posted
Just wanted to point out that neither ID or creationism reject natural selection. On the contrary, natural selection has been observed to take place and make changes in populations, no reasonable, educated person denies this.
What ID and creationism reject is that proof of microevolutionary changes in populations through natural selection (i.e., the change in population of dark colored moths vs. light colored moths when pollution caused the trees to turn darker) is proof that natural selection also caused macroevolution - the change from one type of organism to another.
Natural selection or selective breeding easily explains why we have hundreds of breeds of dogs descended from a common ancestor - wolves. It does not explain how wolves and man have a common ancestor in the ID or creationism view.
I don't have a problem personally with the schools teaching evolutionary theory, it's the most accepted theory for the origin of life in mainstream science, and that's cool. I'll handle religious teachings at home and at church.
However, I do think that flaws in evolutionary theory should be acknowledged, and students should be taught that the scientific world isn't solidly on one page when it comes to origins theories. There are neo-Dariwinians, there are supporters of punctuated equilibrium, etc. I don't see why irreducible complexity can't be taught - what's wrong with examining structures and talking about how some scientists don't believe those structures could have arisen in small, incremental evolutionary changes? That should only encourage students to think. You don't even have to say "Some people think irreducible complexity proves that there is a creator." You can just focus on the science and say "Scientists have questions about how evolution through mutation and natural selection could have resulted in this structure, so it's an area that is still under investigation." Isn't investigation and questioning things part of what science is about?
I just don't want the science textbooks to pretend that we have all the answers. We don't. We can't go back in time and observe evolution taking place. We can conjecture on what might have happend based on fossil records and the like, but we can't observe it happening and we can't repeat it, so I think it's teaching good science to teach kids that hey, we don't have all the answers. We have theories, we have ideas, and there is disagreement on those ideas, and people have alternate theories and that's okay because science is about discovery and trying to find the answers anyway.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have the discussion in other threads regarding whether God exists or not and whether God's existence can be proved or disproved scientifically or unscientifically, so I'm not even going to touch on that here.
The real question here is what the schools should be teaching. Evolution is generally accepted so it makes sense that it is taught in the curriculum, but in the way that Belle said above.
Should alternatives be discussed? I think a complete education would discuss some of the more prominent/popular ideas, but without the use of God. The reason being that if you start discussing God, whose god do you discuss? You can't begin to discuss everyone's, so it's best just to leave God out of the discussion. The problem is that teachers are prohibited from even mentioning Intelligent Design. I don't think there is any harm in mentioning it as an alternative to Evolution, or even in some ways complementary to aspects of Evolution Theory.
I think it would be excellent to maybe offer extra credit for a paper on different alternatives or some other similar project. That will help the students to analyze the subject and develop critical thinking skills. And that's ultimately what the school system is supposed to do anyway.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think medical students should at least be taught that these theories exist.
They usually are.
I think it's fine to mention "some people don't believe this is how this happened" and spend a day or two discussing alternatives. But equal time is ridiculous to me. When they have equal scientific evidence, they should get equal time.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolutionary theory doesn't say life evolved by chance, it says that the change in life over time is consistent with notions of natural selection of naturally occurring genetic variations
Trust me, this is not what they teach in schools. If they did, it would not be understood by freshmen and sophomore biology students (much less younger kids who are taught it.)
quote:that these genetic variations occur due to chance events is something we have direct evidence for (mutations have been well studied), but that's a separate question
Observed mutations are not proof it occurs by chance. It is just as possible that God is doing it, influenced it, or did influence it at some point in the past. We can see that the mutations happen, but not why, and not that live evolved completely through them. You respond to this in advance by saying:
quote:This has been brought up again and again -- the "ultimate reason" something happened is not within the realm of science -- the action of gravity and quantum mechanics could well happen because of God, but that question is beyond the bounds of science.
Yes, but if the ultimate reason were never discussed in science class, this whole thing would be no issue. The problem is that it IS discussed because students want to know the ultimate reason for evolution. They know how it relates to religion, and thus want to know whether or not the theory contradictions religion. They want to know what it implies about their own origins. So even though science offers no ultimate reason, science teachers and textbooks do, or imply it, in order to answer that curiosity.
But more so, there is also the issue of the past. Science textbooks don't merely say evolution is consistent with life evolving through a certain process. They say life DID evolve through a certain process, implying that no intelligent designer was involved. This is also something science cannot say by its own method, without implying an ultimate cause.
quote:Since you're too ignorant of evolutionary theory to make an accurate characterization of it, you're hardly going to be able to make an accurate critique (as you've clearly demonstrated).
Speaking of unproven claims, how do you know what I'm ignorant of and what I'm not ignorant of? Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Trust me, this is not what they teach in schools. If they did, it would not be understood by freshmen and sophomore biology students (much less younger kids who are taught it.)
But that is what I was taught in jr. high and high school (it wasn't really brought up before that.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You were not taught that life evolved through chance mutations? I definitely was. And I'd say I probably understood it better than most did....
I'd be curious to know what an average high school student thinks evolution has proven, if someone ever did a study (which I'm guessing someone somewhere did!)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our teachers were very careful to accurately explain the theory of evolution. "Life evolved through chance mutations" is a somewhat inaccurate contraction of the theory; we went into much more detail than that. We learned that the theory of evolution is that random genetic variations occur in every conception (we had already studied that), that over time or through catastrophic events, natural selection allows those with variations that allow them to survive better to thrive, and that species adapt and specify and divide through this process. Sure, it's a simplified version, but we were in 7th grade, for heaven's sake!
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can tell what you've demonstrated ignorance of.
Flaws in the teaching of evolution are not reasons to start teaching more unscientific things in science class.
And I didn't say observed mutations were proof that they occcurred by chance, I said we had considerable evidence they occurred by chance; that is, we have observed large numbers of mutations and observed that they are consistent with a random variable satisfying certain characteristics. Your further ignorance of an area of science is demonstrated.
Where's your evidence that ID is as much science as evolution? You've fallen back on a completely different position that evolution is often taught incorrectly in schools, and seem to be implying that ID should be taught as well because its no more incorrect, but that's very different from your previous position that ID was just as much science as evolution was, and should thus be taught in science classes. Though I think its also quite silly.
Any science textbook that thinks it has all the answers on anything from evolution to why apples fall from trees is flawed, and there are disagreements about evolutionary theory that should be addressed. But ID does not remotely approach the requirements of a scientific theory and has no place in science class, and those disagreements should only be addressed in ways which proceed scientifically. It is reasonable to say that many structures seem very complex, and we do not yet have adequate stories for how they came to exist, but it should also be pointed out that we have very adequate stories for how many other complex structures came to exist (a classic example is the eye, which is extremely well understood evolutionarily despite the efforts of many creationists to claim it has irreducible complexity, a complaint easily dismissed by pointing out there are plenty of animals existing today with eyes of varying complexity that amount to simplified version of the more complex eyes we are familiar with).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolutionary theory doesn't say life evolved by chance, it says that the change in life over time is consistent with notions of natural selection of naturally occurring genetic variations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust me, this is not what they teach in schools. If they did, it would not be understood by freshmen and sophomore biology students (much less younger kids who are taught it.)
We should trust that you know what's being taught in every school in the country? Wow, such faith!
That first quote pretty accurately describes how evolution was taught in my school, and I understood it when it was covered in junior high, so technically before I was a freshmen or sophomore. In my methodist confirmation class (where I would have been 13 or so, I think) the subject came up and my immediate response was "Why couldn't good have created all the plants & animals through evolution? They don't have to be contradictory at all." Don't underestimate kids. They're often smarter than you think.
posted
I think we should do this with all of our studies.
"Gravity is the natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface. It is not known what ultimate purpose this force might serve, but some people believe it is the method used by an intelligent consciousness or consciousnesses to help keep things tidy."
There is, in fact, abolutely nothing that says a god or gods might not have whipped up gravity for his/her/their own purposes. What we can do is observe its functions and effects and make our deductions from those. And that's the part that gets taught in school.
Now, should teachers discuss different approaches to the study of life and encourage critical discussion from the students? Certainly. But it shouldn't be in the core curriculum and should not be included in any testing or evaluations.
[ August 11, 2005, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should study the how, teach what we've learned about the how, and demonstrate how to test the how to either disprove or further validate it. We should teach what we have yet to know about the how, how different discoveries have changed our theories about how through the years, and present different hypotheses based on current studies.
The why belongs to philosophy class, comparative religious studies, humanities, the family, and religion.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went to a Catholic high school so the type of conversation that is being discussed here definitely came up. We were learning about evolution and our teacher just stopped and talked a little bit about the controversy. He pointed out that believing in evolution didn't necessarily have to default the belief that there was a Creator who created the Universe. That many people who believe in a Creator believe that the process for creation could be evolution. And since many people believe it isn't possible to prove there is a God that this was left to one's personal interpretation.
Growing up in the Midwest and coming from fairly conservative, religious areas I can't imagine this conversation not happening, especially in a high school. If nothing else I'd imagine that it would be student initiated. If he hadn't stopped to comment I know someone would have brought up the question, if only to be difficult.
Talking to friends from the east coast I was amused/horrified to discover that my Catholic School in the "backwards" midwest was actually much much more progressive than their schools near places like New York City.
I guess my point is that I'm not opposed to the conversation happening in a school. Especially since people are going to hear about these ideas anyway. But I feel the focus should be on scientific process and methods. Thus as a teacher I'd focus 99% of the time on evolution.
Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where's your evidence that ID is as much science as evolution?
Every piece of evidence that supports evolution also supports Intelligent Design equally well. I'm referring to the fossils, the DNA evidence, the noted similarity of certain species, the observations of actual mutations going on, and so on and so forth - Each of these is equally consistent and not at all inconsistent with both Macroevolution and Intelligent Design, because both accept the fact that life evolved, only disagreeing on the method through which it evolved in the long run. Therefore, they are equally supported by science, since it has proven essentially impossible to observe directly how life evolved in the long run (at least, until we can get time travel).
Why then does science accept macroevolution rather than intelligent design? It's more or less because of Occam's Razor - which is a philosophical reason to pick one over another, not a scientific one.
quote:But ID does not remotely approach the requirements of a scientific theory and has no place in science class, and those disagreements should only be addressed in ways which proceed scientifically.
What requirement does it lack that macroevolution has?
And don't just say "evidence" again because, as I just said above, the same evidence applies equally well to both theories - yes, in exactly the same fashion as the evidence of my daily life experiences are equally consistent with the "I am in the Matrix" theory and the "This is real" theory.
(Incidently, to answer a much earlier question, I don't think we should teach the "We are in the Matrix" theory, because few if any believe it. While it would be nice to teach children every possible theory about everything, that's as impossible as teaching every fact of history. We should only teach them those theories that we think they will most need to know in their daily lives. I suspect almost everyone will be eventually confronted by some version of Intelligent Design, when it comes to even casual discussion of evolution. Thus, it is much more important to prepare kids to make decisions regarding this than it is to teach about the possibility that none of this is really real, which is admittedly definitely a possibility. You decide what class you want the theory of intelligent design to be discussed in, but it should be the same class where macroevolution is discussed, because they are theories of the same sort, equally scientific, and dealing with the same issue. To suggest or even imply that one is inherently more scientific than the other is sending the wrong message to students about the nature of science - a message that is far more threatening to science than Intelligent Design. After all, the reason why religious groups often villify and want to attack science is because they percieve science as being anti-religion by nature, when it is not.)
quote:We should study the how, teach what we've learned about the how, and demonstrate how to test the how to either disprove or further validate it. We should teach what we have yet to know about the how, how different discoveries have changed our theories about how through the years, and present different hypotheses based on current studies.
Yes, but what if there are two different how's, each equally consistent with all scientific evidence, both indistinguishable from the other through any known scientific experiment, whose difference is viewed as critical by much of the population? Should we teach only the one favored (for purely philosophical reasons) by the scientific community, and not the other?
The real trouble is the science only directly lets us test the what - what happens. To determine how what happens happens, we must make interpretations, and those are often based as much on logic and assumptions as they are on the original experimental evidence.
posted
So if ID uses fossil evidence as proof, as does evolution, does it go against biblical literalists who say the earth and universe is mearly 10-12 thousand years old?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Every piece of evidence that supports evolution also supports Intelligent Design equally well. I'm referring to the fossils, the DNA evidence, the noted similarity of certain species, the observations of actual mutations going on, and so on and so forth - Each of these is equally consistent and not at all inconsistent with both Macroevolution and Intelligent Design, because both accept the fact that life evolved, only disagreeing on the method through which it evolved in the long run. Therefore, they are equally supported by science, since it has proven essentially impossible to observe directly how life evolved in the long run (at least, until we can get time travel)."
Tres, does this evidence explicitly point to ID or does it take a belief in God to begin with to go there? Think about it this way. If we truly are doing science and we take a completely unbiased approach does the evidence necessarily point to ID? If not, which i think is correct, then we have to look at what it scientifically points too. Whether thats evolution or not, I dont really know. I am wholly uneducated when it comes to evolution.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep asserting these notions to be equally scientific despite having demonstrated a complete lack of ability to even understand evolutionary theory at a very basic level, much less compare the notions. I know I shouldn't bother replying to the rest until you have remedied that appalling ignorance, but I will anyways.
Some further points: macroevolution and microevolution are loose classificatory terms, they are not different fields. Evolutionary theory is not divided into things that happen in small amounts and things that happen in big amounts; there are just things that happen, and when you get enough of them, those changes have large emergent properties such as species change. You can't just teach one, because they are not separable. Further ignorance.
And no, just because evidence does not contradict either notion does not mean it is equally supportive of each. Do they not teach elementary logic in your philosophy program?
For instance, that mutations are aptly modeled by a random variable derived from testable measurements is evidence in support of mutations being random, and not in support of mutations being caused by a supernatural being, even though it is not contradictory of mutations being caused by a supernatural being.
As for what requirement it lacks, I must assume you have been purposely ignoring people repeatedly telling you: all conclusions ID makes which evolution does not (though I'm not aware of any ID theorist who has bothered to make new conclusions which aren't of this class) are not testable. As such, those conclusions do not belong in a science class, as the conclusions of evolutionary theory are testable.
Testable implies one thing in particular: scientifically falsifiable. That is, it must be possible to judge "how good" a story is. I look forward to you showing me a single defensible calculation which tells me how probable an intelligent designer is. Scientific falsifiability is not absolute falsifiability, a concept I recall you had considerable trouble grasping the last time it was discussed, so don't bother saying "well, nothing is falsifiable" or the equivalent, because that's not the sort of falsifiability we're talking about, and its only your ignorance that leads you to make such statements.
And yes, I am not being particularly tolerant of your inability to understand the bare basics of scientific thought.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You keep asserting these notions to be equally scientific despite having demonstrated a complete lack of ability to even understand evolutionary theory at a very basic level, much less compare the notions. I know I shouldn't bother replying to the rest until you have remedied that appalling ignorance, but I will anyways.
You really need to stop asserting that people (and by people I mean me) are ignorant of things. Firstly, you can't possibly know what I am and am not ignorant of - you don't even know much about me. Secondly, you aren't qualified to judge - having studied both evolution and the philosophy of science in advanced coursework, and having recieved a degree in the area, I am at least as qualified as you, if not more so. Thirdly, all qualifications aside, even if it does seem wrong to you and you think you have good reason to say so, you cannot tell whether that is because I am ignorant about the matter or whether it is because you are ignorant about the matter. Both are always possible. And fourthly, most importantly, even if you were completely correct in thinking I am ignorant and even if you had good reason to say so, the argument would still be unconvincing to anyone not already convinced - as all ad hominem attacks are - because it fails to show WHY I am wrong, and instead starts with an assumption that I am never going to accept without first proving the conclusion wrong anyway. In short, stop it... It's counterproductive to call people ignorant because they aren't immediately convinced by you.
Now, on to the real issue:
quote:And no, just because evidence does not contradict either notion does not mean it is equally supportive of each.
But in the case of macroevolution and ID, the evidence IS equally supportive of each because, not only does it contradict neither, but it ALSO offers nothing that would favor one or the other. For instance, your example doesn't really favor evolution....
quote:For instance, that mutations are aptly modeled by a random variable derived from testable measurements is evidence in support of mutations being random, and not in support of mutations being caused by a supernatural being, even though it is not contradictory of mutations being caused by a supernatural being.
This is just not true. Such a finding is exactly equally consistent with the conclusion that it is random as it is with the conclusion that a "supernatural" being is causing mutations that appear random. It only favors one over the other if you add other assumptions, like "supernatural beings wouldn't cause mutations to appear random when they aren't" or "we should accept the simplest possible explanation". But there is no agreement on those assumptions, and science itself cannot experiment to see which of those is best.
quote:all conclusions ID makes which evolution does not (though I'm not aware of any ID theorist who has bothered to make new conclusions which aren't of this class) are not testable. As such, those conclusions do not belong in a science class, as the conclusions of evolutionary theory are testable.
But again you are missing the reverse: All conclusions that evolution makes which ID does not are ALSO not testable. So either they and ID both belong in science class, or neither does.
quote:Tres, does this evidence explicitly point to ID or does it take a belief in God to begin with to go there? Think about it this way. If we truly are doing science and we take a completely unbiased approach does the evidence necessarily point to ID? If not, which i think is correct, then we have to look at what it scientifically points too.
If we are looking at it without any initial bias at all, it would not point to any explanation any more than any other. The scientific community concludes it is not God only because it is inclined to presume that things that can be modeled without the need of God, should be understood without God. And those who conclude it IS God probably do so because they either disagree with that philosophical assumption, or because they disagree that we can successfully model evolution without the need for God. (And we can't perfectly model how evolution could have worked yet, but that's not to say we never will be able to.) But all of these are initial biases - initial assumptions. You need those assumptions to draw extended conclusions about science, because science simply cannot tell us about the past or about why and how the observations we observe end up the way they are. Science just really allows us to test theories about what will happen.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If we are looking at it without any initial bias at all, it would not point to any explanation any more than any other."
Sure it would. It would point to evolution. Evolution would be the theory that incorporates all the data and fits all our solid scientific evidence. My point, I guess, is that evolution is NOT the thing we come in wanting the evidence to fit into, but the theory we get from all the evidence. Thus, evolution NECESSARILY follows from the evidence, ID is only sufficient to explain the scenario. Of course, the problem with something being only sufficient to explain a theory is that it can do so with many other theories as well. Theories that we do not believe are true on any level!
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you care to point out a single untestable conclusion of evolutinary theory, Tres? Please don't state silly things like "evolution is random" as you've stated before (in what you are telling me is not ignorance, despite that not being true of evolutionary theory).
edit to make a more explicit question based on my semi-snide implication. You've talked about evolutionary theory saying evolution is random. It does not. To what do you attribute this other than ignorance, if it is not ignorance?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as for the random variable thing, no, it is not equally supportive in a scientific sense. The intentions of a superior being (as far as posited by that mini-notion) are not scientifically testable (since those intentions are not falsifiable, partly since the existence of the being is not falsifiable), but the theory that the mutations are the result of a random variable is scientifically falsifiable.
Equivalence in philosophy does not mean equivalence in science. This is in large part because science attempts to be useful, and thus adds constraints to itself that are not present in philosophy in light of that end.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
What really makes me sad is that when you boil this down, there are a bunch of people who are so afraid to actually examine their beliefs that they would rather swollow ignorant drivel whole. Worse, they want to inflict their drivel on children, presented by authority figures as science fact.
Darwin said in an intro to his theory (I'm summerizing, not quoting here) this idea fits the evidence, but I'm not sure about it. But if it is true, then I think God started it.
Why does discovering God's tools disprove God?
Because religion requires its subjects to believe EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING that spews forth from its all knowing high priests, you know, the ones that can talk to God, like the pope, who is INFALLIBLE.
posted
Stone Wolf, I think that might be a little unfair. Belle, for example, has said that she used to believe in evolution, then examined the evidence and decided that creationism was correct. I doubt that she's afraid to examine her beliefs.
Here's my problem with irreducible complexity/intelligent design: What's the definition of irreducibly complex? One clear definition would be: no parts can be removed without leaving that structure or system non-functional. However, that doesn't demonstrate that the system is designed, or can't have evolved. I'm not an expert, but here's how I think of it. Let's say that Microbe A and Microbe B are completely dependent on each other. Each of them lacks the ability to make certain proteins, and gets these proteins from the other organism. Separated, they will die. Irreducibly complex, right? Except, this system could theoretically have evolved with no input from anything intelligent. At one point, Microbe A and Microbe B were free-living. They started cooperating. Microbe A, no longer needing to produce certain proteins because it can get them from Microbe B, loses the genes for those proteins. Microbe B does the same. Now the system is irreducibly complex, but there's a plausible way for them to have evolved.
I'm a little averse to scientific claims that are subject to disproval by a just-so story. To demonstrate that the eye isn't irreducibly complex under the above definition, all a person has to do is come up with a plausible story of how the eye could have evolved--without claiming that things did happen that way. And then it's just "This is irreducibly complex!" "No, it's not!" and no actual research gets done.
Perhaps a more workable idea is a structure for which no precursors exist. If humans had an organ, for instance, that appeared without anything even remotely related in chimps, that would be decent evidence for intelligent design. Or if genes from one organism showed up in a completely different type of organism. An example of that would be a bacterium that has a human insulin gene. Evidence of intelligent design--in this case, by humans wanting a better source of insulin for diabetics.
Of course, that doesn't take into account means of gene transfer--viruses, for example.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again I'm going to Plug "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. I don't quite agree with some of the religious suppositions he makes, but I found it a very good, convincing read.
The whole kerfuffle leaves a bad taste in my mouth, for some reason. I mean, the worst ones from either side seem to be on a crusade to destroy the other. That is just not cool. I'm a believing Christian who had to take Biology for GE credit at a religious school and was taught that Evolution, in its complete form, was completely compatable with the belief that God created human beings in His image.
Professor Fairbanks (who I adore, even though I could barely follow that class) once demonstrated his thought processes in the situation where a scientific theory clashed with his belief. He drew a dot on the chalkboard and said, "this is what I know about science", then he drew another dot, saying "this is what I know about God." Then he drew a huge circle around the entire board, encompassing both dots, and said "this is a tiny fraction of what God knows. I can reconcile the theory and belief by having faith that they are not incompatable." I thought it was a cool lesson, and I hate science.
quote: We should study the how, teach what we've learned about the how, and demonstrate how to test the how to either disprove or further validate it. We should teach what we have yet to know about the how, how different discoveries have changed our theories about how through the years, and present different hypotheses based on current studies.
The why belongs to philosophy class, comparative religious studies, humanities, the family, and religion.
Teach the elements of evolution and natural selection, and include a box to the side of the page that mentions the differences of opinion regarding the "why." Random chance vs intelligent purpose, and all the variances in between. That's it.
That would break out the "why" and provide more viewpoints while leaving the scientific portion alone.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure it would. It would point to evolution. Evolution would be the theory that incorporates all the data and fits all our solid scientific evidence.
One of MANY theories that fit all our solid scientific evidence. ID does too, and is rejected for other philosophical reasons (namely because God is an unexplainable complication), not scientific evidence.
quote:Would you care to point out a single untestable conclusion of evolutinary theory, Tres?
That the evolution of modern life was guided solely though the mechanics of "natural selection" and not by any intelligence. This is not testable because we cannot go back in time and observe the mechanics of how life actually did evolve over millions of years, but it is part of the model, and the one part of the model that ID disagrees with.
quote:You've talked about evolutionary theory saying evolution is random. It does not. To what do you attribute this other than ignorance, if it is not ignorance?
You just said "that mutations are aptly modeled by a random variable derived from testable measurements is evidence in support of mutations being random, and not in support of mutations being caused by a supernatural being." This is a way in which evolution is random, isn't it?
quote:The intentions of a superior being (as far as posited by that mini-notion) are not scientifically testable (since those intentions are not falsifiable, partly since the existence of the being is not falsifiable), but the theory that the mutations are the result of a random variable is scientifically falsifiable.
Yes, in the short run. We can test it happening in individual observations. That is why "microevolution" is testable.
Intelligent Design accepts this too, but would suggest that the randomness we see is guided by intelligence in the long run - that over time it follows a pattern of intelligent, rather than being truly random. Macroevolution implies otherwise. This part of the theory is untestable because we can't do a million year experiment on the past, and even if we could we would never have any control to compare it to.
This is actually similar to the reason why macroeconomics can never be a science, even though economists do use the scientific method to determine how economies function on a smaller, observable scale.
quote:Equivalence in philosophy does not mean equivalence in science. This is in large part because science attempts to be useful, and thus adds constraints to itself that are not present in philosophy in light of that end.
And philosophy doesn't attempt to be useful? Science is just philosophy using a certain method of reasoning and experimentation, which both improves the strength of its claims and limits the scope of things over which it can make such claims.
quote:Tresopax, what is there to teach?
Teach the elements of evolution and natural selection, and include a box to the side of the page that mentions the differences of opinion regarding the "why." Random chance vs intelligent purpose, and all the variances in between. That's it.
That would suffice, although a discussion would be nice. I'm inclined to believe classes should be interdisciplinary - and show how the subject material in each class relates to life in general. The best way to understand the science here and the debate in question is to question it analyticly in class - something I'm not certain students are taught to do that well. Giving it lip service in a box in the textbook would not be as helpful as requiring the students to think about it, and draw some conclusions about the assumptions that are used to frame scientific conclusions in the real world.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What really makes me sad is that when you boil this down, there are a bunch of people who are so afraid to actually examine their beliefs that they would rather swollow ignorant drivel whole.
I hope you do not feel this way about all religious people but only the subset of religious people that are willing to accept anything they are told, which can also be said for many non religious people.
posted
Stone_Wolf, while I think you are being rude and completely insensitive, I do want to point out that I agree with part of this statement:
quote:What really makes me sad is that when you boil this down, there are a bunch of people who are so afraid to actually examine their beliefs that they would rather swollow ignorant drivel whole. Worse, they want to inflict their drivel on children, presented by authority figures as science fact.
I'm a big believer in examining beliefs. That's why I'm so adamant that my children are taught doctrine, and not just superficial doctrine, but that they examine our beliefs deeply. If your beliefs are true, they'll stand up to that type of examination.
I'm certainly not afraid to examine what I believe and why I believe it. Yes, there are some things that come down to pure faith. But, I go back to the scripture which says we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our mind.
I don't think God wants blind followers that don't use the reason and intellect He blessed them with. All believers should examine their beliefs and hold them up against other theories unashamedly and unafraid. If what you believe is in fact the Truth, then you should have nothing to fear.
I'm not afraid to read comments by atheists or agnostics, I'm in fact very curious about why they feel the way they do. I'm not a person that reads only Christian creationism literature and decides that all evolution is false. I read things from both sides of the issue, and weigh them. I don't reject the teachings of every part of evolutionary science. I think science has done great good in helping us understand the world around us. I think God welcomes our scientific study of the world and universe He created. I disagree with some of the conclusions of some areas of science, but that doesn't invalidate the good that science does.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't really want to get into the debate of Evolution vs. ID, but there was one thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet.
Evolution Theory in part relies on certain atmospheric and composition requirements of the earth millions of years ago. Conditions had to be a certain way in order for certain things to happen, otherwise the first amino acids may never have formed or combined, etc. The fact is though, we cannot know with a certainty what conditions were like millions of years ago. We can make some assumptions based on ground and ice samples that we are assuming have remained unaffected for millions of years, but that's all we have - assumptions.
I think it's important that evolution (as with many things) be taught with the acknowledgement that there are many assumptions that can never be proven and the theory is only as strong as those assumptions.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irreducible Complexity, to me, is a perfect example of non-scientific thinking. It is profoundly un-scientific to reach a point where you say "Well, this is evidence of an intelligent creator because there is no way this could have happened by chance." Science is all about looking at the way thing are and finding out how they got this way. The minute you say "Because <insert neutered euphemism for God> made it that way", science has died and metaphysics has taken over.
God has always hidden in the margins of observation where science hasn't reached yet. Science is all about looking into those margins, making them smaller and smaller. I doubt science will ever discover God, but it will never disprove God either as long as there are magins in which he can hide. But the minute you bring God into the mix, you've come to the end of your science. You've taken all those unseen magins and labeled them God. We can then all go home and rest in the security of our philosophy.
Of course, the scientists will probably stick around for one last little peek. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evolution Theory in part relies on certain atmospheric and composition requirements of the earth millions of years ago. Conditions had to be a certain way in order for certain things to happen, otherwise the first amino acids may never have formed or combined, etc. The fact is though, we cannot know with a certainty what conditions were like millions of years ago. We can make some assumptions based on ground and ice samples that we are assuming have remained unaffected for millions of years, but that's all we have - assumptions.
The weak anthropic principle applies: we wouldn't be here if those conditions had not existed.
Also, experiments that simulate these conditions on a small scale have produced precursors to life, though I'm not sure whether they've gotten as far as amino acids. It's been a year or two since I last heard about an experiment in this vein.
quote:All believers should examine their beliefs and hold them up against other theories unashamedly and unafraid.
Everybody should do that. I certainly did.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay from hanging out at the local Christian Fellowship club I've come up with thse:
A) The primary belief is that for at least one member evolution of a "fish sprouting wings" is utterly insane and impossible
B) While accepting that you can't disprove science, nevertheless using scientific means to determien that the universe is ~5000 years old throw the slowing down/speeding up of the decay rates in atoms which I think we've handled pretty well. in a previous thread.
C) IMHO, Christians who get scared at the possibility that the Earth could be millions-billions of years old are IMHO lacking in faith.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, experiments that simulate these conditions on a small scale have produced precursors to life, though I'm not sure whether they've gotten as far as amino acids. It's been a year or two since I last heard about an experiment in this vein.
I believe there are twenty or thirty different types of amino acids and scientists were able to simulate the creation of several of them. It's been a while since I've studied this so I could be completely wrong in my remebrance of these studies. Even if they haven't created them yet, I don't doubt that they will be able to find a way to create them in the future. So it's not that I doubt it could've happened that way, I just think it's one possible explanation that, like any other explanation for our existence, has limits based on assumptions about the past that we unfortunately are not able to go back and check.
I don't know if I really agree with the idea - "The weak anthropic principle applies: we wouldn't be here if those conditions had not existed."
It seems like circular reasoning. If those conditions had not existed, does that mean then that we must not exist? Of course not, if those conditions did not exist, it just means that we came into existence some other way. The fact that we exist shouldn't be used to support any theory on how we came into existence.
quote:the minute you bring God into the mix, you've come to the end of your science. You've taken all those unseen magins and labeled them God
I agree very much with this. Religion and Science do not necessarily have to contradict each other. You can use science to try to explain God or you can use God to try to explain certain aspects of science. But regardless of whether they agree or are used to try to explain the other, they are two separate fields of study based on different principles. It's similar to how we might use arecheology and philosophy. Both fields of study can be used to teach use things about ourselves, but they are still very different fields of study. Likewise with religion and science, they are separate and should be separated in the classroom as well.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yet is has been mentioned that you used to "believe" in evolution, and then converted to creationism, so obviously, you aren't doing a very thurough examination of your beliefs, but rather a biased examination of what you want to believe. This might seem harsh, but anyone who choses to believe in creationism (or ID) instead of evolution (in light of ALL of the evidence and knowledge we have today) cannot consider themselves to be using the reason and intellect that "god" gave them. if god gave you rationality, then he clearly didn't want you to belive in him. furthermore, if god is rational, he shouldn't believe in himself either.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This might seem harsh, but anyone who choses to believe in creationism (or ID) instead of evolution (in light of ALL of the evidence and knowledge we have today) cannot consider themselves to be using the reason and intellect that "god" gave them. if god gave you rationality, then he clearly didn't want you to belive in him. furthermore, if god is rational, he shouldn't believe in himself either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarifier, I think you might want to consider that this board if full of people who don't agree with you, including the hosts. Do you really believe all of us that are believers are irrational and not capable of using reason and intellect?
Many of us would argue that a belief in a God who created the world is much more rational than a belief in evolution by random chance and mutation.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems like circular reasoning. If those conditions had not existed, does that mean then that we must not exist? Of course not, if those conditions did not exist, it just means that we came into existence some other way. The fact that we exist shouldn't be used to support any theory on how we came into existence.
I originally had "in the absence of god" at the beginning of that sentence. Do you like it more if I put that back? "In the absence of god, we would not be here if those conditions had not existed."
It's not unlike my response when people say "oh, if the value of e had been slightly different, or if the average spacing of stars was a bit different, or [insert property of the universe here] were slightly different, we wouldn't be here, so obviously god designed the universe such that life as we know it could exist in it." Well, no, that doesn't follow.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many of us would argue that a belief in a God who created the world is much more rational than a belief in evolution by random chance and mutation.
We had a ten-page thread on the subject recently, and nobody made that argument. In fact, one of the few points of common agreement (to the extent that there was any) was that personal spiritual experiences (if those can be trusted) are the only rational way to arrive at belief in god.
I don't think I agree that "many" people on this board would make that argument.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many of us would argue that a belief in a God who created the world is much more rational than a belief in evolution by random chance and mutation.
We had a ten-page thread on the subject recently, and nobody made that argument. In fact, one of the few points of common agreement (to the extent that there was any) was that personal spiritual experiences (if those can be trusted) are the only rational way to arrive at belief in god.
I don't think I agree that "many" people on this board would make that argument.
Well, add me to Belle's list. I believe in God for rational reasons, not "personal spiritual experiences."
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think I agree that "many" people on this board would make that argument.
It depends on what you mean. Given two possible conclusions:
1.) God made the Universe according to his design.
2.) The universe was created and evolved by random chance.
Both rely on an scientifically unproveable premise. 1 can be made specific in a way that does not contradict scientific theories about the evolution of the universe and the creation and evolution of life.
quote:that personal spiritual experiences (if those can be trusted) are the only rational way to arrive at belief in god.
As to this, I would bet that many, many people on this board also consider the personal experiences of others - both living and dead as evidence from which rational conclusions can be drawn. I'm not sure if you meant to exclude them or not with "personal spiritual experiences."
They also believe in God for other, rational reasons that are not subject to scientific proof.
I love science, but I don't like all the ways it is used. Science is not the only way we have of learning about the world; nor is the best means for learning the most important truths.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I agree. Science doesn't have all the answers, and shouldn't claim to.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
