Cincinnati's Creation Museum is soon to be a reality. This I have to see when completed. I haven't figured out the oxymoronic "creation science" bit since following God's "creation" idea is an act of faith and science...well, isn't. Now it is a museum! Too cool. I wonder if they will sell those little "fish eating Darwin" bumper stickers?
Only in the United States.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: following God's "creation" idea is an act of faith and science...well, isn't.
2 questions:
1 -- do you believe that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, as the theory of relativity states? 2 -- if so, why do you believe so? Have you done any experiments to determine if you can? Could it be said that your belief in this is an act of faith in science and the scientists?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I would be better if it were worldwide creation myths... this seems to be just A Christian Museum.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I somehow missed this part of the bible:
quote:T. rex—the real king of the beasts. That’s the terror that Adam’s sin unleashed!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, I have done experiments that verify the speed of light is identical in all frames of reference, which combined with a little basic math does verify that nothing can travel at the speed of light (which is all relativity states; something can go faster than light without breaking relativity, its breaking through the light barrier that's the problem).
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Teshi, agreed. It would be cool if it were more inclusive. I took an Evolution class in College and we spent a week on all the different creation stories from around the world. I am curious what their response will be when people ask about other creation stories?
mph, I don't know if anything can go faster than the speed of light. Physics ain't my bag. Why do you ask?
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
But fugu, you forget. Before the Fall, there was no death. Hence, the T. Rex was not a threat. After the Fall, the T-Rex became a threat only because death became a possibility. Beforehand, he was just as precious as a kitten.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, generally one makes a distinction between religious faith and a reasonable assumption that scientists tend to do science (that is, test hypotheses and reject those that don't fit) as we have observed them doing for hundreds of years. Also, people actually do reject science when they see or think they see counter-proofs. The nature of religious faith is there are no definitive counter-proofs.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: do you believe that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, as the theory of relativity states?
I was always under the impression that things can go over the speed of light they just can't cross it (except light).
Am I right?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, I tend to use the word also a lot.
Also, you are right, Teshi, see my post above.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
fugu -- fair enough.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Ah, right. I should read more carefully .
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Also, generally one makes a distinction between religious faith and a reasonable assumption that scientists tend to do science (that is, test hypotheses and reject those that don't fit) as we have observed them doing for hundreds of years.
Religious faith is actually more similar to the faith people who have never done (and wouldn't understand how to do) the experiments themselves have in scientific theory. There is generally a distinction made between those, too.
However, people tend to draw distinctions all over the place. The fact that they are drawn does not mean the difference is significant, or meaningful.
quote:Also, people actually do reject science when they see or think they see counter-proofs. The nature of religious faith is there are no definitive counter-proofs.
...except for the existence of human and other life which, though some scientists believe is explainable through evolution, many creationists believe cannot be explained through evolution. Well, and the Bible and other religious documentation. And supposed personal experiences...
I suppose you could say these are not definitive. But, you could say any piece of evidence is not definitive... which is why any disputed theory is disputed rather than simply no longer a theory.
[ December 07, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its cute how you misunderstand science, Tres.
In science, there are definitive counterproofs. There are no definitive counterproofs in religious belief. This comes about because science is a subset of reality that does not admit untestables. This does not mean that in reality as a whole the ideas of science are testable, but that in the domain of science the ideas of science are testable. Religion, OTOH, allows untestables, which makes it impossible to offer definitive counterproofs, as one can come up with an untestable rationalization for anything.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:...except for the existence of human and other life which, though some scientists believe is explainable through evolution, many creationists believe cannot be explained through evolution.
That's pretty disingenuous. Creationists can believe that it isn't explainable all they want, but a lot more than "some" scientists believe it to be explainable. There's more dissent on global warming than there is on evolution, and there's hardly any dissent on global warming. The scientific community doesn't really get much closer to consensus than this -- they may disagree about many particulars, but the premise is quite agreed upon.
[Edited to add last sentence.]
[ December 07, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: There's more dissent on global warming than there is on evolution, and there's hardly any dissent on global warming. The scientific community doesn't really get much closer to consensus than this -- they may disagree about many particulars, but the premise is quite agreed upon.
I disagree.
The "scientific community" that you read about is all in agreement because they refuse to publish any works that disagree with their point of view. So scientists who are pro-intelligent design are forced to publish through other venues, most of which are not recognized by the secular "scientific community" no matter how valid their points or their studies.
So you are only looking at one side of an issue -- of course it is going to seem overwhelming a clear-cut issue to you. You have never even bothered to explore the other point of view.
Farmgirl
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Links, please. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Okay - give me a few minutes. I'm at work, so I get interrupted a lot. But I'll give links.
FG
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: The "scientific community" that you read about is all in agreement because they refuse to publish any works that disagree with their point of view
FG. This is a common claim of creationists, but I feel it is unmerited. Scientists worthy of the name try to consider alternate theories and explanations in their own work, and shold also consider alternate POVs if the POVs have explanatory power and logical rigour. A lot of creatism doesn't pass this test, particularly those who insist on a lifetime of earth of only a few thousand years despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: If Eve had only three sons, where’d Cain find his wife?
Does anyone know how this happened? I'm really curious to know.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: If Eve had only three sons, where’d Cain find his wife?
Does anyone know how this happened? I'm really curious to know.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:This is a common claim of creationists, but I feel it is unmerited.
Without comparison otherwise, it is also a common claim of UFO enthusiasts, Holocaust deniers, and crystal healers.
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
this museum is right in my back yard! (well, not that close, but about a 20 minute drive). Its right next to the CVG airport, and about a month ago, after arriving back at the airport, i stopped by. One of the phd's there gave me a FULL tour of the whole building. It is simply AMAZING! They really are doing first rate work, and i know there are a ton of 'not so credible' creation science groups, but I believe answers in genesis to be the most credible one, they have a whole team of scientists that specialize in a full sprectrum of subjects. I wish i could go in to all of the stuff that will be discussed in the museum, but it is soo much information. All i can say is, its great, and if youre ever in the neighborhood, when its complete, to stop by and see for yourself.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While AIG is better than most, they're hardly good. FOr a logical gem from an AIG newsletter:
quote:Is evolution really sun worship?
Part of the evolutionist’s religion is that energy from the sun—acting on a primeval soup millions of years ago—caused the first life-forms to emerge. Thus, they believe that the sun really gave birth to living things. They are really giving glory to the sun’s energy for life.
Down through the ages, culture after culture has worshipped the sun. If you recall, the Israelites were warned not to worship the sun like the pagan nations around them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's really great, that makes my day. *Goes off chuckling*
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Woa.
There is a difference between worshiping something, and claiming it is part of the mechanism for the begining of life, even if evolutionary theories agreed on it, which they don't.
There is also lava vents and comit strikes and other sources of energy that some scientists claim may have helped convert random chemicals into protiens and life.
This argument that, "Since they think the Sun was responsible for life, they are all heathen sun worshippers, and God told us to avoid them right here in the bible" is the type of over generalization and confrontation creating bad logic that makes people who come at this subject with an open mind cringe at the idea of supporting creationists.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
The same people who think a "day" has to be a specific 24 hour period (instead of merely signifying a unit of time) are usually the same people who believe the Bible was written in the King's english.
[editted to remove snarky comment, just in case]
[ December 07, 2004, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
What is difficult in the discussion of Evolution is the stakes. For a creationist who is also a Biblical literalist, their entire faith hangs in the balance. If Evolution is at all true, the foundations for their beliefs is shattered and if that is wrong, what about the rest of the book? For someone who finds Evolution to make sense (as a whole...I doubt many people know the different mechanisms that are constantly argued, etc.) if we found that gradual evolution was now in the lead of sudden evolution well...they will probably be able to sleep at night.
I love the Sun worship statement. Too funny. That site or one linked to it also had a "scientific" explanation on how Noah's ark really could have worked. See, God said "kinds of animals" not "species of animals" so those that shake their head thinking "no way could Noah get every species of animal on board" can be rest assured that not every species of canine was on board, simply one pair of dogs met God's will (from this I guess would come wolves, foxes, all dog breeds, etc.).
The fact that genetics shows that it takes significantly more than two of each species to survive more than a generation seems to be beyond them. So not only is Evolution on the stand, basic genetics are being questioned, too. Yowza.
I didn't realize that the museum was completed. The website makes it look like it isn't finished yet.
[ December 07, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, actually, you could in principle have a species descend from a single breeding pair. There is, I believe, some evidence that cheetahs are all descended from a single set of siblings, some twenty thousand years ago.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I posted this thread kind of tongue in cheek, obviously, but the bigger stake for science is pretty significant. There is a giant push to get "intelligent design" taught along side of Evolution and in some places, somewhere in Penn at least, this is the law.
What will be the long term effect on classrooms if this becomes the norm for science education? I mean, this is literally old school...like centuries-old school. When any scientific theory comes up hard against a literal interpretation of a translated text 2 centuries old will kids have to constantly have to deal with insecure religious folks before moving on? The fields of genetics, evolutionary biology, geology, sociology, history and so on are constantly at odds with religion, in particular the Christian faiths (do Apache's, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. challenge scientific theory like this?). Can kids have a serious discussion about Jesus of Nazareth in historical context? Can kids study geology and the ages of rocks (not the Rock of Ages...to turn a phrase from "Inherit the Wind") without fear that someone who has a shaky grasp of their religion will come pounding through the figurative door with a court order to not teach earth being older than 10,000 years? Pretty frightening stuff.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Creationist always remind me of that stand up comic who had the line "someone came into my house and stole all my furniture and replaced it with exact duplicates."
If God would do something this ridicules then they might be right. Jehovah you prankster!
BC
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
KoM, very interesting. Never heard of that. Must have worked out for all animals, including humans, then (since I assume Noah and his family were all that survived the flood, right? Have to re-read my science...I mean religious texts once again). I would love a link on the Cheetah thing but in my little experience with genetics you inbreed two parents and their children you are going to have one messed up little crew...until they all die of some horrible recessive trait genetic syndrome, that is.
[ December 08, 2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
BC, for the record, it was Steven Wright who made that joke. Love it!
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
The genesis account says Noah took sets of seven of most species, not just two. So the two parent thing isn't necessarily a problem...
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
What confuses me about biblical literalism is that there seems to be nobody who truly takes the bible literally. Passages like "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out" are interpreted metaphorically. Why? Why don't any biblical literalists call for self mutilation as a way of dealing with sins? "If you would be perfect, sell all you have and give it to the poor and come follow me." Jesus does not seem to be speaking metaphorically there at all. Why isn't that taken literally by biblical literalists? Why do they still have so much stuff?
When I've asked about those passages (which are direct statements of Christ, which I would think would have more authority than stuff in the Old Testament), people tell me what they've been taught those passages actually mean, giving a non-literal interpretation. Then they still insist that other passages (even in the old testament) be taken literally. Do biblical literalists not see this as an inconsistency in their own methods?
[ December 08, 2004, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
AK, it seems strange, but it does make a certain amount of sense. From what I understand, biblical literalists believe that the Bible is a true historical account. Thus, when the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old, it must be true. Further, when the Bible says that Jesus said "If you would be perfect, sell all you have and give it to the poor and come follow me.", etc, he must have said it. But believing for certain that he said those words doesn't mean believing he meant the words to be taken literally.
The difference, I think, is that it is much easier to take strange histories literally than it is to take difficult advice. But it's not an exactly parallel situation, so you can't expect to change too many minds with this argument.
-----
KoM:
quote:Well, actually, you could in principle have a species descend from a single breeding pair. There is, I believe, some evidence that cheetahs are all descended from a single set of siblings, some twenty thousand years ago.
All cheetahs being descended from a single set of siblings does not necessarily imply that they were generated from a single breeding pair. Not saying it's impossible -- I haven't seen the original article. There have certainly been many Adams and Eves (humans who are the ancestors of all living humans), and recent evidence points to surprisingly recent Adams. (I'd include a link, but I'm lazy.) But I think the general consensus in the scientific community is that there was no single generating pair of humans. (Then again, we all know what the general consensus of the scientific community is worth. )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
<deleted comment in response to Tom's deleted comment>
Post not deleted because otherwise fugu will look like he's having delusions.
Dagonee
[ December 08, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom?
Also, I would definitely say most creationists aren't used to scientific thinking, or else they'd stop saying you can't add genetic material to things (not all do this, but most). That's done in many classrooms a year in every college campus in the US (and most high schools, too), and the only possible conclusion I can come to is that people who say its not possible have spent essentially no time thinking about science at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Apparantly Tom or someone else deleted the post I was responding to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I decided it was unfair and removed it apparently a few seconds after Dag had the same thought and decided to share. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:If Eve had only three sons, where’d Cain find his wife?
quote:Does anyone know how this happened? I'm really curious to know.
Just because certain offspring are mentioned doesn't mean that other offspring weren't. Eve is called "mother of all living" - thus, Cain and Seth's original wives most likely were from Eve as well. Lack of proof isn't proof of lack Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About the cheetahs, no link, sorry. I read an article in New Scientist a few years ago. I know a species can be descended from a set of siblings without being descended only from those siblings; but, if memory serves, this article claimed that the cheetah population was at one point precisely three individuals, which were siblings. It went on to suggest that this is why cheetahs are so easy to wipe out, being all quite closely related, with the associated problems.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:1 -- do you believe that nothing can go faster than the speed of light, as the theory of relativity states? 2 -- if so, why do you believe so? Have you done any experiments to determine if you can? Could it be said that your belief in this is an act of faith in science and the scientists?
The same theory tells us that time slows down as you approach the speed of light, and this has been observed with atomic clocks. Oh, and atomic explosions, also the same theory. These seems like pretty spectacular corroborations if you ask me.
quote:So scientists who are pro-intelligent design are forced to publish through other venues, most of which are not recognized by the secular "scientific community" no matter how valid their points or their studies.
Then you should be able to list for me several examples of ID results being submitted to and rejected by scientific journals .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you'll find that idea is being soundly taken care of in the other thread, too, Foust.
edit to add: this is a corroboration, not an attempt to tell you to stop. Quite the opposite in fact.
[ December 08, 2004, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:In science, there are definitive counterproofs. There are no definitive counterproofs in religious belief. This comes about because science is a subset of reality that does not admit untestables.
Fugu, There are 'definitive' counterproofs, at least insofar as proof can be found of anything, for both religion and science. For instance, some religions said the world was flat and were definitively proven wrong, in my view. (Even these, though, might be called not definitive by some because there seems to be an alternative explanation for any piece of evidence, even it resorts to saying we are dreaming it, or God is fooling us, or something bizarre to that effect.)
At the same time, there are many things that fall under "science" that are untestable. This is in a large part because science doesn't really restrict itself to the subset of reality you are referring to, although it is supposed to. For instance, there is nothing testable about the theory that life evolved, because you cannot test the truth of claims about the past. (The past may have not even ever really existed as far as we know. Or the laws may have radically changed for no known reason at any point.) Thus, if science were being strict, they would call the larger theory of evolution not the domain of science, and stick only to the claim that life is evolving in the present, which is more testable. That's not how science actually operates, however, and thus it allows in many untestable ideas.
There is usually not much trouble with truly testable scientific claims that contradict religion. This is because, if something is actually testable, religion cannot easily flat out deny the results of that test. But when something is not directly testable, like the larger theory of evolution, it is debatable.
quote:This is a common claim of creationists, but I feel it is unmerited. Scientists worthy of the name try to consider alternate theories and explanations in their own work, and shold also consider alternate POVs if the POVs have explanatory power and logical rigour.
See "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn for a contraversial but very popular and non-creationist argument against this. Kuhn argues that history illustrates that science attempts primarily to make facts fit into their POV, rather than consider alternatve POVs, except in rare situations (the "crisis").
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Except that in the domain of science questions about the past are falsifiable. If you claim Stephen King never wrote a book with a dragon in it, and I produce a book which has considerable evidence it was written by King and happens to include a dragon, that event is scientifically falsified, even if in a more general worldview it is not strictly falsifiable.
Now, Science doesn't admit that any beliefs about the past can be proved true (as that's just silly), but in the domain of Science they can certainly be proven false.
Thing is, what a scientist means by proof and what you mean by proof are two very different things. In an absolute sense I can't prove anything except that "I" perceive. I can't prove rain is wet, I can't prove fire is hot, I can't prove the earth is round, heck, I can't even prove that those things exist. But that's a rather useless stringency of proof in almost any instance (though I am slowly working on a fascinating paper working purely with the only provable thing -- the instantaneous perception).
So science doesn't admit that as being the standard of proof in its domain, they pick another standard. And by that standard, theories about past events are falsifiable.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Just because certain offspring are mentioned doesn't mean that other offspring weren't. Eve is called "mother of all living" - thus, Cain and Seth's original wives most likely were from Eve as well. Lack of proof isn't proof of lack
I don't mean to be mean, but sometimes I wish people would just READ the bible. The proof of your assumption is here... Genesis 5:4...
quote: And the days of Adam after he had begotten seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters
The funny thing about evolution and God is that neither one ultimately proves that the other is falacy. The fact that many creationists claim that evolution is impossible is in great part plain old stubborn Puritanism. I have no objections to evolution among animals. I do have some problems with evolution among humans, mostly because I've seen a number of holes in it. This is mostly due to the fact that I am not properly educated in the subject. All I have to go on is my own theories following lines of logic based on what I HAVE learned about evolution. I'm not going to post much of an argument on the subject here. I'm only going to mention the fact that Science works outside of religion because religion has shunned it, and the acceptance of religion, EDIT: to some scientists, prohibits the explaination of how things happen, which is important to know. If creationists would realize this, they'd realize that God's a heck of a lot smarter than they give him credit for being. For an all powerful being, it wouldn't take much to just say, "Exist" and the universe creates itself in a big poof. It takes a lot more intellect and power to make things happen naturally according to laws. Saying that God said it and it was is not giving enough credit to God in my book. I think science is doing a lot of good in trying to explain the laws that govern our universe. But I also believe in God. So why is everyone arguing over who is right? What if both sides are partly right?
[ December 09, 2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think you'll find (as I have, and it only makes sense given that the vast majority of Americans are Christian) that most people who think evolution occurs "believe" in what is known as theistic evolution. That is, they believe God is the reason for evolution, in the same way that God is the reason for the heavens and the earth.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
There are, of course, many who absolutely refuse the idea of evolution.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So science doesn't admit that as being the standard of proof in its domain, they pick another standard. And by that standard, theories about past events are falsifiable.
You can't pick what counts as proof. I can't say, for instance, that "well, my opinion may not prove something in reality, but for me my opinion counts as proof, so X is proven." If this were true then everything religious would be falsifiable too, because they use different standards for "proof" which can, in fact, prove their beliefs.
Proof is whatever actually is proof in reality. What's falsifiable is whatever is falsifiable in reality. Whether science "admits" it or not does not change that fact. The standard of proof is what it is whether any of us like it or not.
And if there is something called "scientifically falsified" that is different from "actually falsified in reality" then we can safely say scientific falsification is not actually falsification.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Now words only mean one thing, Xap? And no, proof does not only mean one thing. Tell that to the lawyers. Nigh every field of inquiry has its own standards of proof. That you are too limited to understand the necessity of this isn't their fault.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
fugu said:
quote: This comes about because science is a subset of reality that does not admit untestables.
I have to take issue with this statement. "Science" as a pure paradigm of viewing the universe with dispassionate, objective researchers reviewing one another's work simply does not exist. All of the advances made in science require faith of the exact same variety as religious faith. Hopefully this faith leads to one being able to successfully elucidate a testable theory and from thence to the acquisition of knowledge, but often it does not because the scientist in question has a flawed understanding of the phenomenon, or in other words his faith is vain- the little model of the phenomenon that he built in his head is wrong.
Let me give some examples of basic fundamental scientific assertions which are untestable or are still held in the face of evidence to the contrary:
1) Life originated by strictly materialistic, mechanical and chemical means.
There is absolutely no proof that this is the case. In fact, every theory of abiogenesis which has been proposed has run into insurmountable difficulties.
2) Evolution is driven solely by random mutation and natural selection.
We know that evolution can occur by these means, but are they really the sole driving factors? And if so, why isn't there overwhelming evidence of such in the fossil record? We know that according to the fossil record overwhelmingly a creature appears, remains unchanged in its skeletal structure for a million years, give or take, and then disappears to be replaced by a very different creature filling the same ecological niche. For this reason "punctuated equilibrium" has become a popular evolutionary paradigm. Well, punctuated equilibrium may very well be how evolution prceeds, but most rationally people would be loathe to accept a theory for which there is no evidence because the changes happen too quickly to be seen.
3) The big bang.
The big bang rests on essentially three pillars of astronomical observations: microwave background radiation, the redshift of light, and I forget the third.
At any rate, the redshift of light as evidence of a universe expanding in all directions has been shown to be a flawed assumption. Halton Arp has shown that quasars have a red shift which doesn't correspond to the standard assumptions. Mechanisms to account for the red shift have been proposed which do not require all matter to be moving away from us.
Without belaboring the point, I think you get the picture. Science is a great way for gaining knowledge about the universe, but it certainly must begin with faith, and there are certainly plenty of reasons to doubt what "science" declares to be true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, I said it only admits falsifiables, that doesn't mean anything is provable other than the negation of a (truly) positive statement.
1) As has been noted, scientists don't agree on a method of abiogenesis, or even that such occured. This is a triumph of science, that it doesn't lock into some dogmatic theory absent good evidence. As for none of them being even somewhat plausible, its actually pretty plausible that random combination could have resulted in a reproducing amino acid sequence, or an RNA sequence that creates such. See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html . Moreover, while there is no overarching theory, there are things we have observed which greatly suggests parts of theories. For instance, we have observed the natural formation. Of lipid envelopes identical to primitive cell membranes -- in fact, it happens all the time under certain common conditions. If, say, a randomly occuring reproducing molecule happened to fall into one of those, it would have a considerable advantage, being protected from the environment compared to its mates (but still able to receive material as the lipid membrane is not impermeable). There are other things, too, but while there is considerable debate on any overarching theory of how it happened (which will likely never be resolved, due to lack of evidence, funny how science allows for things like that), there is general acceptance that we've seen examples of things that are probable parts of any such event.
2) There's tons of evidence in the fossil record, where do you not see evidence? I'd like an example or two of places we're "missing evidence". In fact, by people who have actually studied the fossil record the evidence is generally considered overwhelming. Also, the currently most accepted version of evolutionary theory is not punctuated equilibrium in its original form, its a modified version which basically says, sometimes evolutions goes in fits and starts, sometimes it goes steadily. You want to know why it got modified (pretty much right after publication)? Because the evidence for periods of gradual evolution is huge (just as is the evidence for periods of little evolution and periods of rapid evolution).
3) Science doesn't declare the big bang to be true, it reserves that for things that its extremely confident of. Science is not extremely confident the big bang occurred, which is why there are an abundance of competing theories. Most consider the big bang the most likely one given the current evidence, but admit that the evidence is not conclusive.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: This is a triumph of science, that it doesn't lock into some dogmatic theory absent good evidence.
Well, I would disagree with this, but I certainly won't convince you because "science" is made up of millions of people all with different opinions on different matters. I would especially disagree with this as it touches matters of "consensus science". Twinky gave a good example of this earlier when he said
quote: There's more dissent on global warming than there is on evolution, and there's hardly any dissent on global warming. The scientific community doesn't really get much closer to consensus than this -- they may disagree about many particulars, but the premise is quite agreed upon.
Scientific consensus is absolutely irrelevant- indeed it is contrary to the very paradigm science is supposed to be built upon. Someone here posted a Michael Crichton essay on the matter which described it much more articulately than I could.
quote: If, say, a randomly occuring reproducing molecule happened to fall into one of those, it would have a considerable advantage, being protected from the environment compared to its mates (but still able to receive material as the lipid membrane is not impermeable).
Its getting that "randomly occuring reproducing molecule" that's the rub.
quote: There's tons of evidence in the fossil record, where do you not see evidence?
Again, I disagree. Give me an example. The common textbook ones are crap. Take the beloved horse development, for example, which requires alternating fossils from different continents and which generally starts with eohippus which is essentially a modern hyrax and likely has nothing at all to do with horse development.
So give me an example- where is there a clear set of a fossil line leading to a modern creature without huge developmental gaps?
quote: Science doesn't declare the big bang to be true, it reserves that for things that its extremely confident of.
Come on now, even granting that "science" is too nebulous for consensus of opinion on anything, the big bang is taught nearly universally as the way things really happened. Stephen Hawking and his ilk are so confident of it that they can declare without blushing that they know exactly how everything unfolded beginning at 10^-43 seconds after the big bang.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Amusingly, Jacare, *I* posted the link to Crichton's talk.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And I think you're letting what you want Hawking to be like interfere with what he actually says. Hawking's papers that talk about what happens after the Big Bang predicate on the assumption that the Big Bang happened. It is called a working argument. You might also notice that in the popular books he publishes and the survey papers he presents multiple possible scenarios for the creation (or lack thereof) of the universe.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Amusingly, Jacare, *I* posted the link to Crichton's talk.
Heh, I guess you didn't buy his arguments.
quote: I posted a link to hundreds of examples in this recent thread
The transition from reptiles to mammals is reasonable. I can buy that one. Other links are much more tenuous, and of course we can pull a strong anthropic principle here and say: If the fossil record provides such strong evidence then why was punctuated equilibrium proposed by many of the folks who study these things? Clearly they felt the need to explain the lack of fossil evidence.
quote: And I think you're letting what you want Hawking to be like interfere with what he actually says.
I don't think so. I just finished listening to a series of Hawking lectures at Cambridge. He certainly presents various ideas, but he presents them as a sort of evolution of ideas leading to our current (correct) understanding of the universe (which of course includes the big bang). In fact, he even goes so far as to crack that the "God of the gaps" folks are rapidly running out of gaps for God to fill.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, he believes the Big Bang is the most likely theory, as do most scientists. However, most scientists (at least those I've run into, and this is from my reading of Hawking as well) also believe the evidence is not sufficient to completely rule out other theories, and that new evidence could very well propel one of them to the forefront.
Sort of like how people tend to come to consensus about the results of cliffhangers in TV shows even when the evidence is ambiguous.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Jacare, none of your "basic fundamental scientific assertions" are relevent to the study of Evolution.
quote:1) Life originated by strictly materialistic, mechanical and chemical means.
How the current multiplicity of species arose is not necassarily connected to how the first life appeared.
quote:2) Evolution is driven solely by random mutation and natural selection.
We know that evolution can occur by these means, but are they really the sole driving factors?
Nobody says they are, they're just the only ones we can come up with and substantiate.
quote: 3) The big bang.
The big bang rests on essentially three pillars of astronomical observations: microwave background radiation, the redshift of light, and I forget the third.
Jacare, you yourself pointed out at least one scientist that does not believe the Big Bang is a "basic fundamental scientific assertions." So what's your point?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Now words only mean one thing, Xap? And no, proof does not only mean one thing. Tell that to the lawyers. Nigh every field of inquiry has its own standards of proof. That you are too limited to understand the necessity of this isn't their fault.
Firstly, who is "too limited to understand" is really not an acceptable (or useful) line of argument to justify claims of any sort. Presumably none of us are too limited to understand.
As to the point, we are talking about the concepts, not the words, and one concept cannot simultaneously be two different things. Proof could mean something else to science, but then it's not talking about the concept of proof we were talking about - namely, whether it is known with certainty to be true.
And because we were discussing the difference in provability between science and religion, it would not be right or fair to religion to use some sort of science-specific standard of proof. Religion isn't testable by scientific standards of "proof" any more than science is testable by religions standards of "proof". But when we apply a fair standard, whether or not we can actually (in reality!) prove with certainty that a given theory is false, much of both science AND religion are not falsifiable.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm talking about the scientific sense of proof, which is sufficiently complete to be useful. I don't know why you're talking about a definition of proof which is so unuseful that it can be applied as a differentiating criteria to almost nothing, and certainly nothing among the things we're talking about.
I used to think philosophy majors got taught the concept of useful concepts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, Science doesn't admit that any beliefs about the past can be proved true (as that's just silly), but in the domain of Science they can certainly be proven false.
The key point of this statement is that it contains within it both the reason for science's usefulness and an explanation of its own limitations. Fugu even emphasized the latter part when he originally posted the statement.
Just as there are truths in math that cannot be proven within a consistent framework of math, there are truths about the world that cannot be proven by science. Good scientists admit that readily. If something is proven by some other method (reliable witness testimony, for example), that proof will not be accepted as a scientific proof. But it may be accepted by some scientists as another form of proof.
Dagonee
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Heh, I guess you didn't buy his arguments.
Indeed I did not. I thought his points -- particularly his examples of cases where dissenting scientists are ostracized -- were valid, but I also think that he overreached and it hurt his argument. I think that on the subject of consensus in the scientific community he pretty much threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My stance on this is simple - it's all faith.
No one was here 6000 years ago, or 6 million, or 6 billion. The scientific method can't prove how life began or evolved. Somewhere, somehow, you've got to take something on faith.
Either your faith is in punctuated equilibrium, or any of the other myriads of theories that abound or your faith is in what the Bible says. Or some combination of the two.
As for me - I have no idea exactly how old the earth is. I don't know the exact processes of how life began. I don't know how many changes have taken place in organisms since the beginning or the manner in which those changes occurred.
I choose to believe God created the universe and everything in it, and that some things are beyond my understanding.
What bothers me is people who insist that belief in molecules-to-man evolution is not faith. Of course it is. No one can scientifically prove that man evolved from some collection of amnio acids in a primordial pool, no more than I can scientifically prove God created Eve from Adam's rib.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The thing is, most scientists don't "believe" in their theories in the sense you believe in creation. They consider a theory (about the past) most likely because of the available evidence, and in most cases change the nature of their theory, sometimes to extremes, as new evidence presents itself. Someone thinking gradual evolution was the only process moves to thinking its punctuated equilibrium or something else because of evidence.
Scientifically speaking, this evidence only points to one thing right now, evolution.
That said, science makes no claim about being able to prove or disprove ultimate truth. As far as science is concerned, the world could have been created six thousand years ago, or five minutes ago, the evidence for both of those is just about the same: nil. Does this mean there's something wrong with believing that? Not really. Does this mean there's something wrong with teaching either one in a science classroom? Most definitely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That said, science makes no claim about being able to prove or disprove ultimate truth.
Of course, some scientists do make claims that science is able to prove or disprove ultimate truth.
I've heard many times from many scientists how evolution has "proven" we evolved from chance, with no direction from God. How science has "proven" that miracles don't happen, as if an understanding that predictable laws govern the normal behavior of Nature wasn't essential to recognizing something as miraculous in the first place.
Further, many science teachers do not stress the limitations of science. Especially in pre-college science courses, I was taught many things as fact that turned out to be incorrect, with no mention that this was our current understanding of things.
I don't hold that against science, but it does make me skeptical of the actions of many scientists.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*nods*
I can't say it doesn't happen, but I'm fairly confident its but a small minority. Many of the biggest popular science authors (such as, say, Feinman and Hawking) make quite the opposite point.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: For instance, there is nothing testable about the theory that life evolved, because you cannot test the truth of claims about the past. (The past may have not even ever really existed as far as we know. Or the laws may have radically changed for no known reason at any point.)
Xaposert.This is more than a little absurdist nitpicking. Of course, science and scientists generally make assumptions or postulates in their theory. One (usually unspoken) assumption is that the past exists or existed, and that there are inanimate objects, people and other living organisms that exist and existed, seperate entities from the conscious entity perceiving them. Philosohers before and after Descarte's famous "Cogito, ergo sum--I think, therefore I am" statement have tried to completely refute the solipsistic argument, and for the most part have failed. Yet most intelligent people dismiss solipsism as fantasy, including most religious believers (at least in the West.) I assume you do as well. As well, most intelligent people assume the past existed in some sense, and that there is some continuity between the past and the present. And yes, God or unknown natural processes could change the laws of physics repeatedly. So what? Almost nobody (aside from some eastern mystics) believe these ideas. Why bring them up as an argument? Also, I am aware of Kuhn's arguments about paradigm shifts. It is human nature to be lazy and not change paradigms and POVs, especially as you age. Scientists have to struggle to overcome this. It doesn't imply that rejected ideas have any merit. Most don't.
[ December 09, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Never argue with a pedant over definitions. It wastes your time and annoys the pedant.
About faith versus proof : Suppose for a moment I accept that science is a question of faith. I submit that it is a much more useful faith than belief in a Creator, or even an intelligent designer (who, on the face of it, is not very bright). You can make predictions with evolutionary theory; you cannot do so with creationism, in any of its variants.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: And yes, God or unknown natural processes could change the laws of physics repeatedly. So what? Almost nobody (aside from some eastern mystics) believe these ideas.
*joins the "almost nobody" camp*
(Possibly only once, not repeatedly. But maybe repeatedly. As Belle said, I wasn't there. )
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)