The course will be buffet style, and students can choose modules appropriate to their background and interest.
Elements of it are like what associate professor of cellular biolgoy Dr. Tan wrote, what associate professor of Biochemistry, enzymologists, Dr. Deweese wrote, physicist John Gideon Hartnett, spectral chemist Marcos Eberlin, and several others. They’ve earned the right to be heard, and I will give their works a voice to the best of my ability.
There will be stuff for the freshman drama majors and home school mom’s too, but there will be substance for the more educated.
If they want to learn some evolution, well, that’s low on my priority, but how about Todd Wood for that, or Kurt Wise? If an evolutionary biologist like John Harshman wants to write a module, I’d welcome that. He can argue his case to the best of his abilities.
There are major problems with YEC theory. Those deserve a fair hearing too and I’ll include modules to that effect. That’s the responsible thing to do.
And thus is revealed the fundamental hypocrisy that permeates creationistic epistemology.
Sal believes, in the complete and total absence of any empirical evidence or experiment, that these objects were WISHED into existence 6000 years ago. But he wants it demonstrated experimentally before his eyes that they could naturally evolve. Why the double standard?
Why do you seem to be so interested in what people say and write, while being so uninterested in what we know?
I’ll simplify with added emphasis:
Of course, I didn’t mention “random enzymatic activity.” I wrote the opposite. You misrepresented what I wrote.
I never wrote anything about random reactants, nor did I equivocate.
In reality, I was directly addressing what you put on the table:
The frequency with which one finds specific enzymatic activities for specific substrates in random sequences shows why there is no need for a universal common ancestor for all proteins. That’s precisely why I brought it up.
Dr. Sanford and I have tried to publish. The editors and reviewers confided that our conclusions were right, but gave other reasons for non-publication.
So from experience, I reject that premise that just because we haven’t been accepted for publication, that somehow we’re wrong.
Depends what you mean by homologous. If you mean that share a common ancestor, that’s an open question since some papers propose independent origins of topoisomerases.
I presume myosins are your expertise, so you can probably answer your own question better than I.
What did you try to publish and what were the reasons given?
I didn’t suggest failure to publish implied wrongness. I suggested that scientists haven’t earned a right for their ideas to be heard by students if they haven’t successfully made their case to the scientific community.
They certainly have earned the right to be heard by other scientists. They have earned the right to have their ideas engaged and critiqued, and we should acknowledge when they are correct.
It is a much higher bar to be included in education. Much higher.
I’m not going to give the reasons given, but FWIW, one of the papers even John Harshman agreed would have the right conclusion! It pertained to the beta-lactamase/nylonase Ohno’s frameshift hypothesis.
So why is Ohno’s 1984 paper still cited. Why is Denis Venema of BioLogos not called on the carpet for his error in Adam in the Genome?
So, one of the RARE times John Harshman and I agree – Ohno’s frameshift hypothesis, which was cited by Venema as his “favorite example of evolution” is dead wrong. It’s an inadverdent hoax “experimental” result.
So, John Harshman could probably write the paper himself if he wants. You can try and you can report back on how you get treated. Now, if you get published, all the better, because now the correction will finally be in place and you can set Ken Miller, the NCSE, Venema and BioLogos straight.
What would count as data and direct experimental proof of miracles claimed for creationist theory? If in your book, “nothing”, then well, I think writings is what will be provided.
I’m not looking at secular universities right now. There are churches, home schools, Christian academies, Christian colleges, and cyberspace.
FWIW, I’d say the bar for what qualifies for academia has gotten really really low. Some departments in University are a total wasteland and scamming students of tens of thousands of dollar each. Here is an example, in my opinion:
Churches have a low bar for science, that is sad, I agree. But now is the chance to give quality science to them. And I know you’ll vigorously disagree, but I don’t think Abiogenesis theory and evolutionary theory are good science. Cell theory is good science, imho. Biochemistry is good science.
I’ve already said I don’t represent ID as science. I don’t think it is wrong to teach ID as a hypothesis (metaphysical, theological) in church.
Elements of YEC theory are not science either. But there are some sciences that are relevant to the questions, and a balanced treatment of it is in order.
FWIW, I might be your best chance to get a hearing among die-hard YECs, at least in my circles. Some places would absolutely shut the dialogue down.
Now, where I live, I attended 4th Pres on occasion in Bethesda. Dr. Collins is a member there, and there are ID proponents there too. I see no problem hosting dialogues and making online materials available for interested readers.
What I intend to add to just a random google search is the scholarship provided by people like Dr. Deweese and maybe several anonymous scholars who excel in their field but do not have a voice.
YEC “science” was already given a balanced treatment by science decades ago and was found to be 100% lacking in soundness and scientific value. All you’re doing is trying to propagate already discredited YEC claims because they agree with your religious beliefs. That’s a horrible reason to teach students known falsehoods about the history of life on the planet. Shame on you.