Lisburn Council promotes “an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion”
Yesterday the BBC’s Will Crawley noted the persistent questioning of the Education minister, Caitríona Ruane, by DUP MLA David Simpson on various aspects of the teaching of neo-creationism in schools, and his commenters pick up on some of the answers given. [scroll down] Meanwhile today’s Irish News reports [subs req] that Lisburn District Council has passed a motion proposed by DUP councillor Paul Givan who belives he has spotted a gap in those answers which might allow the teaching of neo-creationism as an alternative to evolution in post-primary schools – and not just, I’d suggest, in classes on religion. Adds This quote from the Belfast Telegraph report
In a statement the Department of Education said the teaching of alternative theories was a matter for schools. A spokeswoman said: “The revised curriculum offers scope for schools to explore alternative theories to evolution, which could include creationism, if they so wish.”
Adds 2 Today’s Newsletter reports that the Culture Minister, Edwin Poots, was among those supporting the motion.The gap appears to be between this answer
Mr David Simpson asked the Minister of Education, pursuant to her answer to AQW 928/07, under GCSE science specifications allowing for the explanation of theories other than evolution to explore the development of life on earth, what resource material will be made available to teachers wishing to explore other such scientific explanations with pupils. (AQW 74/08)
Ms Ruane: It is up to schools to decide what teaching resources they wish to use to deliver the curriculum, in accordance with the needs of their pupils and the ethos of the school. A range of organisations produce teaching materials that schools can choose to avail of. [added emphasis]
and this one
Mr David Simpson asked the Minister of Education, pursuant to her answer to AQW 928/07, what training will be given to teachers to help them to explore scientific explanations for the development of life on earth, other than evolution. (AQW 76/08)
Ms Ruane: Teachers are currently involved in a phased programme of training to support the introduction of the revised curriculum. Any in-service training for teachers follows the requirements of the statutory curriculum and GCSE specifications which do not include any specific reference to alternative explanations of the origins of life. The Education and Library Boards have not received requests from any school or teacher for support on this issue. [added emphasis]
Which, as the Irish News reports [subs req], has prompted the motion to Lisburn Council from Paul Givan
Although the council has no control over the cirriculum, Paul Givan of the DUP suggested that it ask schools in the area to consider teaching the theories.
Intelligent design theory claims that a supernatural designer was involved in the creation of life on earth.
Creationism teaches that God created life, although it does not try to explain how.
All 13 DUP and seven Ulster Unionist councillors voted in favour of the suggestion, which was opposed by Sinn Féin and the SDLP.
Mr Givan said his suggestion had been inspired by a question his party colleague David Simpson had asked education minister Caitríona Ruane in the assembly
He said Ms Ruane’s response had indicated that under the revised curriculum, schools were encouraged to teach pupils greater critical thinking.
“I think these ideas – and there is a disparity of opinions out there – should at least be given equality of treatment,” Mr Givan said.
My view of this should be clear to anyone paying attention. It’s a continuation of the attempts to entwined religion and science. In the US they, thankfully, have a legal ruling that such neo-creationism are non-science in the face of repeated attempts to foist these beliefs onto school science cirriculums – as noted here in December 2005.
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. [added emphasis]
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Will we see such a definitive response to the same questioning of science here?
Update There’s a new post on this topic and the guidance to schools elsewhere.
Sean
All explanations are here for all Bible passages I cited at Page 61:
http://www.jsm.org.sg/resources.html
You have seen gorillas’ worshipping and writing on computers? Presumeably you saw the tooth fairy also?
Posted by Sam Hanna on Sep 28, 2007 @ 03:38
Sam
That pre suposes that I believe the biblical fairy tales are true, if you choose to be self delusional that is your right I just prefer logic. And a giant etheral jew floating in the clouds seems illogical to me
“Well, as a matter of evolutionary debate, I suppose the proof that evolution is possible from chemical structures and the like up to higher creatures is in the fact that I and others can communicate like this.”
And you believe this passes for an argument! Let me help you out – Stephen Gould a passionate atheist/evolutionist rejected many of the standard arguments for evolution like this because even he recognised that they were basically “just so” stories predicated on a tautology.
“That pre suposes that I believe the biblical fairy tales are true, if you choose to be self delusional that is your right I just prefer logic. And a giant etheral jew floating in the clouds seems illogical to me”
This sounds reasonable until you probe Sean’s basis of logic. He doesn’t believe in any objective truth as he doesn’t have a source for that.
Sean, you “logic” is a house of cards as it is predicated on something you cannot prove. Now, go home and have a little think about life instead of rehashing some poor Immanuel Kant quotes that have been dealt with my any half-baked theologian.
Sam – why’s your version of God the best? And would that be the God who ordered the death penalty for those who do not keep holy the sabbath, and who take his name in vein?
or are those passages of the bible actually to be “intepreted” too?
I got a very good one if there is a god and it is an intelligent designer why the feck do we have an appendix. It does nothing except occasionally exploding and causing a great amount of pain. If there is a designer I wonder how intelligent I can really be.
Sam Hanna you arguements basically fall down to the bible, a dis-sepperate collection of stories thay where written about events 100′s of years after they happened and are generally inconsistant with ther others. IIRC only 2 so called Miricles are verified in more than one chapter of the bible. You compare that to science which is there easy to see and independantly verifiable. In a logical state of mind which do you really think is easier to swallow, that E=MC2 or that a white dude from Nazereth could walk on water and change water into wine and heal the dying with a kind word? If it was left to people like you we’d still be decorating caves with palm prints ad grunting at each other.
Circles,
God works in different time periods in different ways. In the Old Testament He established certain laws for a nation that had covenanted to serve Him fully. These do not apply to the church of believers in the NT era that exists in secular countries.
You clearly have a problem in that you do not know the Bible or any basic hermeutics and that is why you quote selectively to justify your own pejudices against it. God can do what He likes in demanding man keep the Sabbath Day. I don’t have to defend His punishments to you who have had the grace and blessing to be born in a wealthy affluent background in His Providence, yet you shake your fist at Him as if you are the one who created yourself.
Can you prove that god works in different time periods and different ways with out tht bible? Thats the difference Sam Hanna, though I don’t know why I’m bothering, since you made the flase statement that I hated god you’ve point blank ignored every post I’ve made. Your reality check has bounced.
Pounder,
Like all the atheists you are simply repeating the lies that someone has sold you. Vestigial organs are rapidly diminsihing in number as we learn more about the human body. To use your unfortunate example, perhaps this will suffice
You see, the appendix is a highly specialized organ with a rich blood supply, not what you would expect from a degenerate, useless structure. It has long been known that the appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines (see Frederic H. Martini, Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, 1995).
As for your other suprious allegations against the Bible, it only demonstrates you have not read it or understood it as some of the most brillant men who ever lived eg Maxwell, Newton, Boyle bow in humble adoration and its unsurpassed logic and brillance. When little “pounder” with his chip on his shoulder can match either their IQ or achievements, then he can criticise what they have placed their faith in.
Pounder,
The only way I can prove that God works different ways is to draw from His revelation – the Bible. But as you refuse to recognise this, there is little that I can say.
However, to prove that I am not making this up for all the amateur theologians here, I cite a few references from the NT,
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Pounder,
Incidentally it was kind of you to provide a good example of the inherent stupidity of evolution by your example of the appendix.
In a study of the alimentary tracts of animals we find the appendix is not present in any invertebrate. Among the vertebrates, it is absent in fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and most mammals. In fact, the vermiform appendix, recognised as a worm-like, narrow extension beginning abruptly at the caecal apex (see Fig. 1 again) is only present in a few marsupials such as the wombat and South American opossum, a few rodents (rabbits and rats) and few primates (only the anthropoid apes and man). Note that monkeys do not have such an organ
If formerly the evolutionist had the appendix going and now has it coming, he cannot explain why it is first present in some marsupial animals like the wombat, but absent in all the mammals between the wombat and apes and man, apart from the rabbit and a few rodents, and especially explaining the absence in monkeys.
Evolutionary postulations would have us believe that a tailed mammal without an appendix gave rise to a monkey with a tail but still without an appendix, which then gave rise to an ape without a tail but with an appendix, and then on to man where the appendix has developed to the extreme! Although an oversimplification, the above exemplifies the incredible problem the evolutionist now has with his supposedly vestigial appendix. With one argument he has us believing it’s going and with the other it’s coming. Perhaps it is neither going nor coming.
Care to give us a fairy tale solution?
….meanwhile, back in the real world, we have a popular political party that seems intent on imposing the nonsense of ID onto the education system here. This means it’s crucial that the DUP never be given the education ministry.
Fraggle,
Now you mention it, I always wondered about the education ministry, ever since Martin McGuinness was given it in the first Assembly. Now it’s in the hands of another Shinner. Why did neither the UUP nor the DUP take it?
Reader,
I agree entirely with your comments re Darrow’s strategy and the teacher’s legal guilt and you are right that Darrow acheived a great moral victory and was a popular public and political victory from which the fundamentalists never recovered until disgusted with the quiet decency of Jimmy Carter, they dropped their support for the Democrats and swung behind the loony Armageddon nut, Ronald Reagan and boy! they have been back with a bang ever since.
Sorry, Gerry Lvs Castro I am afraid I don’t know who composed, conducted or performed the score for Inherit the Wind, but I’ll check it out on the New York Times Film Guide and get back to you.
Harry Flashman
You can not use the bible to prove the veracity of the bible
Its like accepting a mans word that his word is good. It may well be that he is a truthfull man but if he is a liar then his answer would be the seam therefor not prrof of good or gods intent
“You can not use the bible to prove the veracity of the bible”
Can you show us what higher source we could test it by? The Koran with its mistakes, the Book of Mormon? Origin of Species?
I am afraid that the Bible must be its own interpreter if you believe that it is the highest source of revelation on the planet. If you believe it is science, then please note that it is based on the faith that the Scientifc Method is true also – this is a presuppositional truth that cannot be proved either.
Evolutionary postulations would have us believe that a tailed mammal without an appendix gave rise to a monkey with a tail but still without an appendix, which then gave rise to an ape without a tail but with an appendix, and then on to man where the appendix has developed to the extreme!
Actually Sam, the fact that you can make a statement like this shows just how limited a grasp you have of evolutionary theory. No evolutionary biologist believes that apes as we know them (of which you are one, incidentally) evolved from monkeys as we know them. They believe they share a common ancestor, which is a subtle but important difference.
It also makes your statement re the appendix a load of oul bollix.
Sam,
Does that last sentence mean you’re ready to answer my question now?
What took you so long? :0)
Ok, Stiofan the Ape Man relative (you brother is in Belfast Zoo if you are interested)
Thanks for adding another fairy story chapter to this tale of evolution. Could you please tell us which animal we inherited this vestigial organ from in your plan of things?
Arguing with people like is pointless as you are emotinally committed by faith to this theory so when you are confronted with the evidence you make up another story to cover up.
Sam
I have no emotional commitment to evolution whatsoever. it’s a theory, and presently all the evidence we have points decisively in its favour. It’s quite possible some new evidence could emerge tomorrow which would totally discredit it. If that happened it wouldn’t bother me in the least.
Answer me in all honesty Sam. If we replaced the word ‘evolution’ in that statement with the phrase ‘intelligent design’, could you truthfully claim it to be your position?
It is you who are emotionally committed by faith Sam. Turgon, your co-religionist, is honest enough to admit to that fact. You prefer, for whatever reason, to fumble around, desperately trying to find rational arguments to bolster your case, and failing miserably. All it does is make you appear to be a fool which, to give you credit, you quite clearly are not.
I asked Sam a question very near the start of this thread.
Of all the 100s of creation myths (stories if he preferred), how does he know that the Judeo/Christian one is the only true or real one.
Not surprisingly, he ignored my question.
His answer, though, from his ramblings, would appear to be that he knows that his myth is the true one because the myth (his bible) says so.
People are wasting their time trying to argue with such an evolved intellect.
Just ignore him; he’s a troll.
Stiofan
With the greatest of respect, all the evidence does not point to macro-evolution and that is why so many people find the claims so ridiculous. Despite the widespread publicity it gets, the vast majority of people in Britian and America instictively recoil from such far-fetched claims.
Darwin told a good story – I grant you. However, we are so far removed from even proving 0.0000001% of the facts that a monkey evolved into a man that it is embarrassing eg. not a single biochemical pathway has ben delineated how this “miracle” could happen. If I wasn’t a Christian, I would be ashamed that so many “educated” people have fanatically promoted such a poorly evidenced theory as a fact. The only answer can be that it is a religious belief because they do not want to accept any alternative.
I have acepted my belief in the bible is based upon faith – ultimately that is all we have all to go on if the truth be told. But lets be honest about it instead of blandly stating “evolution is based on facts” whereas “ID is a religious belief.”
I am perfectly happy that the balance of facts point to a designed, ordered universe which immediately begs the question who designed it and where did the order come from (that is assuming we are all thinking logically and accept the concept of rationality).
Joe,
First of all, I am sure you accept that only one of these accounts can be correct because of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
I believe the Bible one is the true one as it is the only one that fits all the facts that we observe. Let me pull one that is unique to the Bible account:
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has demonstrated that the universe had a beginning in a fraction of a second which created space, time, and matter. Now you either believe the atheist who says all of the 1 times 10 to the power of 122 planets came from nothing by nothing or the Bible that says that it came from a Person who is outside of time, space and matter. Which requires the more faith. Christianity fits perfectly with the Einstein account – have you found any better Hindu/Buddhist legends that can beat that?
Sorry Sam, I was not talking to you. To be honest, I’d rather try to teach a pig to sing. I would probably have more luck.
Dawkins, I have no idea why neither of the unionist parties in the executive took education but lets hope it stays that way if they want to teach religion as science.
This “ID” stuff is well wicked. Man, I am getting really hooked on it. It will be dead good when the government bring in those ID cards – we can carry on jukin’ an’ jazzin’ and still get into heaven by just showing old St Peter the ID card.
Sure kicks the ass outa Calvinism, baby. “Go get yo own self predestined, mutha, I gots me a backstage pass!”, that’s what Ima sayin’. Know wadda mean?
You have seen gorillas’ worshipping and writing on computers? Presumeably you saw the tooth fairy also?
Posted by Sam Hanna on Sep 28, 2007 @ 03:38
Actually Sam I said she was too intelligent for worshipping Sky fairies, but since you completely dismiss logic and evidence why should anyone expect you to actually understand an argument?. However the Gorilla in question was named Koko, i believe.
JoeCanuck,
So you did. What in your considered opinion is likely to come first: the first snowboarding championship to be held in the frozen wastes of hell, or Sam providing answers to your question and mine?
Shit man I’ve been asking Sam Hanna similar questions since the start of this thread, instead I get walls of text that esentially mean nothing, unsupported dismissal of my points and down right evasion of questions if this was the board I run I’d have banned his ass for wasting bandwidth.
What can you expect from a creationalist who dismisses the existance of dionsaurs dispite some very large bones that can be found in many museum. I guess it’s an evil athiest conspiracy. We are responsible for the fall of Rome, The British Empire, the Colour Cyan and we’re coming for you next!
Pounder,
The Colour Cyan? I thought that was the Marxists.
Nah we got there first, the Marxist propaganda machine is just better. When your out to destroy the fabric of society you can have results or good PR, I prefer the former.
“Sean, you “logic†is a house of cards as it is predicated on something you cannot prove.”
Hello Pot, I have a Mr Kettle on line 2, he says you’re black…..
Pounder
What is your problem with dinosaurs?
I don’t have a probelem with them save for some dum evolutionist trying to tell me that 30 million years ago they managed to freeze their bones somewhere.
I see the arguments have failed so out comes the ad hominen attacks – glad to see the great logicans have gone home and taken their ball with them when they cannot get there way.
Sam Hanna,
So what’s your answer to my question, “yes” or “no”?
Being a nice chap I’ll also accept a “maybe”.
You see, if you don’t answer reasonable questions posed by your fellow debaters then you’re not debating properly and may as well be talking to yourself, as you were at 2.54 am.
Frog becomes Prince is a Fairy Tale.
Ape becomes Man is Science.
If we accept creationist theory and reject evolution what changes should we attempt to make to our society and in what order? What are your ‘must do now’ priorities?
Robert,
FFS, that’s playing into the Creationist’s hands. The apes are our cousins, but we have a common ancestor.
#
Pounder
What is your problem with dinosaurs?
I don’t have a probelem with them save for some dum evolutionist trying to tell me that 30 million years ago they managed to freeze their bones somewhere.
I see the arguments have failed so out comes the ad hominen attacks – glad to see the great logicans have gone home and taken their ball with them when they cannot get there way.
Posted by Sam Hanna on Sep 29, 2007 @ 02:54 AM
I take it you never heard of carbon dating? Or read about how bodies decompose over time? My porblem with dinosaurs as you put is is that if the Bible is a true and accurate account of everything that happened where is the passage about jesus pulling a thorn out of the paw of a T-Rex and making best friends with him?
I do find it ironic that you accuse me of ad hominen attacks when all you’ve displayed so far is the classic wall of ignorance and general trollish behaviour. I’ve asked many questions that you’ve refused to answer.
Pounder,
As Cathy Griffin would say: “Suck it, Jesus.” You must surely know by now that the answers to every conceivable question you can pose can all be found here.
Silly boy!
Sam Hanna: ”You clearly still do not understand that there can be no such thing as “good†or “bad†morality without recourse to God.”
Sam apologies for the delay in my reply — I was dealing with matters of a secular nature.
As regards your statement above, your biblical God is a mite worrying when it comes to morality.
Wiping out virtually the entire human race with a flood isn’t exactly great, but advocating the stoning of women for adultery, killing ‘witches’, requiring rapists to marry their victim and giving the thumbs up to stoning a guy for working on the sabbath aren’t perhaps moral standards as we know them today.
Which ‘recourse to God’ did you take when classifying the above as ‘good or bad’?
As regards your continual rant against evolution, let’s suppose for a moment that evolutionary theory is thrown out tomorrow — exactly why should we consider the biblical creationist account to be correct?
Invalid answers include ‘because it’s in the bible’ or ‘because it seems better than the other creationist myths.’
Nice link Dawkins. Would like to get some of those stickers to apply to those irritating bibles in hotel rooms.
GerrylvsCastro, you’re wasting your time.
Guys, why do you assume atheists have some sort of hold on evolution ??
You could be forgiven that a casual reading of your comments come up with the thinking – evolution is true, therefore atheism is true.
That’s our team ! Goal to us ! Wahoo !
????????
And as been said before, the guy that runs the international genome project is a Catholic. He like many other Christians have no problem at all with furthering and continuing to be at the forefront of gene research.
Darwin himself was never an atheist.
To quote Darwin in his ground breaking book “Origin of Species” –
It makes more sense to think of a God who puts the initial conditions of life in place so as to evolve, rather than to think of Him everywhere and at everytime controlling each ad-hoc mutation.
Would any of you guys like to dismiss Darwin’s comments on behalf of your personal atheism ??
And Darwin was very humble in putting forward his theories, suggesting possible arguements against some of the things he was suggesting.
That, together with his exhaustive research is something i give him a great amount of respect for.
“Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has demonstrated that the universe had a beginning in a fraction of a second which created space, time, and matter.“.
Just one more example of Sam’s utter scientific ignorance.
Neither of Einstein’s Relativity theories had anything at all to say about the origin of the universe(zilch, nil, zero, nada).
Fraggle,
Glad you liked the label link :0) It could have done without the “homosexuality” reference but I guess no one’s perfect.
BTW, has anyone bothered to download the PDF of that book Sam’s been promoting as the answer to every godfree peep’s prayer? I did. It’s by a godbotherer name of Paul Ferguson, and begins with this ringing endorsement:
Yep, the very huckster who sold Ian Paisley his doctorate. And if that ain’t off-putting enough, the book is written in the talk-down style of a children’s Bible. Don’t take my word for it, have a look for yourself.
Beware of a book that contains too many exclamation marks, and Paul’s exclamation-mark count is formidable. It’s painful reading too, having a high typo count as well, not to mention at least one grammatical error per page.
But this is to be churlish. He’s a simple missionary not a writer on a par with say Chris Hitchens. No, the errors that should concern us are Paul’s factual errors, and they are legion. I don’t mind a chap making an honest mistake either, but Paul has the sneaky habit of quoting Darwin and other scientists out of context, thereby distorting their arguments. Take his piece on the eye:
Hmm, I’ve just rubbed my eyes in disbelief. Hello, what’s this? I’ve dislodged an eyelash. Will I get a replacement? Not according to Paul Ferguson. Yet as any skoolkid nose, you can pluck all your “windscreen wipers” any number of times throughout your lifetime and they’ll all grow back just fine.
But how about tomorrow, Pastor Paul? The tiny processor in my Mac feeds a software calculator that does calculus 3.6 million times faster than the finest human brain. This is how far we’ve travelled and we’re going to get much, much further very soon.
You’d wonder who exactly would have us believe the eye evolved by chance. Certainly not evolutionary scientists.
Yet Darwin’s following words (written in densely packed paragraphs which I’ll spare you peeps) explain why the eye “should not be considered as subversive of the theory.” He goes on to argue that small, gradual steps in evolution — not “chance!” — will over time, a great deal of time, result in a human eye, or indeed “a structure even as perfect as an eagle’s eye.”
Darwin actually preempts the criticism of the Creationists when he states “it is not necessary to suppose that the modifications were all simultaneous, if they were extremely slight and gradual.”
I won’t bore you peeps with my commentary on the rest of the book. Suffice to say it’s all more of the same. You’ll find the usual canards trotted out, e.g. that the Big Bang theorizes that the universe came into being when something came from nothing. But it keeps the Creationists happy.
Unfortunately this is the sort of garbage those shining lights on Lisburn Council wish to feed to our kids. That’s child abuse and it’s despicable.
‘Unfortunately this is the sort of garbage those shining lights on Lisburn Council wish to feed to our kids. That’s child abuse and it’s despicable. ‘
Totally agree Dawkins. Do you have a web site or blog per chance?
Gerry Lvs Castro,
Sure. Here it is: http://richarddawkins.net
I wish! I’d set up a blog if I’d time, but too busy earning a crust I’m afraid.
Anyhow, who needs a blog when we got Slugger O’Toole :0)
God’s universe is mathematical. Though students may beg to differ, I must say that math has a beauty all its own, as you’ll see from the contents of an e-mail I received recently.
Examples of the beauty of math…
1 x 8 + 1 = 9
12 x 8 + 2 = 98
123 x 8 + 3 = 987
1234 x 8 + 4 = 9876
12345 x 8 + 5 = 98765
123456 x 8 + 6 = 987654
1234567 x 8 + 7 = 9876543
12345678 x 8 + 8 = 98765432
123456789 x 8 + 9 = 987654321
1 x 9 + 2 = 11
12 x 9 + 3 = 111
123 x 9 + 4 = 1111
1234 x 9 + 5 = 11111
12345 x 9 + 6 = 111111
123456 x 9 + 7 = 1111111
1234567 x 9 + 8 = 11111111
12345678 x 9 + 9 = 111111111
123456789 x 9 +10= 1111111111
9 x 9 + 7 = 88
98 x 9 + 6 = 888
987 x 9 + 5 = 8888
9876 x 9 + 4 = 88888
98765 x 9 + 3 = 888888
987654 x 9 + 2 = 8888888
9876543 x 9 + 1 = 88888888
98765432 x 9 + 0 = 888888888
And look at this symmetry…
1 x 1 = 1
11 x 11 = 121
111 x 111 = 12321
1111 x 1111 = 1234321
11111 x 11111 = 123454321
111111 x 111111 = 12345654321
1111111 x 1111111 = 1234567654321
11111111 x 11111111 = 123456787654321
111111111 x 111111111=12345678987654321
Brilliant and amazing in its beautiful symmetry, isn’t it?! And it’s not just a happy coincidence!
Dawkins
I could be forgiven for assuming you did not even engage your brain in replying to Paul Ferguson’s arguments.
The whole point of his eye example, as I understand it, was to demonstrate the amazing complexity in the human eye that is beyond human replication despite 6,000 years of medical advances. You cannot take something like the eye and say it emerged by some invisible unguided force and if we all hang round a little longer some how the process will be discovered.
Now, the fact that you cannot even come up with a mechanism that accounts for 1% of this despite countless billions in eye research should have flagged up to you to adopt a slightly more humble view of your ridiculous aspirations!
Secondly, you have defeated yourself by your point about eyelashes as what other machine on the planet can blink 400 million times and self-repair at a most incredible intricate point without any human intervention?
Thirdly, you never even addressed the point about why is it despite all our advances in intricate complex manufacturing we cannot even begin to design and manufacture something like the eye.
Natural selection is based upon chance – as the conditions are unguided and uncontrolled by any external authority.
Sam Hanna,
Ah, you’re back!
Yes, I forgive you. The fact is I engage a minute portion of my brain. Demolishing Paul’s specious arguments is like shooting ducks in a gallery.
Now that you’re back, how about answering the burning bush question:
You see, Sam, no one here will take you seriously until you do.
So I see the Great One in the Sky might have been a mathematician. Does that improve the chance that he does play dice?
joeCanuck,
Ah, is that the point Sam was trying to make in his usual, bandwidth-gobbling way? He still doesn’t understand the meaning of “chance”, but we knew that.
How about some more maths. Here’s a quickie:
What’s the average number of legs a human has?
a. 2
b. 3
c. 1
Oddly enough, the answer is c.
Coincidence? :0)