Since the credibility and fairness of the scientific establishment has been the subject of some discussion here, I would like to bring this article to your attention.
_____________________________________________
Ben Stein to battle Darwin in major film Actor-commentator stars in 'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'
Ben Stein, the lovable, monotone teacher from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" and "The Wonder Years" is back in the classroom in a major motion picture release slated for February 2008.
But this time, the actor will be on the big screen asking one of life's biggest questions: "Were we designed, or are we simply the end result of an ancient mud puddle struck by lightning?"
That's right. Evolution – and the explosive debate over its virtual monopoly on America's public school classrooms – is the focus of the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."
In the movie, Stein, who is also a lawyer, economist, former presidential speechwriter, author and social commentator, is stunned by what he discovers – an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma. Even worse, say publicists for the feature film, "along the way, Stein uncovers a long line of biologists, astronomers, chemists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin's theory of random mutation and natural selection."
"Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way," says Stein. "Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it's anti-science. It's anti-the whole concept of learning."
As "Expelled's" official website asks: "What freedom-loving student wouldn't be outraged to discover that his high school science teacher is teaching a theory as indisputable fact, and that university professors unmercifully crush any fellow scientists who dare question the prevailing system of belief? This isn't the latest Hollywood comedy; it's a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead."
"Expelled" is produced by Premise Media, and being marketed by Motive Entertainment, which has spearheaded major previous Hollywood blockbusters, including "The Passion of the Christ," "Polar Express" and "The Chronicles of Narnia." It will be distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures, with numerous box-office successes to its credit.
"Expelled" documents how teachers and scientists alike are being ridiculed daily, denied tenure and even fired believing there is evidence of "design" in nature and challenging the current orthodoxy that life is entirely a result of random chance.
For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Shortly after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear-and-intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist fired. The attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation.
In the film, Stein meets other scientists like astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University in spite of an extraordinary record of achievement. Gonzalez made the mistake of documenting the design he has observed in the universe. And there are others, like Caroline Crocker, a brilliant biology teacher at George Mason University who was forced out of the university for briefly discussing problems with Darwinian theory and for telling the students that some scientists believe there is evidence of design in the universe.
Unlike other popular documentary films, "Expelled" isn't one-sided – it confronts scientists like Oxford evolutionist Richard Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion," influential biologist and atheist blogger P.Z. Myers, and Eugenie Scott, head of the National Center for Science Education. In fact, the creators of "Expelled" spent two years traveling the world and interviewing scores of scientists, doctors, philosophers and public leaders for the film.
According to the New York Times, Dawkins, Scott and other evolutionists are now claiming the film's producers deceived them into going on camera by hiding the "Intelligent Design" orientation of the film.
But Stein denies misleading anyone. "I don't remember a single person asking me what the movie was about," he told the Times.
In the end, say the film's publicists, the production delivers to viewers "a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly funded high schools, universities and research institutions."
"The incredible thing about 'Expelled' is that we don't resort to manipulating our interviews for the purpose of achieving the 'shock effect,' something that has become common in documentary film these days," said Walt Ruloff, co-founder of Premise Media and the film's co-executive producer. "People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale. Premise Media took on this difficult mission because we believe the greatest asset of humanity is our freedom to explore and discover truth."
Editor's note: The current edition of Whistleblower magazine, "THE RISE OF ATHEIST AMERICA," is a cutting-edge look at the growth of God-denial in the U.S., including the central role of government-mandated indoctrination in the theory of evolution. Find out more about "THE RISE OF ATHEIST AMERICA."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'd be interested in perhaps watching this out of respect for Stein had many of the interviews they obtained from scientists like Dawkins not been dishonestly obtained, and spliced with devious intent.
Dawkins and others were not deceived by Stein as far as I have read in the NYTs, they were deceived by the producers.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Oh, I already know about the Ben Stein movie.
Of course, saying things like "People will be stunned to actually find out what elitist scientists proclaim, which is that a large majority of Americans are simpletons who believe in a fairy tale", especially to a person who knows both the beliefs of some of the people they claim to interview, and the understanding of evolution itself, hints at the sheer bias of this movie.
While I doubt the scientists actually called people simpletons, it's evident that most people don't know much about evolution. That's a fact. If they did understand it, I mean understand it to anything like the degree the scientists who work in the field do, this whole debate would be pretty much dead.
It's not elitist, it's not biased, to have a theory which accounts for the facts, and reject the ones that don't account for them, regardless of said alternate theory's popularity. It's just science.
Is it biased that we don't give, say, phrenology equal time any longer? Certainly not. Why? Because it's been shown to be inaccurate, and other theories have superceded it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The NYT article that BB may have been referring to is: link
Interesting quotes:
quote:A few months ago, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins received an e-mail message from a producer at Rampant Films inviting him to be interviewed for a documentary called “Crossroads.” ... But now, Dr. Dawkins and other scientists who agreed to be interviewed say they are surprised — and in some cases, angered — to find themselves not in “Crossroads” but in a film with a new name and one that makes the case for intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. The film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” also has a different producer, Premise Media.
quote: Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she agreed to be filmed after receiving what she described as a deceptive invitation.
“I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than mine, and that’s fine,” Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”
quote: Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line,” Mr. Ruloff said.
That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.
Dr. Collins was not asked to participate in the film.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: "Expelled" documents how teachers and scientists alike are being ridiculed daily, denied tenure and even fired believing there is evidence of "design" in nature and challenging the current orthodoxy that life is entirely a result of random chance.
Dunno what theory of evolution "Expelled" is talking about, but the one I that I know of does not say that "life is entirely a result of random chance."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I feel like this is Ben Stine as Borat - "I trick you into saying what you not think you say! High Five!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Unlike other popular documentary films, "Expelled" isn't one-sided – it confronts scientists
Pardon me while I partake in some healthy belly laughs.
-------
Seriously, Ron, what's wrong with observing that most of the people in this country are simpletons who believe in fairy tales? It's indisputably true.
Plus, you would have to listen to one of the most annoying voices in the world. I have to mute the friggin' Visine commercials. I can't imagine a full movie. Ugh!
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Dunno what theory of evolution "Expelled" is talking about, but the one I that I know of does not say that "life is entirely a result of random chance." "
But that's the thing. They don't know, and they don't WANT to know.
And when they make such basic mistakes such as stating evolution as the exact opposite of what it is (kind of like, well, claiming the theory of gravity says that objects repel, not attract!) it kind of hints something about the reason they aren't taken seriously... perhaps something about their ignorance, and not some squelching of freedom of inquiry.
I almost feel sorry for the people who listen to people like this. I mean, when people are told outright lies, and things that contradict the theory of evolution, as if that is what it says (and what is a better example of a strawman argument then saying evolution says that life came to be completely randomly?) it kind of bugs me.
Why are they lying?
And further, why are they bearing false witness against their neighbors? If they care as much about their religion as they say, shouldn't they, you know, take the commandments of their god seriously?
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
Why don't you try to explain any misconceptions about evolution, rather then just repeat that what "their" idea of evolution is is completely opposite of the real evolution?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
For starters, real evolution isn't about random chance, it's directed by survival. Things which don't survive don't reproduce. Things which are better able to survive reproduce more successfully, and in any situation with limited resources - be that space, food, shelter, or whatever - only the most successful life continues on to the next generation.
Thus, evolution continually produces life forms which are the most fit to survive within their given niche. When pressures change, life adapts or dies out.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
All of my science teachers in high school and professors in college acknowledged that darwinism is a theory that just happens to be the best one we have right now. I've also never met a scientist that treated evolution as "the indisputable truth".
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
A big problem is that many people think "random chance" means "not designed" rather than "unpredictable and uncontrollable."
Also, BlackBlade beat me to it, but I think it bears repeating:
quote: According to the New York Times, Dawkins, Scott and other evolutionists are now claiming the film's producers deceived them into going on camera by hiding the "Intelligent Design" orientation of the film.
But Stein denies misleading anyone. "I don't remember a single person asking me what the movie was about," he told the Times.
Nice little switcheroo there.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I think they mean the life starting part. That a lightning strike just happened to hit close enough to some inert particles that just happened to have lined up in the right way for it to make a difference. Maybe it's far-fetched, maybe it's near inevitable. I don't know how many of the inert particles were there and how many lightning strikes went on.
The individual mutations are also random chance. True, only the beneficial ones survive, but the form of each species is the result of random chance. As far as we know from biology, anyway. We've already discussed how inadequate that was.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
(responding to Ginol_Enam )
It's very easy to learn. All you need to do is read.
Further, dealing with IDers, they make so many inaccurate claims that it's truly daunting to try to deal with them all.
This particular article is not saying much, so I can't respond to it specifically.
However, I HAVE tried, in my posts on the subject, to talk about what evolution actually is. I've not done as well as the scientists, because I am not a scientist (not yet at least) but I have tried.
Anyway... as per this specific thing, the claim I singled out and which you're speaking about, here, I'll do it:
Evolution is called natural selection for a reason. The statement about "the current orthodoxy that life is entirely a result of random chance" is utterly false. Life, the development of life, is not based on chance at all.
Let me explain:
While mutations, the basis of evolution (macroevolution, btw, simply being the accumulation of such mutations above the species level, essentially) happen randomly, due to mistakes in the replication of DNA (a fact you can witness in any lab, and which I can attest to personally, due to the genetic mistake which gave me eyes which each have a different pattern of multiple subtle colors, including hazel, blue and brown. Gotta love beneficial spelling errors!) these mistakes, these alterations, each have effects (when they occur in genes that actually do something, and not the vast majority of our genetic code, which is filled with pseudogenes, inoperative genes, duplicates and other junk that doesn't do anything).
Sometimes, the effects are neutral, like my subtly unusual eye color. Other times, many other times, the change is harmful, such as in the many genetic diseases and abnormalities we've all heard about.
Sometimes, however, these mutations are beneficial, such as the mutation in some humans that grants immunity to HIV.
Now, natural selection works on these changes, simply enough: Those changes which are harmful tend to either kill the person with them outright, or make reproduction more difficult in more indirect ways, such as by making the person or animal less able to compete in its environment, or more visible to predators, less able to escape, etc etc etc.
Those mutations, however, which give an advantage, that is, makes the individual possessing it more likely to survive until the time of reproduction, tend to be passed on to the children of this individual. Those new individuals, at least, those of those that do get the gene of their parents, would also have the same advantage over the rest of the species, and would be thus more likely to survive long enough to create offspring of their own.
The previous example of immunity to HIV and AIDS caused by a genetic mutation is a great one: If, in an area such as one of those African nations where huge percentages of people have AIDS, some of these people exist, well, they won't get it, and won't die of it, and their children, should they be lucky enough to ge tthe gene from their parent, won't either, and so on. Evenutally, since those who don't have the gene will be dying at a higher rate than those who do, this gene will eventually spread throughout the population. It has a distinct advantage in the current HIV-filled environment, and will allow the bearers of the new gene, over successive generations, to be more successful than those who do not have it.
That doesnt' sound like random chance to me, now does it?
Now, before the inevitable arguement that this is just microevolution, and not macroevolution, is given, I'll reiterate this fact: In science, macroevolution is simply evolution above the level of species. Speciation events, in which one subgroup of a species becomes a separate species through, generally, a succession of mutations within that group (which is usually isolated from the parent group, but now always, and the means of isolation can be all kinds of things, from the parent group all dying, to some individuals crossing a mountain range and getting stuck there, to individuals simply preferring members of their own subgroup to outsiders for one reason or another, etc etc etc) is a kind of macroevolution, though not the only kind.
Now... once two species cannot mate with each other anymore, beneficial mutations cannot spread from the one group to the other, but are limited to that one group. Those will build up over time, unless the entire group gets killed off for one reason or another (happens to 99% of species, or somewhere in that ballpark, at one point or another). Now, these mutations at the basic level of DNA can create all kinds of new things, over time and successive cumulative changes. There is no goal, however, that these mutations are leading towards. The watchmaker is blind, as Dawkins would say.
But, one may ask, what about the huge changes, the differences between gills and lungs, fins and feet, the jellyfish's diffused nervous system and the centralized human brain?
Well, here's the thing: mutations build upon past mutations. A change in a piece of DNA which causes the creation of a slightly different protein, which interacts with X, which interacts with Y, which interacts with Z, etc etc etc, to produce a photosensitive cell (these do exist in nature, and in many simple and sometimes complex forms [or else you wouldn't be reading this] and are created by DNA ordering the specific creation of specific proteins which combine in specific ways) where before the mutation was a cell with a different function, may be beneficial. A future mutation may, for simplistic example, cause the creation of several new photosensitive cells, or a change in the cell or cells already existing which makes them more efficient. Over time a mutation may occur which changes where they are located, say, or perhaps the shape of the collection of cells, sometimes not helpful, but sometimes, perhaps, in a way that benefits, or allows the capture of more photons, and a better ability to see. I could go on, but I hope you're seeing the point of this admittedly incredibly simple example. The mutations build upon past mutations. In fact, sometimes the chain of chemical causation caused by one of these spelling errors causes a change in a preexisting part, such as a bone, cilia or whatever, that allows it to do something different than what it did before.
When you remember that at our basic levels we are all a complex assemblage of interacting molecules, whose creation is caused by a vast multilayered series of chemical cause and effect, a small change at the beginning, can lead to a different effect. And if that new effect is beneficial to the survival of the individual, and then passes on, well... I hope you can see the chain of reasoning there.
Now, there IS that random factor that different mistakes will be made by different individuals, and we cannot predict, say, what mistake will be made. However, the current (and only current, not past or future) environment of the individuals or groups which have gained the new random mutation "decides" whether those with the mutation are at an advantage or disadvantage. That's not random at all. The thing certainly isn't, say, heading in a specific direction on purpose (except when we humans start directing it for our own means! Go us!) but random it is certainly not. It doesn't necessarily have to lead towards complex multicellular organisms, as you can see by all the millions of modern single cell organisms (which have evolved as long as we have) but they can. It can create forms that we haven't even dreamed of. And that's just using DNA, which is one of many possible languages of life. It's really quite marvelous.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Whatever random chance is involved, it is the least part of evolutionary theory. The input of genetic changes into the population could be entirely deterministic, and evolution would still happen.
Evolution is driven by a hugely multivariable fitness landscape.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Whatever random chance is involved, it is the least part of evolutionary theory."
At the very least, the random chance is what deals the cards evolution gets to work on. If different mutations occured, some other species would be here, and probably wouldn't be discussing the subject on the internet, to boot.
I wouldn't say it's the least part. But you are probably right about deterministic changes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This movie can't even hit the ground running because they had to dupe scientists into conversation.
Way to go, guys! Way to paint yourselves as totally stand-up folks looking for an honest dialogue! oh wait
quote:I think they mean the life starting part. That a lightning strike just happened to hit close enough to some inert particles that just happened to have lined up in the right way for it to make a difference. Maybe it's far-fetched, maybe it's near inevitable. I don't know how many of the inert particles were there and how many lightning strikes went on.
but that's not evolutionary theory at all.
that's abiogenesis.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Based on this article's description of the film, it doesn't sound like this film is going to go so far as to make a case for Intelligent Design. Rather, it sounds like this film is just about the dogmatism of the scientific establishment and how it "enforces" its theories on scientists who dissent.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I think almost all of you (except Tresopax) missed the key point here, brought to view in the article about the movie: the fact that there is an elitist scientific establishment that really does persecute any dissenters, as stated, for example:
"'Expelled' documents how teachers and scientists alike are being ridiculed daily, denied tenure and even fired believing there is evidence of "design" in nature and challenging the current orthodoxy that life is entirely a result of random chance."
This is not opinion, this is documentation of criminal behavior, actual persecution involving material harm being done to dissenters from something that is no more than a majority view. It is documentation of a betrayal of the most fundamental precept of science--open inquiry by open minds, willing to consider all the evidence, and follow the reasonable chain of evidence wherever it may lead.
Anyone who does not see the tremendous harm done to science and to all humanity by this, has no sense at all of what is important in this world. If you are not upset by the way people are being treated for merely suggesting there might be something to Intelligent Design, then what is wrong with you? The point is not whether you favor evolution or creation, the point is whether you countenance this kind of criminal behavior on the part of those who will apparently do anything to suppress dissent.
What is your response? Denial? Seek to divert your own attention and conscience by a rehearsal of your favorite arguments for whatever you believe about origins?
Let me quote again this paragraph:
"For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Shortly after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear-and-intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist fired. The attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation."
Do you admit that the treatment Dr. Sternberg received was criminal, yes or no? Do you admit that this kind of thing is destructive of science itself, and harms all humanity? Is this the kind of world that you want to live in, where things like this are allowed to go on as a matter of routine?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think it comes down to one issue. Should scientists lose their jobs when they stop using science in their research?
That seems to be the trend here. Not that these people are being kicked out and fired because they believe in god. It's because the science they are using is no longer evidence based...and therefore no longer science.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Javert, that is not true. The issue is that highly qualified, distinguished and conscientious scientists departed from the propaganda line you just recited, and suggested that there is actually good evidence-based science in Intelligent Design, that it is not good science to arbitrarily exclude this possible explanation for the evidence as it is actually encountered in the universe. Do you believe anyone who disagrees with you about what is VALID SCIENCE should have their careers and reputations ruined? How about killed if they will not submit to your opinion about what constitutes real science? How far are you willing to go? You sound like you are part of the problem. Is that where you really want to stand?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Yes, I suspect one of those "fairy tales" that many people tend to believe is that the scientific community is completely open-minded about its theories. The reality is that science as a community tends to strongly resist questioning of long accepted theories, and has always been this way. However, I would not go so far as to label that sort of behavior "criminal" in most cases. Dogmatic, yes - criminal, no.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A) Criminal behaviour is a pretty serious charge. Surely you can point at an actual case where someone was convicted of criminal behaviour if this is as widespread as you say. AFAIK, no one was convicted in the Sternburg case. Is it your assertion that the legal system is also engaged in "supression"?
B) I will requote the article:
quote: Mr. Ruloff also cited Dr. Francis S. Collins, a geneticist who directs the National Human Genome Research Institute and whose book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” (Simon & Schuster, 2006), explains how he came to embrace his Christian faith. Dr. Collins separates his religious beliefs from his scientific work only because “he is toeing the party line,” Mr. Ruloff said.
That’s “just ludicrous,” Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are “a bit puzzled” by his faith, he said, “they are generally very respectful.” He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.
Dr. Collins was not asked to participate in the film.
I find it amusing that the producer of the film completely misconstrues the views of someone that is cited. Collins is far from lying low. He has written a book about his beliefs and has debated with Dawkins about his beliefs in Time IIRC.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:there is actually good evidence-based science in Intelligent Design,
Then why is there a decided lack of peer-reviewed studies on it? All the ID literature I have seen is merely attacking evolution, not establishing a new theory.
But I am open minded and willing to be corrected. Show me ID literature that actually puts forth a scientific theory that has predictable outcomes and evidence for its correctness, and I will look at it fairly.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Unlike other popular documentary films, "Expelled" isn't one-sided – it confronts...
This film in a nutshell.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Well, Collins has certainly been ostracized from the scientific community. I mean, he only headed up the Human Genome Project. If he had just been an atheist, maybe he would be, hmm, what is a higher position than that? I hope someday I can be as ostracized as him.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Collins headed up the Human Genome Project before he wrote his book about his faith in 2006.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Collins converted to evangelical Christianity during graduate school and he did not keep that a secret.
He remains the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, despite his book and whatever "conspiracy" there may be.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:How about killed if they will not submit to your opinion about what constitutes real science?
I didn't notice this until now.
[sarcasm]
Yes Ron, that's exactly what I want to do.
[/sarcasm]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You sound like you are part of the problem.
Actually, I think he sounds like he's disputing the movie's claim that the problem exists.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Javert, that is not true. The issue is that highly qualified, distinguished and conscientious scientists departed from the propaganda line you just recited, and suggested that there is actually good evidence-based science in Intelligent Design, that it is not good science to arbitrarily exclude this possible explanation for the evidence as it is actually encountered in the universe.
That's just the thing, Ron. They suggested. And little else. They never offered any credible proof of their claims.
And, in case you forgot what their claims were, it wasn't "a possible explanation," it was the conclusion that evidence insists that it is impossible for life to exist in its present form without a designer. Note the tactical italics.
Problem was, they was verrrrry shorthanded when it came to providing actual evidence of this claim.
Science is, as has been noted for a long time, a publish-or-perish world. Intelligent Design didn't even publish. They just stuck their faith behind certain 'renegade' researchers like Behe, who turned out to be providing easily disproved proofs.
Currently accepted theories, all of them, are based on proof. Some people are so intent on believing that Intelligent Design got shafted (because they don't want to acknowledge why it's actually such a dud) that they forget that Science isn't incapable of factoring in new information to change worldviews, and is in fact dependent upon it.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Okay:
"The issue is that highly qualified, distinguished and conscientious scientists departed from the propaganda line you just recited, and suggested that there is actually good evidence-based science in Intelligent Design"
Cite your sources, please. Which ones, how many, where did they get their degrees and what peer-reviewed work have they done?
"that it is not good science to arbitrarily exclude this possible explanation for the evidence as it is actually encountered in the universe."
Funny how I've never seen it, and I've been reading up on many ID websites, and reading up on the theories of Behe and Dembski. Where is this good evidence that you claim is being arbitrarily excluded? Who's stated it, which evidence are they using, where is this evidence, and what papers have they written?
"Do you believe anyone who disagrees with you about what is VALID SCIENCE should have their careers and reputations ruined?"
Again: Cite your sources. Which people, how many, what degrees do they have, where did they get them, what work idd they do, when did they make the statements you claim, and what changed after that?
"How about killed if they will not submit to your opinion about what constitutes real science?"
Killed? Killed!? I... oh, never mind.
As for science, what, pray tell, do you think science is, Ron? Please, tell us your definition of science. What you think the scientific method entails. I'd love to know your thoughts.
Go ahead. Back up your statements. Please. Show us the evidence for this conspiricy. Show us all the lives destroyed. Show us this convincing evidence I've seen nowhere in my looks at what you guys are putting out.
Please. I'm waiting.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: "For example, Stein meets Richard Sternberg, a double Ph.D. biologist who allowed a peer-reviewed research paper describing the evidence for intelligence in the universe to be published in the scientific journal Proceedings. Shortly after publication, officials from the National Center for Science Education and the Smithsonian Institution, where Sternberg was a research fellow, began a coordinated smear-and-intimidation campaign to get the promising young scientist fired. The attack on scientific freedom was so egregious that it prompted a congressional investigation."
Do you admit that the treatment Dr. Sternberg received was criminal, yes or no? Do you admit that this kind of thing is destructive of science itself, and harms all humanity? Is this the kind of world that you want to live in, where things like this are allowed to go on as a matter of routine?
Publishing an article advocating Intelligent Design at this point is about as egregious as publishing a paper on geocentrism. Scientists have had decades to come up with alternative theories to explain the data for evolution, yet none have stuck. The time for Intelligent Design to be debated seriously was decades ago, not today. The debate already occurred and ID was revealed to be unscientific. If someone wants to publish a scientific paper on ID they better be bringing some extraordinary new discovery to the table because the overwhelming consensus by scientists it that, assuming our current data is correct, the theory of evolution is the only logical interpretation of our data. There are two main options to go about falsifying the theory of evolution. The first is to discover new evidence that blows the theory out of the water (ex: demonstrating that humans actually existed before apes or something like that). The second is to demonstrate how the current data is wrong. This is extremely difficult to do and I can assure you that scientists are sick of hearing the same old junk about potential problems with radiological dating and the like.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
My question is this:
Shall we be forced to consider phrenology again too? I mean, there must be a conspiricy, since anyone who claims it to be true is shunned in the scientific community.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I quite like the idea of an anti-phrenology conspiracy in the science world. What next, the medical world shuns trepanners?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: but that's not evolutionary theory at all.
that's abiogenesis.
I doubt most laymen know the difference. (I certainly didn't.) Again, biology is where this stuff gets covered in high school, and they don't do a very good job of it. Most people flat out don't know any better.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
People better know the difference if they're trying to level charges against evolutionary theory but are really attacking a concept which evolutionary theory has no involvement in.
This is because it makes them look like idiots if they're trying to mount a 'scientific' criticism of evolutionary theory by pointing out the flaws in an unrelated postulate. Sure, a layman may not know the difference, but this is one of those things which has been pointed out time and time again to those who, say, argue the point on the internet. I think I've done it at least four times here.
Of course, people are still using likes like "it's only a theory, not a fact" after being told over and over again why that's stupid too. Use of either makes someone look like a person who isn't interested in making a credible attack against evolution but are just sure they're right anyway.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I must say, the but about "That's not evolution, it's abiogenesis" has always struck me as rather weak. Granting that they are not the same thing, if you don't have a theory for abiogenesis, you're going to have to insert a god or other creator. To quibble that abiogenesis is not strictly speaking evolution is just semantics; it's all part of the same debate. Either we have a naturalistic explanation for life or we don't. If we do, it includes abiogenesis.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
People hear about evolution in high school and it sounds ridiculous. Their parents tell them it's silly. Their church tells them it goes against God. Why would they look into it very much?
Wasn't it you who told me the subject doesn't get covered in detail until graduate level courses? You would have to specifically go looking for information on it, and why would most people bother? The way the subject gets handled, you almost have to be a believer to find out it isn't silly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:To quibble that abiogenesis is not strictly speaking evolution is just semantics
Uh, not really.
Evolutionary theory is not a mechanism for explaining the origins of life without a designer. That's not just semantics unless you're talking about the semantics where A is not B.
A naturalistic explanation for the origins of life is different than a naturalistic explanation for observed patterns of species development. Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to know how life was originally created so if you're criticizing evolutionary theory by attacking its 'hypothetical postulate of spontaneous life generation' then you're attacking something that evolutionary theory doesn't even involve itself with.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The evolutionary scientists need better PR. If they came out and told people that, maybe with little tv spots like the get kids to read ones, we could all get along better.
I think most Christians feel evolution is meant to convince their kids that there's no God. If it was approached with a clear explanation that God is far beyond the scope of science and evolution doesn't really care if he's behind it or not, I don't think people would feel as threatened by it. I don't think most people realize it's just a mechanic to measure and predict change.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I quite like the idea of an anti-phrenology conspiracy in the science world. What next, the medical world shuns trepanners?
Interestingly, after setting aside trepanning and leeches, the medical community came back around to using those practices (when appropriate) once they were shown to be medically helpful.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
AvidReader, the reason why so many Christians feel that evolution is meant to convince their kids that there is no God is that everyone who supports evolution seems bound to force everyone to accept the purely philosophical premises of atheism in order to be considered scientific in their thinking. Belief in a Creator is certainly just as reasonable an alternative. To find evidence of ordered design in the universe most reasonably implies an Intelligent Designer. This is not just religious dogma, this is sane reason.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:To find evidence of ordered design in the universe most reasonably implies an Intelligent Designer.
Of course it does. And when they find that evidence, they can start calling ID science.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:the reason why so many Christians feel that evolution is meant to convince their kids that there is no God is that everyone who supports evolution seems bound to force everyone to accept the purely philosophical premises of atheism in order to be considered scientific in their thinking.
'everyone' who supports evolution? Hefty use of an absolute in your claim, there.
quote:To find evidence of ordered design in the universe most reasonably implies an Intelligent Designer. This is not just religious dogma, this is sane reason.
Great. Find evidence for ordered design.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"the reason why so many Christians feel that evolution is meant to convince their kids that there is no God is that everyone who supports evolution seems bound to force everyone to accept the purely philosophical premises of atheism in order to be considered scientific in their thinking. "
What an astounding statement, a use not just of an absurd absolute that hints at your lack of knowledge of what scientists actually believe, but a claim that is in direct opposition to the reality you claim to represent.
Considering that, from the studies I'm checking, 40% of biologists, physicists and mathmeticians believe in God... somehow, I mean somehow, I have this hint of an idea that maybe, you know, your idea that to be a scientist people are forced into the philosophical realm of atheism is, uh, I dunno... false.
Also, about bearing false witness... (in this case, claiming that scientists force people into accepting atheism in order to be called scientific, which is, while a less evil lie than the blood libel, still an evil falsehood, as seen by actual data) wasn't there something in your Bible about that? You know, something telling you not to do it, somehwere important?
I dunno... maybe you should go and check it out, because I could swear that it was one of the Ten Commandments, one of those things your god told you Not To Do.
But yet here you are doing it.
My honest question is: why? If you care so much about your religion, why are you breaking the commandments your God personally wrote to you, Himself?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Random and unhelpful aside:
quote: That doesnt' sound like random chance to me, now does it?
How should we know what it sounds like to you? Sorry, it just made me giggle. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OMegabyte, that is the irony--probably a majority of scientists say they believe in God, and yet they have been brainwashed into thinking that they must cast aside any thought of divine intervention, refuse even to consider the possibility of there being an Intelligent Designer--on pain of destruction of their career--in short, operate on the a priori assumptions of atheism, in order to be considered "properly" scientific in their thinking.
What is this nonsense about there being little or no evidence of intelligent design in the universe? Where is there NOT evidence of ordered design? Notice that in the post that began this thread, reference was made to a scientist being sacked because he allowed to be published an article that showed there was evidence of ordered design in the universe.
If the self-annointed protectors of true, "objective" science will so severely retaliate against any publication that goes against their dogma, it is little wonder that some people will ask where is the evidence of ordered design. It is being actively suppressed! But despite that, anyone who is SANE can see that the universe displays a high level of order, from the cosmic level down to the level of DNA.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so self-deceived as to deny this.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Notice that in the post that began this thread, reference was made to a scientist being sacked because he allowed to be published an article that showed there was evidence of ordered design in the universe.
Change the word "showed" to the word "claimed".
If this evidence exists, why is it not to be found in Behe's book? Surely scientists can't control the publishing world. And yet all Behe's book shows are criticisms of evolution that have been answered by other scientists.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:But despite that, anyone who is SANE can see that the universe displays a high level of order, from the cosmic level down to the level of DNA.
I just knew we didn't live in the same universe.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I quite like the idea of an anti-phrenology conspiracy in the science world. What next, the medical world shuns trepanners?
Interestingly, after setting aside trepanning and leeches, the medical community came back around to using those practices (when appropriate) once they were shown to be medically helpful.
That's kind of like giving acupuncture credit for discovering the use of needles in health care because now they are useful for draining boils or sewing up wounds.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"OMegabyte, that is the irony--probably a majority of scientists say they believe in God, and yet they have been brainwashed into thinking that they must cast aside any thought of divine intervention, refuse even to consider the possibility of there being an Intelligent Designer--on pain of destruction of their career--in short, operate on the a priori assumptions of atheism, in order to be considered "properly" scientific in their thinking."
Here it is. It seems, and I could be wrong, that your problem is actually with the scientific method. Your problem is with the search for natural explanations, for answers other than "God did it."
You say they're being brainwashed to cast aside notions of divine intervention... but that's not what's going on at all. It's because science is based on the premise that when something happens, there's a natural explanation. That when something happens, it's caused by something, a cause we can go and see for ourselves.
You say people are being forced to refuse to look at the idea of intelligent design on pain of destruction of their careers. You are failing to see a rather intersting distinction.
The way science works is this: Anyone who makes a claim is asked to back it up with evidence. Anyone. Everyone. Every single person, every single paper, is rigorously critiqued by a group of peers, who try to see every possible flaw in the paper, in the arguement. Any arguement, any at all, requires evidence to back it up.
Intelligent design has given none. No actual, physical, falsifiable evidence, no claim that could be proven. It has further made claims that have been shown to be false. The idea of irreducible complexity, for example, has been throuroughly debunked. It's been torn apart, because the arguement as given by Behe simply does not work.
Now, let me give an example: If you went into the scientific community claiming that phrenology, that is, studying the bumps on your head allows you to determine a person's personality, using the evidence phrenology had going for it, you'd be laughed at.
Not because scientists are forced to not consider it's truth or else be thrown out: But because phrenology does not have any positive evidence, and in fact has vast amounts of evidence speaking to it NOT being true.
The person would be laughed at not because of their theory. No, let me make this clear: The person suggesting phrenology today would be laughed at not because the theory has been rejected, but instead, simply enough, because that person is showing, if they use the historical evidence for phrenology, that they are very poor scientists, that is, they are doing spectacularly poor science, ignoring the evidence against him, using debunked arguements, and showing a dearth of critical thinking skills.
The reason intelligent design is laughed at, that people who use it may not be taken seriously, is exactly the same reason phrenology is not taken seriously: The evidence clearly suggests that it is not the case, and the so-called positive evidence has been shown to be faulty. If you are supporting it in the manner, say, that Behe does, using his arguement for example, you are showing your lack of critical thinking skills, your ignorance of evidence, your lack of understanding of the mechanisms involved, any/all of the above.
Now, to continue dealing with your statements:
"What is this nonsense about there being little or no evidence of intelligent design in the universe? Where is there NOT evidence of ordered design?"
Order. There is obvious evidence of order. Our very existence as a system is order. But evidence of order does not necessarily imply evidence of design. To assume it is would be fallacy.
"Notice that in the post that began this thread, reference was made to a scientist being sacked because he allowed to be published an article that showed there was evidence of ordered design in the universe."
Javert's claim is a sufficient reply to this statement. To quote him:
"Change the word "showed" to the word "claimed".
To paraphrase the rest: if the evidence exists, why is it not found in the books of intelligent design people? Behe, Dembski et al? As Javert said, surely scientists aren't in control of the publishing world too.
"If the self-annointed protectors of true, "objective" science will so severely retaliate against any publication that goes against their dogma, it is little wonder that some people will ask where is the evidence of ordered design."
The only retaliation is the same kind of retaliation they would give to someone claiming the earth is flat (which is what the Bible claims it is, btw), or that prhenology works. In other words, the rejection of an assertion that has no evidence to back it up. As I and Javert siad: Why are the books of this evidence being rejected by this conspiricy not being published?
Further, your conspiracy theory, that the evidence is being actively suppressed, not only does not fit the facts, but is the same claim made by UFO enthusists, psychics, mediums, ghost hunters, homeopathy fans, etc. You have such fine company.
Because science has rejected their hypotheses, they claim there is a conspiricy agianst the truth. But how much more likely is it that, actually, the people who claim them to be true are just unwilling to admit facts, and in order to protect their beliefs, are making up conspiricies that don't exist?
"It is being actively suppressed!"
Surely the scientists aren't suppressing the publishing of the books as well. Considering that the walls of my book store are filled with new age claims of psychics, UFologists, etc, I have my doubts.
"But despite that, anyone who is SANE can see that the universe displays a high level of order, from the cosmic level down to the level of DNA."
It displays order. But order does not necessarily imply design. Your logical fallacy is unfortunate, and hints that you are not as sane as you think.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I quite like the idea of an anti-phrenology conspiracy in the science world. What next, the medical world shuns trepanners?
Interestingly, after setting aside trepanning and leeches, the medical community came back around to using those practices (when appropriate) once they were shown to be medically helpful.
That's kind of like giving acupuncture credit for discovering the use of needles in health care because now they are useful for draining boils or sewing up wounds.
How so? Leeches are currently being used in plastic surgery to drain blood congestion, which is the same use as before. The needles you reference are being used for different purposes, not the same.
I take the current use of leeches and drilling holes in the skull (when appropriate) -- even though these uses were set aside for a time -- as a heartening note. It shows that medicine does indeed reevaluate practices based on the outcomes yielded, not just on preconceived ideology about what is and is not worthwhile. [the latter being what I take Ron Lambert to be claiming about science in general]
Of course, medicine as a field does not do this enough. Hopefully the current push for "evidence-based medicine" will help address that.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Tom: Thanks for saying what I did, in a much more concise way.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Leeches are currently being used in plastic surgery to drain blood congestion, which is the same use as before.
Their original use was generic bloodletting, which was believed to cure everything from obesity to mental illness. Their use was based on superstition and pseudoscience regarding "humors" and had little relationship to current usage, except in that in both cases leaches were sucking blood.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: My question is this:
Shall we be forced to consider phrenology again too? I mean, there must be a conspiricy, since anyone who claims it to be true is shunned in the scientific community.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Phrenology was used to 'prove' that people of African descent were intellectually inferior and other forms of racism. Reviving the theory of Phrenology would probably outrage Al Sharpton.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Leeches are currently being used in plastic surgery to drain blood congestion, which is the same use as before.
Their original use was generic bloodletting, which was believed to cure everything from obesity to mental illness. Their use was based on superstition and pseudoscience regarding "humors" and had little relationship to current usage, except in that in both cases leaches were sucking blood.
Leeches were not only used for generic bloodletting. There were also some sophisticated physicians using them to remove specific areas of congestion of blood (as in the the blood stasis dermatopathology of heart failure) and particular areas of toxin accumulation (cellulitis, snakebites). If you are interested in specific references, this was the subject of a paper I did for a History of Medicine course, and I can try to dig it up again. Some of the original texts had to be translated from the Latin (e.g., Galen), but many are already available in translation.
I would certainly agree that the explanation of the mechanism behind how leeches worked in some of the extant documents we have from that period is far from the explanation we have now. I wouldn't agree that the physical indications for that usage always differed from the indications used now.
Do you not find it interesting or relevant to the discussion that an intervention which had completely fallen out of favor was reassessed and is current use, or is it just that you wish to clarify what you believe that use to have been? (Or something else? *interested)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Do you not find it interesting or relevant to the discussion that an intervention which had completely fallen out of favor was reassessed and is current use, or is it just that you wish to clarify what you believe that use to have been?
I'm wary of the suggestion that ancient practices are somehow valuable solely because they are ancient. I also dislike the suggestion that ancient practitioners were "on to something" because they broadly applied a treatment which is only truly valuable in more specific situations.
I'd be interested to know to what extent that the pioneers of modern medical leech treatments were guided by the type of research you describe. I'd be surprised if the previous usage was not incidental to the current usage.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Do you not find it interesting or relevant to the discussion that an intervention which had completely fallen out of favor was reassessed and is current use, or is it just that you wish to clarify what you believe that use to have been?
I'm wary of the suggestion that ancient practices are somehow valuable solely because they are ancient. I also dislike the suggestion that ancient practitioners were "on to something" because they broadly applied a treatment which is only truly valuable in more specific situations.
Ah. If that is what you thought my intent was in making the original comment, then you are mistaken. I can understand a desire to hold forth against this for the benefit of other readers, but as for my intent, I'll redirect you to my original response to you: [quotation added]
quote:I take the current use of leeches and drilling holes in the skull (when appropriate) -- even though these uses were set aside for a time -- as a heartening note. It shows that medicine does indeed reevaluate practices based on the outcomes yielded, not just on preconceived ideology about what is and is not worthwhile. [the latter being what I take Ron Lambert to be claiming about science in general]
Of course, medicine as a field does not do this enough. Hopefully the current push for "evidence-based medicine" will help address that.
----------
quote:I'd be interested to know to what extent that the pioneers of modern medical leech treatments were guided by the type of research you describe. I'd be surprised if the previous usage was not incidental to the current usage.
Would this be a casual interest, or would the results affect your opinion on something in a substantive way?
I would not think better or worse of you for either, but it would affect how much energy I would put into addressing it, just because it would be a hassle for me. A hassle I'd willingly take on if it would make substantive difference (and if I were assured of this in advance), but if it is more idle discussion among friends, I likely would not bother. My time is short these days.
------
Also edited to add: I also seem to recall that possibly you and I have had some contention about details on other matters about which I had thought we would be in general agreement. I don't know if it is that I rub you the wrong way, or if I am confusing you with someone else, but if it is more a matter or working out irritations between us rather than the content, I think there might be more productive ways to do it than my haring off into the netherworlds of my old floppies.
(No untoward puns, please. *grin)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Would this be a casual interest, or would the results affect your opinion on something in a substantive way?
I'd be quite interested, but I wouldn't ask that anyone go through any hassle just to satisfy my interests. I appreciate the offer though.
quote:I also seem to recall that possibly you and I have had some contention about details on other matters about which I had thought we would be in general agreement.
Hmm... I'm terrible at associating names with... anything, really. So, while it's possible that this is true in the context of some particular thread(s) out there, I don't have any recollection of it. So, I guess the short answer is that no, there's nothing to work out. Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe God created the universe according to his own plan.
I believe God's blueprint for the universe is Evolution.
The anti-evolution people have cast God in a human light. They think of every aspect of God in human terms, and consequently can't believe that someone as infinite as God, has a plan that extends beyond the imaginations of man.
Science simply documents God plan and methods, I've never seen a conflict between the two except among people who stood to gain substantially and financially from promoting a 'man' base intelligent design theory.
Or so says I.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:To quibble that abiogenesis is not strictly speaking evolution is just semantics
Evolutionary theory is not a mechanism for explaining the origins of life without a designer.(...)
Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to know how life was originally created so if you're criticizing evolutionary theory by attacking its 'hypothetical postulate of spontaneous life generation' then you're attacking something that evolutionary theory doesn't even involve itself with.
Yes, yes, that's true for evolutionary theory strictly defined. But it's also totally irrelevant. The debate is not about evolution, exactly; it is about whether we can explain the universe, including life, naturalistically. In other words, do we need a god, or not? And abiogenesis absolutely is a part of that debate. "Evolutionary theory" is just a convenient shorthand for "Modern biology", which certainly does include abiogenesis. You can certainly rail against the inexactness of this usage, but you'll make yourself look like a pedant. Worse, a pedant who can't answer the question asked, to wit, "How does life start?" Now we most certainly can answer this, if not with such certainty as we have for strict evolution, but this disappears when we quibble about what is or isn't part of evolution.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"I believe in Intelligent Design. I believe God created the universe according to his own plan."
Based on your next few statements, I'd peg you as a theistic evolutionist, on the spectrum from flat earther to philosophical materialistic evolutionist (I'm at the latter far end)
"I believe God's blueprint for the universe is Evolution."
Well, stating something unfalsifiable is, I figure, nearly infinitely better than stating blatant falsehoods. No biggie there, plenty of scientists (Ron Lambert's claims notwithstanding) agree with you.
"The anti-evolution people have cast God in a human light. They think of every aspect of God in human terms, and consequently can't believe that someone as infinite as God, has a plan that extends beyond the imaginations of man."
I like this. If God is real, I imagine that would be true.
"Science simply documents God plan and methods, I've never seen a conflict between the two except among people who stood to gain substantially and financially from promoting a 'man' base intelligent design theory.
Or so says I."
You and I see something similar. It's not even necessarily financial. At least, the thing they gain is a feeling of security, of power... of knowing, of certainty, in a world that is anything but. A pity it's a false certainty, contradictory with evidence (I'm talking about believing evolution didn't happen, not whether God is real or not, btw)
If you'll forgive a tangent: Those people who evangelize, asking if I know where I'm going after death, for example. I respond, that I'm "fairly certain" of where I'm going. They smirk, and ask me if I want to be absolutely certain.
The arrogance! Absolute certainty, in a world where nothing can be rigorously proven... the most I'll ever say, or SHOULD ever say, at least (I sometimes fail to make myself clear), the most positive I could ever be, is fairly certain.
That is, fairly certain that there is no Santa Claus, for example. Fairly certain that when I talk to my mother while looking at her, she's actually there and not a trick of the mind.
Anyway, my point is... that kind of certainty, to believe something so absolutely that you can admit no doubt to it (and of course, having no doubt that you are righteous, and will be given a grand reward by your god), is something unnatural. Something... foolish, if you forgive me. Something potentially dangerous. If you are absolutely certian you are right, and consider no possibility of your being wrong, in any manner, regardless of any evidence for or against... such a mindset is a threat to us all, regardless of the particulars of the person's beliefs.
To be honest: I could be wrong about everything. In fact, most of the things I think I know ARE incorrect, or not quite right, or in any of a number of other ways false. Arguements agianst my position, especially well thought out ones, make me go "hmm... could I be mistaken? I'm not so certain those points are bad..."
But even so: I'm not going to hold myself in an intellectual cage of dysfunctional uncertainty because my knowledge is fallible, my reasoning in many cases flawed. The goal is to improve, and find the mistakes and fix them where I can, to hone my logical faculties and see which arguements work, which ones do not. I'm still going to act, and still going to debate using my beliefs. It's caused me to change positions many times before, that process of discussion: Why not again, and again and again?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
KoM:
"Now we most certainly can answer this, if not with such certainty as we have for strict evolution, "
Yeah. We can. Not as rigorously. Not as clearly. But from the things I've read, we can answer it, if not to perfect satisfaction yet.
And until we do, people will use the fact that we still have questions, haven't solved all the problems, as ammunition against us (They don't know, see, look at all of this! It must be irriducibly complex! God must have done it! It oculdn't have started, see, even they can't answer THIS piece! [which is promptly answered and solved a year or two later, as tends to happen.]"
Of course, evne when all the questions are answered satisfactorally, they'll just stop saying we can't answer it, but just say we're lying. For them, as I've seen, nothing is good enough, they always either make up new things ("You found a transitional form, called C, between species A and B? Well, now you have TWO transitional forms to account for now, the one between A and C, and the one between C and B!") or simply make something up randomly out of nothing ("you have a transitional form? But it's a complete creature in and of itself! It doesn't have any incomplete parts, like a half formed and useless wing, or etc!" Btw, this is an actual arguement I've seen, on ID websites... hinting how little they know of how evolution actually works, that is, making alterations on preexisting parts to make new ones)
Nothing will ever be enough. Even showing them happen, if we eventually find a way to easily show the creation of a significantly large enough new feature, someway, somehow,. They'll just turn around, close their eyes and put their hands to their ears and go "I won't look at your lies!" That's what most creationists I know, not necessarily on this board I mean, do when I try to show evidence to counter a claim of theirs.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The worst part is that even if all life can absolutely be explained with no gaps or holes without the presence of God, that still doesn't mean he isn't behind it. Evolution and abiogenesis and whatever other sciences are involved can never tackle the question of God. There's no reason why Christians (or any other religion though you never seem to hear them complaining) and evolution can't peacefully coexist. It's kind of sad, really.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BlueWizard: Intelligent Design, as promoted by its big advocates, is not merely that (and getting people to think it is is one of their big triumphs). Intelligent Design, as promoted by its advocates, is the notion that there is scientific proof some super-powerful being must be/have been involved in evolution on earth.
That is very different from believing evolution happens because of God (but perhaps through a wholly discoverable natural mechanism), which is more commonly called theistic evolution.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yes, yes, that's true for evolutionary theory strictly defined. But it's also totally irrelevant.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If someone is criticizing evolutionary by saying "it claims that life was not created by God" then they're incorrect.
That has an exactly zero percent of being irrelevant if I bring it up. It's a factual thing.
Here you're saying that evolutionary theory is shorthand for modern biology (it's not; modern biology is a much more expansive term) and that it necessarily includes abiogenesis (it doesn't). you can call me a pedant for pointing out these factual innacuracies but you're wrong.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I'd be quite interested, but I wouldn't ask that anyone go through any hassle just to satisfy my interests. I appreciate the offer though.
I appear to be dreaming about it now, having spent a good bit of the night writing out an exam about bloodletting on scraps of toilet paper under the stern gaze of Sherlock Holmes. *grin
It has piqued my interest for my own self, so I'll go digging once Canadian Thanksgiving is over.
quote:Hmm... I'm terrible at associating names with... anything, really. So, while it's possible that this is true in the context of some particular thread(s) out there, I don't have any recollection of it. So, I guess the short answer is that no, there's nothing to work out.
Oh, good. Because I quite like you.
However, I am also aware that I've grown terribly rigid, crotchety, and Set In My Ways over the last couple of years, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'd rubbed you (or others) raw. I'm working on it, including attempting sea kayaking, a book club, and inviting the neighbors over for coffee -- all social activities which are far outside my normal routine.
I hope the edges get worn off a bit and that I get bent back and forth enough to break down the frozen parts.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I thought that one of the big ID triumphs was convincing people that science could say something about God one way or the other rather than it simply being a system of tested hypotheses from which we draw our own metaphysical conclusions.
[ October 07, 2007, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
To Bob:
Can't they both be?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
You know, I think it would be really cool if they would bring back maggots for debriding necrotic tissue. You'd have to be careful to get just the right species (some might eat the living tissue as well) but it seems so much more elegant than cutting .
*wanders off to bid on a bohemian ear spoon on ebay*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Egad. If I ever develop any quantity of necrotic tissue, I warn you, you stay well away. *shudder*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Seriously, Ron, what's wrong with observing that most of the people in this country are simpletons who believe in fairy tales? It's indisputably true.
Well, the sneer inherent in such an 'observation' is pretty irritating. Particularly when those doing the sneering behave as though it shouldn't matter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In my case, I make the observation only when I think it should matter: namely, when I think the world would be improved by a reduction in the number of fairy tales believed.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: You know, I think it would be really cool if they would bring back maggots for debriding necrotic tissue. You'd have to be careful to get just the right species (some might eat the living tissue as well) but it seems so much more elegant than cutting .
You mean like they did in southeast Asia to treat jungle rot in WWII? Actually I think it was more common to put their limbs in water and allow fish to do the same job.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was referring to the sneer, not the overall topic question. Particularly when those doing the sneering behave as though the sneer should be simply ignored.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Yes, yes, that's true for evolutionary theory strictly defined. But it's also totally irrelevant.
I have no idea what you're talking about. If someone is criticizing evolutionary by saying "it claims that life was not created by God" then they're incorrect.
That has an exactly zero percent of being irrelevant if I bring it up. It's a factual thing.
Here you're saying that evolutionary theory is shorthand for modern biology (it's not; modern biology is a much more expansive term) and that it necessarily includes abiogenesis (it doesn't).
It is, as used by the likes of Ron. And since 'the likes of Ron' includes most of the population of the US, clinging to the strict scientific usage just defines you out of the debate. Which would be bad.
Look you; if someone wants to use 'evolutionary theory' to include abiogenesis, why bother to correct them? It's not strictly correct, but it is an understandable and consistent usage. The question of interest, after all, is whether we need a god to explain life. In that debate, abiogenesis is obviously highly important. To sidestep the question by saying "That's not part of evolution" just makes it look as though you can't answer, which is very bad, especially when ou actually can. Please, concentrate on the meat of the matter, not trifling questions of definition. We are in the right, and can win this debate on any battlefield whatsoever; so don't make the battlefield the trifling one of just what should be included in "evolutionary theory". After all, even if by some miracle you should win, the creationists would just say, "All right, fine, what we've got problems with is evoluationary theory and abiogenesis."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:if someone wants to use 'evolutionary theory' to include abiogenesis, why bother to correct them?
Because evolutionary theory tends to have broader acceptance than abiogenesis and the two are lumped together only for the purpose of gaining a rhetorical advantage. Also, conceptually, there is a big difference between the two. Abiogenesis may be an extremely unlikely, damn we got lucky, only happened one time, event. However, once life exists, reproduces (imperfectly) and is exposed to selective pressures, evolution is inevitable. By grouping the two, the uncertainty of the mechanisms of abiogensis can be framed as a weakness in evolutionary theory.
So lumping the more speculative science of abiogenesis in with the much more well established science of evolution is both tactically and strategically a bad idea for those who are debating evolution in the public sphere. We should not let the creationists frame the debate in that way.
The fact that a common use of the term evolution includes abiogenesis shouldn't be sufficient reason to accept that definition any more than any other erroneous common understanding of science. Science defines the terms of science and science should address the misconceptions, even if they are held by many people. Another common definition of evolution includes the concept that "species change into other species by accident" but I doubt you'd suggest that we not emphasize that random processes are only one component of the theory of evolution to prevent ourselves from being "defined out of the debate."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It is, as used by the likes of Ron. And since 'the likes of Ron' includes most of the population of the US, clinging to the strict scientific usage just defines you out of the debate.
Scientific truth is now defined by popular opinion and I missed the memo apparently.
quote: To sidestep the question by saying "That's not part of evolution" just makes it look as though you can't answer.
.. yeah, no. There is no reason why this sort of honest dialogue and establishment of criteria is not a good idea. People trying to claim to me that evolutionary theory is inherently 'saying that life originated without god' are wrong and I lose nothing -- nor am I sidestepping anything -- to point out that this notion is incredibly incorrect.
Even TalkOrigins (which is also pro-abiogenesis) sees the importance in pointing out the mistake in conflating the two.
quote:The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: That's not random at all. The thing certainly isn't, say, heading in a specific direction on purpose (except when we humans start directing it for our own means! Go us!) but random it is certainly not.
OMB, I think you have made a very interesting point here. Humans, as intelligent as we think we are, have been directing the course of evolution for quite some time (although in a very limited fashion), for our own means. This is a well known fact. Extapolating this, a being of superintelligence and power (let's call this being "God" for simplicity's sake), very well could direct evolution on a grande scale in order to achieve his means. Therefore, for me, and may other likeminded believers, there is no conflict between the existence of God and the therory of evolution.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Of course, we have evidence that humans have been directing evolution in some cases. Especially now, sincewe record it in detail when we tinker with it, what we tinker with, and what our goals are, etc.
Now, the evidence for a super-intelligent being in the past directing evolution? Not so much.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Now, until recently, humanity wasn't doing it so much on purpose. But in all reality, we were/are the selective pressure being placed on the species such as dogs, wheat, cows and maize which caused their change to their current forms.
We're part of the environment. We are, for the other species, a serious selection pressure. Of course, in truth, the selective pressures on species include other species, other members of the same species, climate, catastrophes and many other things.
While we know that we're a selective pressure on many animals today, and now we're causing evolution to occur on our own terms, since we are understanding it well enough to do so, we don't have any evidence that a super-intelligent entity was doing any gene splicing a billion years ago.
In fact, looking at the genetics of the different species, I imagine it'd be pretty easy to see if an entity was doing, say, gene splicing in the past. Because then we'd see stuff similarly weird as the jellyfish genes placed into mice. We don't see that sort of thing, the splicing of genes that may be beneficial or do weird things from an animal or plant that's definitely not close genetically, to another animal that could use it, except when we do it.
Instead, animals of close relation have similar genes, the farther away they are the more different, and we can even estimate when specific mutations occured, based on which of our relatives have them, how close they are to us, etc. The mutations can be recorded, the differences can be gauged, the background rate of mutation can be looked at.
Of course, if we see anything like the tinkering we humans have done (which we haven't) it'd be quite interesting. Incredibly so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QB]
quote:It is, as used by the likes of Ron. And since 'the likes of Ron' includes most of the population of the US, clinging to the strict scientific usage just defines you out of the debate.
Scientific truth is now defined by popular opinion and I missed the memo apparently.
You certainly did miss the distinction between scientific truth, and arbitrary definitions of terms for the sake of being able to talk about them. There is nothing particularly truthful or sacred about having "theory of evolution" and "theory of abiogenesis" separate, it just so happens that these subjects were investigated separately as science progressed. They are clearly related; I don't see a problem in discussing them both at once and using a single term to refer to the whole debate. And definitions of terms very much are decided by popular opinion, by the way.
quote:
quote: To sidestep the question by saying "That's not part of evolution" just makes it look as though you can't answer.
.. yeah, no. There is no reason why this sort of honest dialogue and establishment of criteria is not a good idea. People trying to claim to me that evolutionary theory is inherently 'saying that life originated without god' are wrong and I lose nothing -- nor am I sidestepping anything -- to point out that this notion is incredibly incorrect.
Well, I agree with that point, but that's not the point you were making. You were saying "Abiogenesis is not evolution, wah-wah". This has nothing to do with whether it requires or allows a god. If you want to go on and make this point, you should do so; you can't stop at "Not the same thing", it makes you look like a crybaby.
quote:
quote:The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.
Well, then they've gotten blinded by being all rational and sensible, which I admit is a bit of a job hazard in trying to deal with creationists. The point, after all, is that our opponents are saying "Life cannot start, nor evolve, without a god; therefore the account of creation in Genesis must be true, and therefore evolution must be false, and therefore you should not teach it in schools." So, to deal with this, you have to start at the beginning, and that involves showing that abiogenesis without gods is possible, although not required. I think perhaps we are arguing because you're worried about the blinding light of pure reason, which is a fine thing to be sure, and I'm worried about tactics for dealing with idiots. Which is not as pleasant but is necessary.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The point, after all, is that our opponents are saying
Opponents... That is the crux of the problem here. There are no "opponents" in the scientific method. The job of science is to gather evidence, test theories, let us know which thoeries work, and give us evidence to support our faith in those theories that hold up under testing. Scientists, including those of opposite viewpoints, are working together towards this end, whether they know it or not. It is not a game of "Us" vs. "Them". Disagreement is a necessary part of the process.
The trouble is that parts of the scientific community tend to begin to believe their theories are "the blinding light of pure reason" which must be defended against the forces of darkness. That is the point at which you leave the scientific method and step into the realm of dogma - where your scientific theory becomes more like a political or religious faith. And it is only a small step from there to using nonscientific "tactics" to enforcing one's faith - calling dissenters "idiots", labeling them "unscientific", positing all sorts of shady motives for them, pressuring them, attempting to hold back their careers, advertising for one's belief, and so on and so forth. Science has always done this, to one degree or another. But that is politics, or perhaps marketing, rather than science.
It could be necessary, but I'm inclined to believe it is not. Time and time again scientific theories have gone up against political and religious pressure, and the science has consistently won. The undeniable evidence always ends up being...well...undeniable! I don't see why science has anything more to be afraid of this time around. Using political "tactics" to advocate scientific theories only serves to muddy the waters.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't see why science has anything more to be afraid of this time around.
That "science" might win in the long term isn't much of a comfort to the people who are forced to live through the short term.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The point, after all, is that our opponents are saying "Life cannot start, nor evolve, without a god; therefore the account of creation in Genesis must be true, and therefore evolution must be false, and therefore you should not teach it in schools." So, to deal with this, you have to start at the beginning, and that involves showing that abiogenesis without gods is possible, although not required.
To the extent that defending the teaching of evolution requires submitting defenses to the criticisms levied against it, why not discard all criticisms of abiogenesis by simply stating that it is not a component of evolution? Otherwise we're chasing causes all the way back to the Big Bang and the debate about evolution becomes a Prime Mover argument.
I don't have any problem with having a frank discussion about the current state of of science re:abiogenesis, but where there is an opportunity to constrain the debate to what actually constitutes evolutionary theory I think we should do so. "I'm happy to talk about scientific theories of the origin of life, Mr. School Board Member, but please understand that the theory of evolution does not address that topic and it's not included in the curriculum recommendations under review."
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Opponents... That is the crux of the problem here. There are no "opponents" in the scientific method.
Huh?
There are people who want science classes to teach real science. Then there are people who want science classes to pretend that ID and Creationism are science, and to teach them instead.
How do you say that those two groups who want two completely different things aren't opponents?
quote:The job of science is to gather evidence, test theories, let us know which thoeries work, and give us evidence to support our faith in those theories that hold up under testing.
I don't see how you think anyone can have an honest conversation with you when you going to transparently equivocate.
"Faith" is the wrong word here, and you know it.
quote:Scientists, including those of opposite viewpoints, are working together towards this end, whether they know it or not.
But the people trying to tear down evolution and replace it with Creationism aren't scientists. They aren't doing science.
quote: The trouble is that parts of the scientific community tend to begin to believe their theories are "the blinding light of pure reason" which must be defended against the forces of darkness.
Oh please.
ID is logically fallacious, and totally unscientific. Creationism is flat-out counter-factual.
What kind of pomo-empty-headed silliness are you operating under where saying so is some kind of terrible arrogance?
quote:That is the point at which you leave the scientific method and step into the realm of dogma - where your scientific theory becomes more like a political or religious faith.
Okay, so who exactly is doing that?
Can you point us to, say, a peer-reviewed journal article in which you believe that the authors have overstepped their bounds?
Or how about a talkorigins article?
Because if you ask for Intelligent Design arguments which are factually false and woefully illogical, I assure you, it won't take people on this board 5 minutes to bury you in them.
But where is your evidence that this awful dogmatism is the problem with the people who support good science?
quote:And it is only a small step from there to using nonscientific "tactics" to enforcing one's faith - calling dissenters "idiots",
I'm sorry, but when someone supporting ID makes a claim (there's no way for the eye to have evolved step by step), and the claim is easily proved false (there are all kinds of ways it could have happened), that's idiotic.
quote:labeling them "unscientific",
Words mean things. ID and Creationism are not scientific.
In the context of debates over evolution, the label is extremely important, because you can't teach unscientific things in science class as if they were science.
And what gets taught in science class is the crux of why this is being argued.
quote:positing all sorts of shady motives for them,
The record is pretty clear. Professional Creationists are dishonest. If people don't want to be judged by the company they keep, that's their problem.
quote:pressuring them, attempting to hold back their careers,
Those charges are ridiculous. The most recent fellow failed to get tenure because his non-ID peers brought in 100x the amount of grant money that he did. Do you think that ID advocates should get special treatment because of their religious beliefs, should get tenure over people who keep their religious life out of their office, and actually do their jobs better?
quote:and time again scientific theories have gone up against political and religious pressure, and the science has consistently won. The undeniable evidence always ends up being...well...undeniable!
Then why don't you believe that ID can prove itself in that arena the way all scientific ideas have: through publications in peer-reviewed journals?
Why do you argue that its advocates should get sweetheart tenure deals, that its non-scientific nature shouldn't be mentioned, that the dishonesty of its advocates and its arguments shouldn't be pointed out?
quote:I don't see why science has anything more to be afraid of this time around.
Students should be taught good science. They should not be taught that unscientific, crappy theology is good science. Why are you so resistant to those notions?
quote:Using political "tactics" to advocate scientific theories only serves to muddy the waters.
You have to be kidding.
ID and Creationism ARE political issues. Scientifically, Creationism is dead. It's not science. If you disbelieve me, feel free to point out where Creationist and ID advocates are publishing their original research subject to the peer-reviewed of the scientific community
It is a purely political movement. Simply pointing that out, however, is not enough to stop school boards from gutting science requirements, if the parents do like they did in Dover and vote in Creationists. That's why anti-Creationism has to be political too.
Unless you really like it when school boards shell out a million dollars to the ACLU every time Creationists win control of a school board.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And definitions of terms very much are decided by popular opinion, by the way.
Allowing your opponent to broadly define terms in a debate with no argument is a sure way to lose.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:definitions of terms very much are decided by popular opinion, by the way.
Then, we Americans all communally define God as the existing deity who created life?
Uh oh!
quote:The point, after all, is that our opponents are saying "Life cannot start, nor evolve, without a god; therefore the account of creation in Genesis must be true, and therefore evolution must be false, and therefore you should not teach it in schools."
There are your opponents. The job of scientific method is not to fight your enemies, nor are theories defined by this fight because you want them to be. Evolutionary Theory is a mechanism used to explain and predict. It happens to be a fact that it explains and predicts the processes of living organisms and that it happens not to explain or predict where life originated.
quote:So, to deal with this, you have to start at the beginning, and that involves showing that abiogenesis without gods is possible, although not required.
And, -- amazingly enough -- this does not and should not involve making abiogenesis part of evolutionary theory, or thinking that it is.
A lot of what you are saying indicates that you're excusing lapses in reason because you want these broad tools to use against Creationism. That you're going to permit some nonprofessionalism for the sake of purely tactical, competitive concerns versus Creationists. As though it were necessary to fall away from the principles of science to combat the nonscientific. I see no such necessity and I would still object on principle anyway.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Possibly, yes, but the fact remains that most people do believe abiogenesis is part of evolution; so if you try to define things properly, you just look bad because Average Joe thinks you can't answer, so you're weaseling out. The only way to fix this would be a massive education campaign, and in that case, why not cut out the middleman and just educate people about how abiogenesis can happen? It's more important that they have good information than good definitions. Besides, it's not as though we haven't got perfectly good theories of abiogenesis, even if they are not as strongly experimentally supported as evolution. Let's stop the boring debate about definitions, which makes us look bad, and get on with the cool stuff like self-replicating pieces of clay. Abiogenesis is really interesting, we shouldn't be excluding it from the debate anyway. It's exactly what we need to make science look sexy.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: In fact, looking at the genetics of the different species, I imagine it'd be pretty easy to see if an entity was doing, say, gene splicing in the past. Because then we'd see stuff similarly weird as the jellyfish genes placed into mice. We don't see that sort of thing, the splicing of genes that may be beneficial or do weird things from an animal or plant that's definitely not close genetically, to another animal that could use it, except when we do it.
Of course, if we see anything like the tinkering we humans have done (which we haven't) it'd be quite interesting. Incredibly so.
Somehow, I never imagined God using a "hack" method such as gene splicing to advance evolution. Instead, I picture him directing his servants (spirits, angels, whatever you want to call them) herding, separating, mating and pairing groups of species to gether to advance evolution over millions of years, with maybe some rare, subtle tweeking. Gene splicing seems so... amature.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Possibly, yes, but the fact remains that most people do believe abiogenesis is part of evolution; so if you try to define things properly, you just look bad because Average Joe thinks you can't answer
It's not impossible (or even very hard) to frame evolutionary theory and abiogenesis correctly in a manner that does not make you look like you're trying not to answer something.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Somehow, I never imagined God using a "hack" method such as gene splicing to advance evolution. Instead, I picture him directing his servants (spirits, angels, whatever you want to call them) herding, separating, mating and pairing groups of species to gether to advance evolution over millions of years, with maybe some rare, subtle tweeking. Gene splicing seems so... amature. "
I'd totally love to see the angels doing that, but as it is... no evidence that that's how it occured...?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Possibly, yes, but the fact remains that most people do believe abiogenesis is part of evolution; so if you try to define things properly, you just look bad because Average Joe thinks you can't answer
It's not impossible (or even very hard) to frame evolutionary theory and abiogenesis correctly in a manner that does not make you look like you're trying not to answer something.
Fair enough, but that's not what was being done in the comment that prompted this whole discussion.
quote:A lot of what you are saying indicates that you're excusing lapses in reason because you want these broad tools to use against Creationism. That you're going to permit some nonprofessionalism for the sake of purely tactical, competitive concerns versus Creationists.
It doesn't make you less professional to meet people on whatever battleground they choose, especially since we can win on either one. Make a note, if you must, that abiogenesis isn't strictly part of evolution, but don't stop there. Go on to show how we think it occurs. What I'm objecting to is not so much the pedantic definition, although I do think that's remarkably boring, but rather using that as an excuse to stop the discussion.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: "Somehow, I never imagined God using a "hack" method such as gene splicing to advance evolution. Instead, I picture him directing his servants (spirits, angels, whatever you want to call them) herding, separating, mating and pairing groups of species to gether to advance evolution over millions of years, with maybe some rare, subtle tweeking. Gene splicing seems so... amature. "
I'd totally love to see the angels doing that, but as it is... no evidence that that's how it occured...?
I'm not even sure it would be possible to distinguish between directed species populations and natural migration, since I would expect less than 1% of population would even require any type of intervention to control the flow of evolution. In any event, there is about as much "evidence" for this conjecture as there is for M-theory. (Not that I'm disparaging M-theroey. I think it is an elegant and intriguing theorey, but with our current level of technology there isn't any conceivable way to validate the theory with physical experiments.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How do you say that those two groups who want two completely different things aren't opponents?
Both groups I am talking about want the same thing: They want the world to be informed with the truth. If they all agreed on what the truth is, I'm sure they'd all agree on what should be taught. That they'd don't agree on what the truth is, and thus don't agree on how to act, does not make them enemies.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Both groups I am talking about want the same thing
The record in the posts is clear: the two groups we are talking about are Creationists, and supporters of mainstream scince.
This isn't a case where there are two equal sides to the argument. Evolution has the facts, Creationism, no matter of what stripe, just doesn't.
quote:They want the world to be informed with the truth.
They want the world to be told that their chosen religous beliefs are unquestionably true. That's not the same thing.
quote:If they all agreed on what the truth is, I'm sure they'd all agree on what should be taught.
They never will.
A trivial example, Creationists want to teach that the human blood clotting cascade functions such that blood will never, ever clot unless all elements of the cascade are present. And that this furthermore proves that God designed it.
People who support good science would teach that dolphins lack one of those genes, but their blood clots fine. And even if there were no examples for that system, the second conclusion does not at all follow from the first.
This has been known for years. Creationists don't want to change their version of the "truth". Do you suggest that the scientific community should cave in instead?
But those facts are really not the issue. People who support good science want to teach that the best way to understand the physical universe is to look at it. Creationists want to teach that the best way to understand the physical universe is to accept whatever the bible says, because everything it says must be true.
How do you propose to get these two sides to agree on, say, the "truth" about the age of the human species?
quote:That they'd don't agree on what the truth is, and thus don't agree on how to act, does not make them enemies.
Creationists and their supporters sabotage the education of children.
I oppose the sabotage of education.
Why is that so awful to say?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps we could modify most of those to, "Creationists who assert creationism is scientific and should be taught in school"? There are creationists who do not believe creationism is scientific, but that it is necessarily true for religious reasons. Some of them even do very capable science (including, rarely, things directly related to evolutionary theory), presenting their results within the framework of science while maintaining their religious beliefs.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
To me, the divide here is between those who are looking at interpreting and understanding the rules vs. those that are trying to find the intent behind the rules.
Looking at it from a D&D perspective - those rigidly defending evolution are focused on the rules of the game as written, while those rigidly defending intelligent design are focused on the role of the game designer (or even the DM).
I don't feel these two things have to be mutually exclusive.
With regard to "evolution vs. intelligent design" - I don't know why this has to be a binary argument. If you want scientific skepticism, wouldn't it be more "evolution v. not evolution"?
I don't think "creationism" or "intelligent design" should be barred from schools. They have their place - but that place is a Philosophy classroom, not a Science classroom. In Science you discuss the rules and how they are applied, in Philosophy you can discuss why the rules are they way they are.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Creationists and their supporters sabotage the education of children.
I oppose the sabotage of education.
Why is that so awful to say?
Because it is misleading. Creationists oppose the sabotage of education too - just as you do. That's the whole point of trying to get creationism in school. Your ultimate goals are the same - to spread the truth.
Now, you can put all sorts of words in the mouths of Creationists if you want to, but it isn't going to convince me that that they are some sort of evil creatures bent on fooling the world into believing things they know are false. That's no more accurate than rhetoric like "the terrorists kill because they hate freedom". It's obvious you don't buy into the Creationist argument, but Creationists DO buy into their argument. They think it is the truth. They think it is misleading to teach children otherwise. They DO think the facts are on their side. You might believe otherwise, but in my view if they didn't consider Creationism to be the truth, I can't imagine they would want it to be taught to children instead of evolution.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Creationists oppose the sabotage of education too - just as you do. That's the whole point of trying to get creationism in school. Your ultimate goals are the same - to spread the truth.
Well now, we are just arguing over what "truth" is.
If someone honestly believes, for religious reasons, that 2+2 = 5, and they want that taught in schools, is it really helpful to the conversation to refer to that belief as "truth"?
Are reasonable people really supposed to bend over backwards and say that anyone can argue to teach anything in school as long as they think it's "truth", no matter what the facts are?
Creationism isn't about the facts. It's just not.
Experts all over the world, experts who are Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Daoists, all agree that evolution is a solid scientific theory.
The only people who are Creationist are Creationist because it's their faith postion. If the evidence were compelling, then the conclusion would be shared by people who aren't conservative Protestants, but such people are virtually unknown.
It's not about the facts.
quote:Now, you can put all sorts of words in the mouths of Creationists if you want to
They say enough without any prompting. Dembski, the major Intelligent Design advocate thinks that science doesn't spend enough time studying angels.
Angels. Really, I'm not creative enough to make that up.
quote:but it isn't going to convince me that that they are some sort of evil creatures bent on fooling the world into believing things they know are false.
Oh please. They want the school system to tell children that their conservative Protestant beliefs are totally unquestionably right. That's what it's about. It's not like they really care about Punnett squares or genetic drift.
quote:That's no more accurate than rhetoric like "the terrorists kill because they hate freedom". It's obvious you don't buy into the Creationist argument, but Creationists DO buy into their argument.
It's not just me. Hindus don't buy it. Buddhists don't buy it. Atheists don't buy it. Virtually no Catholics or Jews buy it. No one "buys" Creationism unless they start their as part of their religious belief.
If you think that Creationists have a legitimate, honest, scientific argument to make, then why don't you pick one and defend it with evidence and sound reasoning?
quote:They think it is the truth. They think it is misleading to teach children otherwise.
As do flat-earthers.
quote:They DO think the facts are on their side.
Oh please.
No one on earth is a Creationist because they concluded it from the facts!
If that were the case, why wouldn't there be Hindu and Buddhist Creationists?
People are Creationist because it's their faith. Professional Creationists know that in order for their beliefs to have the same respect that science gets, they have to say that there are facts on their side. And laypeople know that what they are told sounds good, so they repeat what they are told when asked to make a case for the reasonableness of their beliefs.
quote:You might believe otherwise, but in my view if they didn't consider Creationism to be the truth, I can't imagine they would want it to be taught to children instead of evolution.
Of course they consider it to be true. That's why they want it taught.
But they are wrong.
Do you see that there is a difference between respecting a person, and their right to hold an opinion, which is pretty much considered a good thing to do all the time, even when we don't like the opinion, and respecting the opinion itself?
When an opinion is obviously counter-factual, and grossly illogical, it doesn't deserve any respect at all.
Honestly, you sound like the sterotype of the wishy-washy liberal, who can't bear to condemn any notion, no matter how barbaric or crazy, because it would force you into the position of saying that not every point of view is perfectly equally legitimate.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
I think it's also important to note that there are creationists out there (Somewhere, in the great expanse of the Earth) that don't want creationism to be taught instead, but they want it taught too.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ID and Creationism different things?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Kinda-sorta. The ID movement is what they came up with when the latest surge of creationism proper lost in the courts, and the main spokesmen are different. (Creationists are like cockroaches, you can't kill them, you can only force them back and keep them in check.) Anyway, the avenues of attack are different but the end goals are the same.
As for wanting it taught "too", fine, put it in religious class. If somebody wanted phlogiston theory taught, it wouldn't get any better just because they very graciously permitted oxygen to be mentioned as well. Besides, if you teach biblical creationism, why don't the Moslem, Hindu, and Native American versions get a look in as well? And I'd like to plug the Norse creation myth as well, just because 'Ginnungagap' is such a fun word to say. Each of these has just as much evidence going for it as the biblical kind, that is to say, zero. (Although Hindu creationism does at least get a Universe some millions or billions of years old. And a human history of similar length.)
By the way, there actually do exist Hindu and Buddhist creationists, they just have a different myth.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Creationism isn't about the facts. It's just not.
That's just plain not true. Creationism is about the facts as Creationists see them, just as the support of evolution is about the facts as supporters of evolution see them. It's not like the Creationists out there saying "Well, all the facts say I'm wrong but I'm going to believe it anyway." No, they are saying "the facts show we are correct" or at worst "we don't yet have all the facts, but when we do it will show we are correct."
quote:If the evidence were compelling, then the conclusion would be shared by people who aren't conservative Protestants, but such people are virtually unknown.
quote:Honestly, you sound like the sterotype of the wishy-washy liberal, who can't bear to condemn any notion, no matter how barbaric or crazy, because it would force you into the position of saying that not every point of view is perfectly equally legitimate.
But not all things are what they sound like. After all, I'm more than willing to condemn the notion that scientists need to be in the business of supressing dissenting viewpoints like Creationism or Intelligent Design. It really has nothing to do with whether or not these viewpoints are "legitimate". It has to do with how science can best find those viewpoints that are legitimate and consistent with the evidence. As long as science is about the facts, those theories best supported by the facts will inevitably rise to the top. It is only when scientists become dogmatic and begin using unscientific political tactics to advance their theories that the waters become murky, scientific theories start to look like political positions, and inferior theories end up looking no better or worse than those theories well supported by the facts.
quote:When an opinion is obviously counter-factual, and grossly illogical, it doesn't deserve any respect at all.
This is contrary to the spirit of reasoning that science is based upon. All opinions deserve respect - that is the only way you can accurately determine whether or not it is counterfactual or grossly illogical. Otherwise you end up like those who thought it wasn't possible that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, or who thought it wasn't possible that the continents could move, or who thought it wasn't possible that man might descend from "apes" - all things that have seemed obviously counterfactual or grossly illogical to many at one point or another, and which have been found true because there were those willing to respect them enough to actually consider that they might be true.
[ October 12, 2007, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Science class in high school (and before) is not much about doing science. If that were it, we'd thrust people in classrooms with experimental equipment and say, 'have at'.
It is about learning how to do science, and learning about discoveries in science, and recreating discoveries in science.
It is perfectly possible to publish a creationist paper or an ID paper in a peer reviewed journal, given a sufficiently strong argument to pass the peer review process.
That does not mean creationism and ID have places in science class. Designing a curriculum for school is by its nature suppressing viewpoints that are not conducive to the particular goals of a class. There is limited time. Subjects cover huge areas. No matter what curriculum is designed, viewpoints will be suppressed. Since we are then very much in the business of suppressing viewpoints in education, there must be an evaluation process. In a science class, creationism and ID don't make the cut.
Luckily for us, just because someone believes something is true doesn't get it taught in schools. You keep pointing out the convictions of creationism and ID supporters as if it matters; it is practically irrelevant. In front of very science textbook, in front of every datum presented in a science class, there is an implicit (and sometimes explicit) "as seems most/very likely given the framework of the scientific method" (except for the philosophy of science parts, such as the scientific method itself, which are wrapped in a similar meta-statement). Unless creationism and ID ideas can be broadly evaluated to meet that criteria, they don't belong in a science class.
And no, I'm not saying that nothing that fails to meet that criteria gets into science classes, I'm saying it shouldn't.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Yes, but that is just a matter of voting in the right school board members who will make sure schools use the right textbooks. I don't think achieving that requires the scientific community to behave in the way that this movie seems to be complaining about. I don't think anti-creationism scientists shunning pro-creationism scientists has much influence on the picking of textbooks for schools - beyond possibly making the scientific community look oppressive to outsiders and giving voters the impression that the whole issue is just some sort of liberal vs. conservative thing.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"seems to be complaining about"
You're making an awfully large number of assumptions about the nature of a movie you haven't seen, and the truthfulness of its claims, to be criticizing scientists based on it.
In an ideal world, people wouldn't be ridiculed for believing in creationism (though many supporters of creationism would be ridiculed for certain specific statements). Of course, in an ideal world people wouldn't be ridiculed for many things rejected by the majority, in and out of science. I don't see any evidence scientists who do ridicule are being that egregious in comparison to the normal range of human behavior. Something to improve, yes. Something to consider overly distortionary, no.
As I said earlier, there are people who believe in creationism and are published scientists. Some are moderately well known in their fields, much as with people who believe in just about anything. That creationist and ID papers don't get published in major peer-reviewed journals doesn't need to be explained by the contempt some hold for the ideas when it can be far more easily explained by the lack of scientific support for the ideas, which is the cause of much of the ridicule.
There is ample evidence of scientists about-facing on ideas once-ridiculed that good evidence was discovered for.
Most scientists I know who campaign against creationism and ID being taught in schools (not against it being published; they don't have to campaign against that, it doesn't have the merit) don't ridicule their opponents, btw. That tends to be a more off-hand sort of thing. They try to either methodically explain why a variety of the creationist/ID arguments are unsupported by the evidence, or how the scientific method works and why creationism and ID do not fit within it.
The reason they campaign tends to be because for a long time scientists assumed that something so utterly beyond the pale of scientific evidence would not find a foothold in science classes. But it did, and threatened to take over entire state curricula. Unsurprisingly, scientists found they had an interest in seeing what students were being taught to be science was at least minimally part of the science being done in the real world.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:That's just plain not true. Creationism is about the facts as Creationists see them,just as the support of evolution is about the facts as supporters of evolution see them.
They why is it all the educated people of every faith agree that evolution fits the facts, and no one who isn't a conservative Protestant agrees that the facts fit Creationism?
quote:It's not like the Creationists out there saying "Well, all the facts say I'm wrong but I'm going to believe it anyway."
Really? You want to argue that not a single Creationist argues that dino fossils are meant to "test" good Christians?
Not a one?
No, most Creationists just don't know the facts. The people they get their info from either don't know them, or make a living lying and distorting them.
Seriously, if you want to be buried in examples of professional Creationists lying, it can be done. Talkorigins has a huge list of dishonest quote mines. And that's just one kind of falsehood.
quote:Actually, members of all sorts of religions reject evolution:
See, here's what I'm talking about.
I never, ever said that no one who wasn't a conservative Protestant rejects evoltuion. That's a fact, you can read my posts.
But you didn't care. You argued against something I never said.
You would say that I have my "truth" of what I wrote, and that you have your "truth" about what I wrote. I say that the "truth" is what the message board recorded I wrote, and that I'm right about what I wrote, and you are wrong.
But to get back to the point I actually made...the Institute for Creation Research makes its members sign an oath stipulating all the conclusions they find to be unquestionably true, including the claim that god consists of Father, Son and Holy spirit, and the Bible is infallible and compltely authoritative.
Is this how people who are honestly looking at the facts operate? Does this suggest to you that the members of the ICR think that members of other faiths will be persuaded by their evidence?
quote:After all, I'm more than willing to condemn the notion that scientists need to be in the business of supressing dissenting viewpoints like Creationism or Intelligent Design.
Who's supressing anything?
Creationists are perfectly free to open museums, host websites, preach at church revivals, they can do whatever they like. They can even produce wildly misleading movies.
They just can't teach religion as if it were science. And when they say ridiculous things, honest people have the right to point outhow ridiculous those claims are.
Do you think that is wrong?
quote:It really has nothing to do with whether or not these viewpoints are "legitimate".
But isn't that what you are arguing? That they have their truth, and I have mine, and why am I so mean as to not treat their truth with the respect that my truth gets?
quote:It has to do with how science can best find those viewpoints that are legitimate and consistent with the evidence.
Correct. The way to do that is to actually look at the real world. It turns out that this method works really, really well. Real science is accepted by people no matter what their religious faith. And when there are disagreements about what the best conclusion from the evidence is, those disagreements don't fall along faith lines.
Does Creationism work that way?
quote:As long as science is about the facts, those theories best supported by the facts will inevitably rise to the top.
Of science, yes. But they won't be taught in schools if Creationists are elected to school boards.
quote:It is only when scientists become dogmatic and begin using unscientific political tactics to advance their theories
Creationism is a POLITICAL movement. It's not science. Scientifically, it's dead.
If you disagree with me, make your case. Show us the original research, the peer-reviewed papers.
Scientists have been publishing papers about evolution for 150 years. Do today's Creationists care? Has it kept Creationism out of the classroom?
Nope. How will doing more science change that?
quote:that the waters become murky, scientific theories start to look like political positions, and inferior theories end up looking no better or worse than those theories well supported by the facts.
Funny how this is exactly what Creationists do, and you don't seem to care to condemn them for it.
quote:This is contrary to the spirit of reasoning that science is based upon. All opinions deserve respect - that is the only way you can accurately determine whether or not it is counterfactual or grossly illogical.
Oh, so you think that Creationism still deserves the benfit of the doubt?
Then by all means, defend it.
Because the rest of the educated world has long since measured Creationism, and found it wanting.
quote:Otherwise you end up like those who thought it wasn't possible that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, or who thought it wasn't possible that the continents could move, or who thought it wasn't possible that man might descend from "apes" - all things that have seemed obviously counterfactual or grossly illogical to many at one point or another, and which have been found true because there were those willing to respect them enough to actually consider that they might be true.
You have it backwards.
Once the evidence started to show that those strange things were true, then it was rational to start believing they were true.
But not before.
You start with the evidence, then you see what conclusion you have to draw from it. And when you collect more evidence, then you change your conclusion.
What Creationists do is they have their Bible, the bible tells them what their conclusion is, and then if pressed, they spout argumetns and 'evidence' that supposedly support their faith position.
Once again, if you have a real example of scientsts acting arrogently, why don't you post it so the rest of us can see it?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But isn't that what you are arguing? That they have their truth, and I have mine, and why am I so mean as to not treat their truth with the respect that my truth gets?
No, that's actually not what I'm arguing at all.
quote:Once the evidence started to show that those strange things were true, then it was rational to start believing they were true.
I didn't say it was rational to believe all theories. It's obviously irrational to think theories that conflict with the evidence are as true as those that don't. My point was that you should still respect them nonetheless, even if you don't believe them. And by "respect" I mean refute their theories only with the facts, through the scientific method, rather than by villifying them as the "opponents" of true science.
quote:Once again, if you have a real example of scientsts acting arrogently, why don't you post it so the rest of us can see it?
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn - Kuhn studies over hundreds of years of the history of science, and demonstrates how science as a community acts in a dogmatic fashion, circling the wagons around the dominant scientific paradigm and resisting (often aggressively) attempts to refute it. As Kuhn says:
"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise dervies from the community's willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost."
I think the history of science demonstrates that the scientific community has a habit of approaching its dominant theories in this dogmatic fashion, as if they know it to be true. (Fortunately, it also demonstrates that eventually a scientific revolution comes around resulting in new and better theories.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, I think you completely misunderstood what Kuhn was saying. Normal science is in no way the same as science as a whole. And his description of the puzzle-solving aspect of normal science cannot be accurately be categorized as you said: "act[ing] in a dogmatic fashion, circling the wagons around the dominant scientific paradigm and resisting (often aggressively) attempts to refute it.", but rather a period where most people working in "normal science" mode see evidence that contradicts the accepted theory as produced by errors in methods or at most, explained by special cases or small alterations in the accepted theory. He goes on to say that when enough evidence piles up or particularly clear evidence is brought up, there is a dramatic scientific revolution.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:It's obviously irrational to think theories that conflict with the evidence are as true as those that don't.
So what?
Creationists believe all kinds of things that conflict with the evidence.
Yet you don't have a critical word to say with regard to them.
quote:My point was that you should still respect them nonetheless, even if you don't believe them. And by "respect" I mean refute their theories only with the facts, through the scientific method, rather than by villifying them as the "opponents" of true science.
Are you seriously laboring under the notion that Creationism hasn't been thoroughly refuted already?
For goodness sakes, scientists in the 1800's realized that the earth was teribly old, that orgnaisms had lived and gone extinct, and that there was no global flood. They all stopped being Creationist 100 years ago. Why didn't you know that?
Refuting with facts DOES derail bad science hypotheses. 100 years ago, it did the trick.
It will NOT derail Creationism, becuase Creationism isn't science. All the real Creationist scientsts switched camps 100 years ago, and surely you aren't going to argue that the evidence has gotten better when it comes to supporting Creationistm, are you?
It's not vilifictation to call a spade a spade.
Creationism isn't science. It's purely political.
quote:"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Much of the success of the enterprise dervies from the community's willingness to defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost."
I think the history of science demonstrates that the scientific community has a habit of approaching its dominant theories in this dogmatic fashion, as if they know it to be true. (Fortunately, it also demonstrates that eventually a scientific revolution comes around resulting in new and better theories.)
Thank you for proving my point.
You can't come up with a single actual example.
And I will be waiting until doomsday for you to come up with a single example of a scientific point where you think that mainstream science is wrong, and Creationism is right.
Kuhn is writing about scientific ideas being overturned by scientific ideas.
Does this mean that you are prepared to argue that Creationism is in fact, science?
Because I think it's time that you make that argument, or stop with your whole "Poor Creationists, no one wants to engage them scientifically" nonsense.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Science is waiting for a scientific defence of creationism to respond to. Without a scientific argument for creationism, there can be no scientific critique of the hypothesis.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Creationists believe all kinds of things that conflict with the evidence.
Creationists even believe things that contradict the Bible, the very book they claim to derive their belief from. Mere science or objective reality (which has, after all, a distinct liberal bias) has no chance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Science is waiting for a scientific defence of creationism to respond to. Without a scientific argument for creationism, there can be no scientific critique of the hypothesis.
Fortunately the world of talk radio and ministry groups have no need to be concerned with such trifle things.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I know. but the lack of scientific argument is why tresopax's argument is not only idiotic, its irrelevent.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Thank you for proving my point.
You can't come up with a single actual example.
It seems like you aren't interested in any examples I'd be giving or understanding my position, except insofar as you can poke holes in them and/or attack Creationism. I pointed you to Kuhn's historical analysis, but you don't seem interested in considering that real evidence. I could give you specific examples (famously biologist Richard Sternberg which is mentioned in this movie, less famously my professor who treated Creationism with a great deal of disdain, or even the attitudes of scientists on Hatrack, etc.), but is there any chance you wouldn't immediately come up with some reason to reject it as a valid example, regardless of how valid it actually is? If you really want to know what I think or if you really want to know why one might want to respect Creationism, then I'd be happy to answer your questions. But if you've already decided with certainty and do not respect my position, then I'm not sure how answering more questions would help anything.
quote: think you completely misunderstood what Kuhn was saying. Normal science is in no way the same as science as a whole. And his description of the puzzle-solving aspect of normal science cannot be accurately be categorized as you said: "act[ing] in a dogmatic fashion, circling the wagons around the dominant scientific paradigm and resisting (often aggressively) attempts to refute it.", but rather a period where most people working in "normal science" mode see evidence that contradicts the accepted theory as produced by errors in methods or at most, explained by special cases or small alterations in the accepted theory.
I agree that normal science isn't science as a whole. But it is science as it is most commonly practiced, and I think evolution is in a phase of normal science right now as we speak. "Circling the wagons" may have been overstating it, but I think Kuhn definitely shows that during normal science scientists aim to defend the paradigm rather than actively question its validity. Counterinstances are treated not as reasons to doubt the truth of the theory, but rather as errors that need to be corrected in some way so as to be consistent with the theory's truth. The truth of the paradigm is simply assumed to be true, until the point that a paradigm shift occurs. And during normal science, speculation outside the paradigm isn't really considered science at all. This all is what I referred to as the dogmatism of science - this notion that science knows the answer, and that scientists must "puzzle-solve" to make the evidence fit the answer we already know.
quote:I know. but the lack of scientific argument is why tresopax's argument is not only idiotic, its irrelevent.
As for the "idiotic" comment, that's a blunt ad hominem.
As for the lack of scientific argument... I am not a Intelligent Design supporter. I believe in Evolution. And I am not a scientist. So I don't see how I could possibly give a very good scientific case for something that I neither believe in nor have studied in detail. But, again, as I said I am not making that argument. I am NOT saying Creationism is true or has valid evidence supporting it. My argument is a broader complaint about how we treat dissent to accepted scientific theories, regardless of whether that dissent is well supported or not.
I must say, it is difficult to take a middle position on Hatrack. Must I choose between either accepting and proving Creationism or rejecting Creationists as evil monsters? Can't I respect the need to treat Intelligent Design fairly without going so far as saying Intelligent Design is true? Why am I inevitably lumped into one extreme or the other?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's not like the Creationists out there saying "Well, all the facts say I'm wrong but I'm going to believe it anyway."
They do, actually. Here is Kurt Wise, poster-child for creationists because he has a PhD, on the subject:
quote:Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
He's honest about it; few are. But that's their stand.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"As for the "idiotic" comment, that's a blunt ad hominem."
Really? Where did I attack your character as a means of attacking your argument? No, Tres, I called your argument idiotic.
And it is. It relies on a whole bunch of false assumptions provided to you by creationists who treat scientists far worse then scientists treat creationists.
And, of course, those creationists aren't doing science... and demanding that their mythology be treated as science, which is why your argument is also irrelevent.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.
A distinction needs to be made here: That the Bible says it is true is a fact, even though it is not scientific evidence.
He still doesn't say he'd believe creationism even if ALL the facts said he's wrong. Rather he believes that the one fact that the Bible says it is true trumps all possible scientific evidence. Not very scientific, but it is certainly a logical argument based on the facts (or in that case "fact" singular), as long as you think the Bible is so infallible that it outweighs any other possible scientific evidence.
quote:And it is. It relies on a whole bunch of false assumptions provided to you by creationists who treat scientists far worse then scientists treat creationists.
Nothing I've said relies on anything a creationist has said. I'm sure there are plenty of creationists who treat scientists worse than scientists treat creationists, but given that the folks at Hatrack seem to already agree on that, I don't see much purpose in spending time pointing out what creationists are doing wrong.
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
quote:As for the lack of scientific argument... I am not a Intelligent Design supporter. I believe in Evolution. And I am not a scientist. So I don't see how I could possibly give a very good scientific case for something that I neither believe in nor have studied in detail. But, again, as I said I am not making that argument. I am NOT saying Creationism is true or has valid evidence supporting it. My argument is a broader complaint about how we treat dissent to accepted scientific theories, regardless of whether that dissent is well supported or not.
Well, thank you.
I grew up with some family members who believed in creationism and others who believed in evolution and, while in the end I fall to the evolution side of the house, it amazes me how disrespectful and dogmatic those on both sides of the house are. And "dogmatic" and "scientific" don't seem to go together to me. But you can't say that, because then suddenly, you're on the creationist side. There really is no middle ground... and both sides are embarassing.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:It seems like you aren't interested in any examples I'd be giving or understanding my position, except insofar as you can poke holes in them and/or attack Creationism.
That's just great.
I ask you twice for specific examples, you refuse to provide any, and then when I point that out, you assert that I wouldn't be interested anyway.
That's a really honest argument you have there.
quote:I pointed you to Kuhn's historical analysis, but you don't seem interested in considering that real evidence.
That's because a quote from a philospher isn't evidence.
quote:I could give you specific examples (famously biologist Richard Sternberg
Ah, well go on then with Richerd Sternberg. Panda's Thumb has a long series of posts about the facts in that case, I'm confident that this resource will be more than sufficient to prove that Sternberg was treated fairly.
quote:less famously my professor who treated Creationism with a great deal of disdain,
Well, Creationism deserves it. It's a counter-factual, illogical idea.
It was disproven 100 years ago, remember?
Do you think it is okay for geology professors to be dismissive of flat-earthers' claims?
If you do, what is the difference between the claims of flat-earthers, and the claims of Creationists?
quote:but is there any chance you wouldn't immediately come up with some reason to reject it as a valid example, regardless of how valid it actually is?
Well, I guess you don't need to bother to try to come up with an example, since you aleady know what I will say.
Wow, that makes it pretty easy for you to claim to win any argument. You just tell yourself "the other person was never going to be able to deal with my mighty arguments, so I won't bother making them".
quote:If you really want to know what I think or if you really want to know why one might want to respect Creationism, then I'd be happy to answer your questions.
Forget Creationism for a moment, how much respect do you have for the idea that gravity is caused by tiny fairies pushing everything towards earth?
How much respect do you have for the idea that disease are caused by demon posessions?
How much resepct do you have for the idea that the capital of Illinois is Chicago?
I have no problem admitting that those ideas are utterly stupid, and I don't respect them in the slightest. And I bet I'm not the only one on the board who thinks so
And you?
quote:But if you've already decided with certainty and do not respect my position, then I'm not sure how answering more questions would help anything.
Now you are confusing the picture.
Creationism is bunk. Total bunk. I've seen more than enough evidence to know that's the truth. And even you don't want to defend it, becuase I've asked you to do so twice, and you can't.
Your position of thinking that all ideas, even the totally ridiculous ones, deserve to be treated with the same respect as scientific theories which have been abundantly supported for 100 years, just because the adherants claim the idea is scientific, that's the one I wanted you to defend, with reasoning and evidence.
But you have done a terible job. your "they have their truth, and you have yours" is laughable. Your one pale example of Sternberg is also pathetic when examined. They guy used his authority to by pass peer-review to publish a terrible paper that was totally inappropriate for the journal.
quote:but I think Kuhn definitely shows that during normal science scientists aim to defend the paradigm rather than actively question its validity.
You have to be kidding.
In order to make your case, you have to prove that it's happening in evolution. How can you not see that?
So for starters, point out the evidence that the scientific community is avoiding.
Heck, point out the SCIENTIFIC argument that the wagons are being circled agaisnt!
quote:Counterinstances are treated not as reasons to doubt the truth of the theory, but rather as errors that need to be corrected in some way so as to be consistent with the theory's truth.
Example, please.
quote:The truth of the paradigm is simply assumed to be true, until the point that a paradigm shift occurs. And during normal science, speculation outside the paradigm isn't really considered science at all.
So you are actually arguing that no one thought taht Einsten was doing science until his ideas were accepeted?
How do you think he got his papers pubilshed if no one thought they were science?
Do you claim that there was some brave Sternberg pushing them through over the objections of the mainstream community?
quote:As for the "idiotic" comment, that's a blunt ad hominem.
No, it's not. He didn't call you idiotic, he called your idea idiotic. And it is. You are claiming that ideas whose scientific merit died 100 years ago should still be treated as valid scientific alternatives.
quote:As for the lack of scientific argument... I am not a Intelligent Design supporter. I believe in Evolution. And I am not a scientist. So I don't see how I could possibly give a very good scientific case for something that I neither believe in nor have studied in detail.
Oh please.
You are arguing that the whole community of scientists is wrong to dismiss Creationism.
That means that you think you are a better judge of science than all the world's scientists.
If you can't defend your claim, withdraw the argument. It's the honest thing to do.
quote:But, again, as I said I am not making that argument.I am NOT saying Creationism is true or has valid evidence supporting it.
You have argued that because some people THINK there is valid evidence, that the rest of us need to treat Creationism as if it has valid evidence.
And you are esentially arguing that the rest of us are wrong when we label Creationism as not science. That means you must think there is evidence, since science requires evidence.
So either you know what evidence led you to that conclusion, or you are making things up.
So if you disavow knowing of any evidence which supports Creationism, we are left with option B.
Which we all knew from the start, but thanks for making it clear.
quote:My argument is a broader complaint about how we treat dissent to accepted scientific theories, regardless of whether that dissent is well supported or not.
Ah, see, here is the sticking point between yourself, and most of the people on this board.
I think you would agree that there is not a lot of scientific support for the idea that angels have a big impact in how the world works.
Most of the people on this board figure that that fact means that science should not spend anytime attempting to research angel activites.
But Creationists like Dembski think that it is a failing of science to ignore all that angel activity, and if you actually believe the argument you are making, you should too.
quote:I must say, it is difficult to take a middle position on Hatrack.
Oh spare us.
There are a lot of things in this world where there are at least some good evidence and argumetns on both sides.
But Creationism is NOT one of them. The sooner you see that, the sooner you can stop arguing in favor of more angel reserach.
quote:Must I choose between either accepting and proving Creationism or rejecting Creationists as evil monsters?
You have to choose between accepting lunacy and rejecting it. Most intelligent people have no problem choosing the latter.
quote:Can't I respect the need to treat Intelligent Design fairly without going so far as saying Intelligent Design is true?
But you don't want to treat Creationim fairly. To treat it farily would be to judge it like all scienticfic ideas are judged, whicih would lead you to reject it.
But you won't do that. You want it to have the respect of a scientific idea without being science. Why is that fair?
quote:Why am I inevitably lumped into one extreme or the other?
You chose to argue that Creationism should be treated like science. It's not our fault there's no way to do that without looking like a loon.
You can forget responsing to everything I wrote if you will just answer one simpe question:
What is the difference betwen wanting science to spend more time addressing the concerns of Creationists, and wanting science to spend more time studying the workings of angels?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
*polite applause*
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Creationism and ID are not trying to say we believe God created the earth. They are saying, we KNOW God created the earth and you must too. They are trying to force people to believe in their religion using science to do so. Is it any wonder scientists go, wait a minute. This is NOT science. This is faith and we will not allow faith to be treated as science. If you say ID is a science, you are making faith into a fact. Not only is the science bad, but it is intolerant.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
*echoes polite applause*
I suspect that Tresopax will, in his usual way, focus on the style and tone of your post in his response ("wah wah you [and by extension all scientists] are so RUDE and ergo INTOLERANT") rather than the substance of your arguments, but this is nothing new.
Regarding Kuhn, Tresopax is missing the real relevance, which is, ironically enough, that evolutionary theory itself is the better scientific explanation that overthrew the previous creationist paradigm. Kuhn also writes that such a transition should take approximately one generation after accumulation of significant evidence in favor of a new theory (and against the old theory), since that is the length of time for the "old guard" to literally die off. This is exactly what happened throughout the early 20th century. As we accumulated more evidence, from fields as diverse as paleontology, chemistry, ecology, and most powerfully of all, the newly born fields of molecular biology and genetics, the remaining holdouts against evolutionary theory within the scientific community passed on. The story diverges from Kuhn's in that in this case, the evidence was so strong (and grew so rapidly, once molecular techniques were invented), that the holdouts were far and few between.
Since then, the evidence for evolution has only increased in number and strength. As swbarnes2 noted, the biological sciences community has long since moved past the incredibly basic question of "Does evolution occur?" Heck, we've long since answered questions like "What are the mechanisms through which evolutionary change occurs?" and "What sort of pressures, both internal and environmental, can spur natural selection?"
Is another paradigm shift possible in the future? Sure, hypothetically, if someone either comes up with a better theory that fits the evidence, or finds some evidence that truly damns Darwinism to the pit of discarded hypotheses. Do I think this is at all likely? Speaking as someone who is just starting out in the professional field, and therefore (if we take Kuhn as gospel) should be among the most likely to jump on a new paradigm, I really don't think so. At this point, overturning evolution wouldn't be like replacing Newtonian physics with relativity theory. It'd be more analogous to discovering that inertia doesn't exist and that even in the absence of a force, we actually do naturally slow down in Aristotelian fashion.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: At this point, overturning evolution wouldn't be like replacing Newtonian physics with relativity theory. It'd be more analogous to discovering that inertia doesn't exist and that even in the absence of a force, we actually do naturally slow down in Aristotelian fashion.
I agree with the rest of your post and think that this is a particularly important point. The concept of evolution itself is not an interpretation of the data, it is the data (if that makes sense). In other words it is an observation, not a theory. For example, iirc, we have fossil records for over 20 (possibly 40 I forget) distinct primate species closely related to modern day humans. We don't currently know the exact progression from primate to human, but the fossils still show the evolution of bipedalism and a larger brain.
I don't know if that made sense so I'll put it another way. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the evolution that we see in the data. Theories that deny evolution (ex: creationism) are automatically rejected not because of dogmatism but because they clearly ignore data. Theories that deny evolutionary theory (ex: intelligent design) are generally rejected because they are unsubstantiated. For example, to make intelligent design a credible theory, proponents have to show that evolution is either impossible or astronomically unlikely given the laws of our universe. At the moment, the evidence put forth for either of those claims is extremely flaky and consists of a combination of attacks on evolution (red herrings) and a series of pitifully invalid thought experiments (along the lines of Ron's silly "Where is there NOT evidence of ordered design?").
I don't know if I made any sense. I'll try to clarify if people find this post confusing (some of the sentences felt awkward as I typed them).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I grew up with some family members who believed in creationism and others who believed in evolution and, while in the end I fall to the evolution side of the house, it amazes me how disrespectful and dogmatic those on both sides of the house are. And "dogmatic" and "scientific" don't seem to go together to me. But you can't say that, because then suddenly, you're on the creationist side. There really is no middle ground... and both sides are embarassing.
Exactly.
quote:At this point, overturning evolution wouldn't be like replacing Newtonian physics with relativity theory. It'd be more analogous to discovering that inertia doesn't exist and that even in the absence of a force, we actually do naturally slow down in Aristotelian fashion.
When Kuhn describes paradigm shifts, he doesn't paint them as "overturning" the old theories. It is more akin, I think, to changing all the rules, concepts, and definitions so that the old data all still stands exaclty as it always was, but suddenly appears entirely different because it is looked at through a different lens. For instance, relativity didn't overturn Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics operates as it always did, but through the new rules and concepts of relativity it is now understood in an entirely different fashion which can explain the exceptions that the original Newtonian paradigm could not. Similarly, if a paradigm shift occured in regards to evolution, I doubt it would "overturn" evolution. Instead it would change the way we look at evolution and understand it. All the data supporting evolution would still be there but we would see it in a different light, under new rules that could also explain whatever problems we've had with evolutionary theory.
quote:The concept of evolution itself is not an interpretation of the data, it is the data (if that makes sense).
Yes, that makes sense. But I think that is always the case with scientific paradigms. For instance, Newtonian physics probably appeared to BE the data - since for the most part it held true in all the data. And as I alluded to above, when the paradigm shifted, that data didn't go away. It was just all of a sudden understood differently.
If this were to occur with evolution, it couldn't deny the data that supports evolution. It would have to take same data and apply different rules or concepts to it, so that we understand it in a different way. And that new paradigm would then appear to BE the data, just as evolution does now.
[ October 13, 2007, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I haven't read Kuhn, though I've wanted to for years. But paradigm shifts can occur on different levels. The Relativity paradigm didn't prove Newtonian physics wrong but made them a special case or approximation. Other shifts can be more dramatic, like when heliocentric models of the solar system overturned the geocentric ones. The geocentric model is not a special case or approximation: it's just wrong.
This is pretty much what happened when evolution and other fields overturned creation theory, at least YEC theories.
Also Tres, when discussing shifts taking generations, it's not just about old data: new data is amassed all the time. This happened with Newton's theory: the unexplained precession of Mercury wasn't observed until 1859.
[ October 14, 2007, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: "I must say, it is difficult to take a middle position on Hatrack."
Oh spare us.
There are a lot of things in this world where there are at least some good evidence and argumetns on both sides.
But Creationism is NOT one of them. The sooner you see that, the sooner you can stop arguing in favor of more angel reserach.
You haven't been initiated to Tres's incredible ability to pick a position that defies the known laws of physics. He isn't in the middle, it's more like an argumentative black hole this time around. It's really amazing to see, but according to him I would venture to say there are no facts, truths, opinions, experiences, viewpoints or beliefs that are concrete. I think he does it for fun.
I could be wrong. After all how can I really know Tresopax? How can anyone say anything about him?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)