in a lab, as many times you want. God is not a fact you can recreate in a lab.

Answer 2

Here is a link with real science applied to the Flagellum, so often used by irreducible complexity proponents.

The problem with ID is that it requires real scientists to ignore many important theories of evolution in order for belief.

Its kinda like 'religious scientists' in Galileo's time claiming that the world was really flat as stated in the bible, but that it might have a slight curve, which would account for his findings.

Answer 3

Why do we have a tailbone we have no use for? Why do so many people suffer from lower back pains because we weren't really meant to walk upright? Why is the world littered with really old dinosaur bones while the world was created six thousand years ago? Could it be that Someone is pulling our leg?

reaction to yours: I'm always stupefied by this blatant disrespect for apes, which are God's creation just the same as you and me. Sure, the Bible puts you Christians above animals, but this disrespect is exactly what puts me off about religion.

Answer 4

evolution is real, they should teach it in schools, but they should also teach the bible as religious study, this way the child has the knowledge to make up their own mind.

one or the other is just not right, it bias and at the moment the schools teach and sing and have holy days about God, that is wrong. faith is a personal choice, religion is getting their foot in the door early by indoctrinating children from the age of 4, if not sooner at Playschool/kinder garden. As an Atheist you look at this and think; they say we push our views on them?

Answer 5

Evolutionary theory has progressed far beyond Darwinism in the past 150 years.

Pull your head out of your... I mean, the sand.

Edit: I'm not sure I would call what scientists do trying to refute ID. Most scientists don't try to tell you whether God designed stuff or not. What they tell you is what is known about life on this plant, and life on this planet evolved.

Answer 6

Home school your kids if you want them to be idiots.

Look, I've read Behe. The problem with "irreducible complexity" is that it's simply a sophistication of the old "God did it" argument. It's "we can't figure out how complex biological systems evolved from simpler systems; therefore 'God' must've made them." Lazy theists!

Any way you slice it, creationism is NOT science, and should most definitely NOT be taught in public school biology.

(BTW - I love the guy who says "Someday Darwinism will be classified with the flat earth theory." Can irony go further?)

P.S. - I was waiting for you to get to me. But your whole argument against me is "CAN you read???" I'll take that as a white flag.

Answer 7

Tawaen is right. If you don't think that Tawaen's listed websites refute the theory of irreducible complexity, it's up to you to say how. You can't simply say "No, it hasn't." You need to explain why it hasn't.

Answer 8

Oh yes of course, lets take a well established scientific theory that explains quite satisfactorily to the vast majority of people and instead replace it with a total load of mumbo jumbo. Have you ever heard of Ockhams razor ..... I suspect not.

This is whats wrong with religion and why atheists will never leave you alone. This sort of garbage has to be exposed, its time for rational people to stand up and be counted to put and end to this poisonous rubbish.

Answer 9

Here is the response and the link and references to show how wrong you are

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:


deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.


Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.


Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.


Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.
Links:
TalkOrigins Archive. n.d. Irreducible complexity and Michael Behe. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
References:
Aharoni, A., L. Gaidukov, O. Khersonsky, S. McQ. Gould, C. Roodveldt and D. S. Tawfik. 2004. The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genetics [Epub Nov. 28 ahead of print]
Bridgham, Jamie T., Sean M. Carroll and Joseph W. Thornton. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312: 97-101. See also Adami, Christopher. 2006. Reducible complexity. Science 312: 61-63.
Dujon, B. et al. 2004. Genome evolution in yeasts. Nature 430: 35-44.
Hooper, S. D. and O. G. Berg. 2003. On the nature of gene innovation: Duplication patterns in microbial genomes. Molecular Biololgy and Evolution 20(6): 945-954.
Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery. 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
Meléndez-Hevia, Enrique, Thomas G. Waddell and Marta Cascante. 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43(3): 293-303.
Muller, Hermann J. 1918. Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics 3: 422-499. http://www.genetics.org/content/vol3/issue5/index.shtml
Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14: 261-280.
Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2001. Genome duplications: The stuff of evolution? Science 294: 2458-2460.
Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

Answer 10

Darwin's concept that the world was created by a mysterious 'big bang', (that was NOT created by a being of any kind) is still a THEORY. Then ALL theories should be introduced at school.

**EDIT JonJon, I don't mind you stating your 'superior' opinions, just do so without calling us Theists 'lazy' or stating that our children are 'idiots', .......your ignorance and prejudice are showing....grow up!

This is why many Theists are against Atheists, you have no tolerance for others. I just stated that children should be taught both sides yet you would rather brainwash children then let them decide for themselves?

LOL...Gotta love the thumbs down, ....what did I do, touch a nerve?