View Single Post
Old 04-06-2005, 05:07 AM   #121 (permalink)
alansmithee
Junkie
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
Your recollection is not accurate. Viruses not only replicate, but they have DNA/RNA that codes for many biochemical processes that are present only in living organisms.

But whether or not you consider them life, the fact that these functional biochemical entities are routinely created in the test tube is certainly pertinent to the debate about the origin of life on this planet. This subject is a scientific subject (whether or not you want to call it "evolution") and it is entirely appropriate to include in a biology class, whereas ID is not appropriate.
But you ignore the fact that outside of a host cell, viruses exibit none of the evidences of life. The strand of RNA/DNA they have is useless unless they attach to a cell. There is no definate answer as to whether viruses are alive or not. Therefore the creation of viruses does not indicate the ability to create life. Teaching that viruses can be created has little to do with the creation of life.

Quote:
There are in fact very few scientists who believe in ID, just like there are a few scientists who believe just about anything. Scientific consensus is the criterion of what should be taught in public schools, not fringe beliefs.
But there is also no concensus as to how life did originate. So by your reasoning, there should be nothing taught about the origin of life.

Quote:
I saw those links, and my opinion is that those arguments are completely laughable pseudoscience. The core of the arguments are a little number juggling by people who have no knowledge of probability or statistics, followed by some quoting of Scripture.
And in many people's opinion, the opposing arguments are also pseudoscience, put forth by people who lacking evidence have imposed their own beliefs as to how things originated.

Quote:
Two weeks is plenty of time to expose students to the current science regarding the origin of life.
How can it be when the current science isn't consistent with itself? If you expose the current theories, you have to allow ID. That is why I say teach evolution, but leave out origin.
alansmithee is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360