posted
Tres, what is taught in classrooms usually has very little to do with real science, this is true. (On the other hand, you do need a certain amount of "this is how it is" before you can start in on the real stuff. You wouldn't start students off with a comparison of alchemy and modern chemistry; it's just not very useful.)
But science does not need the IDers to save it from tiself; the reason being, it hasn't dogmatically rejected ID. Scientists looked very carefully at ID, weighed the data, and decided against it. Granted, this took place about a hundred years ago; then again, just how many other battles of a hundred years ago are being refought in the courts? I don't see anyone demanding we 'teach the controversy' on phlogiston theory. This is why scientists become a bit testy about the matter.
My favourite example of order out of chaos : Snowflakes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Everything in genetics (theoretical, experimental, and descriptive) supports and is supported by supposed mechanisms in both macro- and micro-evolution, and even so revolutionary a discovery as DNA merely introduced refinements to evolutionary theory rather overturning it...
...and this morning decided it was a nice example for illustrating the difference between ID-as-science and real-science-as-science.
To ultra-simplify, early evolutionists and biologists studied nature (the fossil record, mutations, inheritance, etc.) and determined that there must be a mechanism by which traits are passed from generation to generation.
So far so good. And knowing what we know about reproduction, it seemed clear that it was possible for such a mechanism to exist, somewhere in spore, egg, sperm, etc.
Evolutionary theory in particular also posited that this mechanism would probably have two features that, on the face of it (especially to someone inclined to disbelieve evolution) sound quite outlandish: all life would share the same mechanism; and the mechanism would not only convey species-specific traits (e.g., blue eyes, male-pattern baldness) but would convey the entire blueprint for the individual.
What could this bizarrely powerful mechanism be? How could it possibly encode that much information? Preposterous!
THEN dna was discovered.
Now, it is not my point that to predict something almost unimaginable, and for it to turn out to be so, is proof positive that the basis for one's prediction is sound.
My point is to ask: What sort of similar chain of reasoning, investigation, and discovery (i.e., science) could take place that would constitute useful and interesting elaboration of, support for, insight into, or explanation of ID?
First, one would have to stipulate a few more things about the theory. What is the nature of the Designer? How does it work? Where and when does it work? Etc. (The ID movement, as far as I can tell, has hazarded no claims in answer to these most basic questions.)
As a scientist, these questions would interest me. If, for example, we supposed that the Designer was at work from the dawn of time, and still operated today, the experiments we might devise to investigate that would be different from those devised to investigate the idea that the Designer only influenced our universe or existence once or twice, at key points such as the Big Bang or the creation of life.
The fact is, there is no scientific investigation or experiment that can shed light on these questions, nor prove or disprove any part of them. And ID proponents can always fall back on the claim that the particulars are unknowable and undetectable.*
They can't have it both ways. To be taught as science it ought to be accepted by scientists as a scientific theory, and in order to be accepted, it ought to be tractable to the methods of science. Neither is the case.
Unfortunately, for something actually to be taught as science, it apparently needs only to be accepted by school-board members, who need only to be dazzled by a few parlor tricks and a lot of very ugly nonsense about pocket watches, eyeballs, finches, DNA molecules, randomness, and other claptrap, all of it thoroughly and positively debunked many times over.
*I am open-minded. What if some evidence IS scientifically found that supports something in ID? A message from Yahweh embedded in pi. A previously unknown 'intelligent' atomic force. You name it. Well, I guess we'd have to reevaluate, wouldn't we? That is the nature of science. Sure, it would be a tough pill to swallow for avowed atheists and materialists; sure, the establishment would resist, as Lisa points out; but life would go on. And somehow this new ability to detect and measure the action of a 'deity' or 'deific force' would be assimilated into science.
But there is no such evidence today. Not one jot or tittle.**
(**Unless you just point at ALL known forces and phenomena (gravity, magnetism, osmosis, memory, radiation, Robin Williams) and say, There, that is the deific force at work. I'm okay with that, but it's pretty clear to me that would be a religious statement, not a scientific one.)
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Promethius: The thing that gets me fairly steamed is that I believe in intelligent design to some degree, but I just do not understand how it can be taught as science? Also how does scientific evolution and intelligent design differ in what they are saying? As far as I understand isnt intelligent design just saying God made things evolve into the way they are?
I think perhaps science teachers should not be saying wether evolution is God influenced or not thus avoiding the whole controversy to begin with.
The question is whether random mutations can ever result in such complexities as eyes, kittens or Charles Darwin.
Those who insist that it's all just happenstance have an ideological axe to grind every bit as much as the fundamentalists.
Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did, there is certainly no evidence for extrapolating it back to a single point. That's something that can only come from faith. Faith that everything happens without design and that everything is the result of unchanging processes. It's just as "non-scientific" as ID is being claimed to be, because it's utterly unfalsifiable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scientists looked very carefully at ID, weighed the data, and decided against it.
This is just what was so unscientific about it, though - because they don't have data which justifies rejecting it. Rather, they are attempting to define science around it, and reject it without needing scientific data to do so.
As I've said in the past, the only thing testable about evolution is the fact that it is a process that occurs in the present. The way in which this process operated in the past and whether or not it is the origin of all species is totally untestable, as are all matters of history. They are not, strictly speaking, matters of science - yet no scientist I know of wants to teach evolution only as a process that goes on now without mentioning the implications it has on how life came about. That is because implications and analysis of science, in addition to what is strictly science, are also important to the scientific world. But to exclude completely certain theories analyzing the results of science simply because it sounds religious, while allowing equally untestable explanations of the data in classroom, is an instance of science assuming things rather than proving them.
Perhaps the whole matter could simply be resolved by getting rid of "Science" class and replacing it with "Natural Studies". A natural studies class could include studying science, but could also include interpretations of science that scientists do not consider to be "scientific". If it comes down to that choice, I would think that this is what school systems need to do, because it would be irresponsible of them to teach science in a vacuum, without helping them understand the way it relates to the important contraversies in our nation. And it would be irresponsible to teach science in a way that seems to reject, flat out, the students' religions - unless, of course, science can offer experimental proof for that. Students will end up not trusting science. This is why, if people will not allow things like ID to be taught in "Science" class, we should replace Science class with a class where the door is open to a broader range of topics and a more complete understanding of how science informs our society.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris B - that link wasn't exactly the best to give the whole story of the Kansas Board of Education vote. I should expect most Hatrackers are usually bright enough to go to the source and get what the actual wording of the standards are, not the media-interpreted version.
Facts about this:
1) this doesn't change the classroom. Teachers still have control over how science is taught in their own classroom as they always have and I have seen teachers in Kansas teach it both ways -- heavy on evolution, light on evolution. I've even seen them bring up ID -- and nothing was said. This really doesn't change anything inside the school. The ruling only affects how state assessment tests are worded.
2) This specifically says it does NOT push the intelligent design theory, it only allows for the questioning of the theory of evolution. As far as I know -- the basics of science, in general have to do with questioning everything.
So the IDers may be saying this is "a victory" and the evolutionist may be shaking their heads in dismay, but in reality, this isn't going to change much of the status quo for Kansas.
quote:"That's... hilarious. Is that honestly the best you can do?"
Hey, great counterargument! Can I borrow it sometime?
quote:"The question is whether random mutations can ever result in such complexities as eyes, kittens or Charles Darwin.
Those who insist that it's all just happenstance have an ideological axe to grind every bit as much as the fundamentalists.
Lisa, I have had the impression from other threads that you have a pretty incisive mind, but the above arguments deeply disappoint me.
Evolution does not say that eyes or kittens are the result of random mutations; nor is it anywhere taught that evolution is 'just happenstance.'
Some of your arguments up till now were provocative. Now you are just making wild, lazy claims that may sound good to a child, but which are actually nonsensical. Je suis désolé.
quote:Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did...
What part of evolution never happened? Perhaps biological populations do not reproduce and die in successive generations, selectively passing on mutations and heritable traits. No, there's no evidence of that. Perhaps branches of the tree of life did not die off, resulting in huge numbers of long-extinct species? Nope, no evidence of that. Perhaps it is impossible for evolution to have occurred, since it requires so many eons of time to have elapsed, for which there is no evidence? Perhaps kittens and earthworms and biologists share a common cellular 'blueprint'? Nope, no evidence of that.....
Gee, one wonders what evidence for ID would satisfy someone like you!
quote:"...can only come from faith. Faith that everything happens without design and that everything is the result of unchanging processes."
I don't deny there is an underlying faith to 'idealized science' -- but it is not a faith in 'absence of design,' nor is it a faith in 'unchanging processes.'
The faith in science is a faith that the physical universe is understandable to human intellect.
This is a knife-edge of faith, because at the same time we acknowledge that it is very, very unlikely ever to be actually so understood. And if you look at ALL of the universe (e.g., faith itself, inspiration, beauty, hate, imagination, deific concepts -- not just the physical universe), science pretends to illuminate only a small corner of existence.
But this faith is enough to keep us working, asking, questing.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: The question is whether random mutations can ever result in such complexities as eyes, kittens or Charles Darwin.
Those who insist that it's all just happenstance have an ideological axe to grind every bit as much as the fundamentalists.
Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did, there is certainly no evidence for extrapolating it back to a single point. That's something that can only come from faith. Faith that everything happens without design and that everything is the result of unchanging processes. It's just as "non-scientific" as ID is being claimed to be, because it's utterly unfalsifiable.
This is yet another ignorant post. Evolution is not, and has never been about just "random mutation". Evolution is a directed process. It is not, however a goal directed process.
What's this mean? It means it's not totally random. It means you can't prop up your "the probability that x would evolve is vanishingly low" straw man. Evolution doesn't work like that, and people who think it does just indicates how unqualified they are to enter the scientific debate.
Evolution possesses random components, in that you don't know what mutations will take place from generation to generation. But, there are very non-random components that weed out a massive amount of noise/garbage mutations (that's the whole notion of fitness). Is it plausible that this system can generate complex individual and group behavior? Yes. People who tell you it can't are entirely unable to give any reasoning why evolution fails, or hold up any examples that evolution is inherently unable to explain.
That's why i love that they run around screaming at the top of their lungs about being stifled from expressing their scientific ideas. Their scientific idea takes 30 seconds to explain, and then the exchange of science abruptly ends. "There are things so complicated that evolution will never explain how it came to exist." Well how do they know that? "Well, we did some calculations! And the numbers we got are really really small." So? Could it be that the numbers that you're using are wrong? Where'd you get them? "We made them up!" Great... why are you bothering me again?
Also, let's head this off at the pass and dispense with the notion that humans (or any other creature) are well designed machines of flawless perfect flawlessness. Is it good design to have your aorta randomly pop and kill you? Do cataracts indicate that eyeballs were built in a clever or smart fashion? How about the need for corrective lenses? How about cancer and the damage that radiation (something the univer has plenty of) can kill living creatures? What about the fact that women have to push babies (and deform their skulls) through a small opening in their pelvis to give birth?
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I know -- the basics of science, in general have to do with questioning everything.
Isn't that the question here, though: Do the basics of science have to do with questioning everything or just with questioning certain things?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Facts about this:
1) this doesn't change the classroom. Teachers still have control over how science is taught in their own classroom as they always have and I have seen teachers in Kansas teach it both ways -- heavy on evolution, light on evolution. I've even seen them bring up ID -- and nothing was said. This really doesn't change anything inside the school. The ruling only affects how state assessment tests are worded.
2) This specifically says it does NOT push the intelligent design theory, it only allows for the questioning of the theory of evolution. As far as I know -- the basics of science, in general have to do with questioning everything.
So the IDers may be saying this is "a victory" and the evolutionist may be shaking their heads in dismay, but in reality, this isn't going to change much of the status quo for Kansas.
FG
I disagree. The problem here is not evolution's sacred post in some fictitous scientific hall of fame. The problem is wasting time discussing that have no substantive scientific worth or merit. First, k-12 science classrooms are not the appropriate forum to attempt complex refutations of evolutionary theory (IDers can't cut it in the world of higher education, so they've resorted to attempting to manipulate children). Second, the approach being taken by Intelligent Design "theorists" is the problem. It is their very modus operandi that is the problem. They have no serious scientific beef, so they're trying to interfere using school boards and legislation. This isn't a problem of IDers stalwartly defending themselves and science from dogmatic scientists, this is a group of people who are attemping to screw with the public perception of evolution, undermine the credibility of scientists, and the very notion of how science is done. That's what scientists are upset with.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres wrote: As I've said in the past, the only thing testable about evolution is the fact that it is a process that occurs in the present. The way in which this process operated in the past and whether or not it is the origin of all species is totally untestable, as are all matters of history.
This claim in patently absurd. Take, for instance, the idea that an ancient meteor strike caused one of the mass extinctions on our planet. Or the idea that there even were mass extinctions in the planet's past, for that matter. Both are matters of history. Both ideas are testable. If there were mass extinctions, there should be evidence of plant and animal life, unfound in today's biospheres, buried in the ground. They have been found. If a meteor strike sufficiently large to cause an extinction level event were to have occurred in the past on earth, there should be evidence of it. What sort of evidence? Well, meteor strikes produce tektites among the ejecta from the meteor crater. If a meteor strike were the cause of an ELE, there should be tektites in the same geological layer as the evidence of the extinct species. Guess what? Such layers of tektites have been found. They have been found world-wide. They have been found world-wide in the same geologic layer, providing further evidence of a massive meteor strike at the hypothesized time. This is entirely a matter of history and is being and has been tested.
How might we test if evolution occurred in the past? Well, I point you to the relevant part of John's post above:
quote:What part of evolution never happened? Perhaps biological populations do not reproduce and die in successive generations, selectively passing on mutations and heritable traits. No, there's no evidence of that. Perhaps branches of the tree of life did not die off, resulting in huge numbers of long-extinct species? Nope, no evidence of that. Perhaps it is impossible for evolution to have occurred, since it requires so many eons of time to have elapsed, for which there is no evidence? Perhaps kittens and earthworms and biologists share a common cellular 'blueprint'? Nope, no evidence of that.....
Justifiable sarcasm aside, each of his points is a hypothesis about history, and each has been tested and found to be likely.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
That's a false dichotomy (in your last post). "Questioning evolutionary theory" does not imply "suggesting that there is an intelligent designer," because an intelligent designer whose existence cannot be evidenced falls outside the realm of science. Science is interested in testable hypotheses. That's been said several times already in this thread, actually.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as I know -- the basics of science, in general have to do with questioning everything.
Isn't that the question here, though: Do the basics of science have to do with questioning everything or just with questioning certain things?
Okay, this is a complicated question. The idea is that in an ideal world, people shouldn't believe things that are unmotivated. The practical fact of the matter is that nobody can explore everything, and so people attempt to grab common wisdom and use that as a ceteris parabus. Assuming the rest of the world is true according to the stuff people tell me, what happens when i start rearranging stuff in the small window of things that i know a lot about.
The problem is that IDers aren't fighting lazy uses of evolutionary ideas (ironically they've ignored these entirely), by people who aren't experts, they're trying to excise evolution wholesale from the scientific world. They're taking on the people who make it their job to know how evolution is supposed to work in the real world.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both ideas are testable. If there were mass extinctions, there should be evidence of plant and animal life, unfound in today's biospheres, buried in the ground. They have been found. If a meteor strike sufficiently large to cause an extinction level event were to have occurred in the past on earth, there should be evidence of it. What sort of evidence? Well, meteor strikes produce tektites among the ejecta from the meteor crater. If a meteor strike were the cause of an ELE, there should be tektites in the same geological layer as the evidence of the extinct species. Guess what? Such layers of tektites have been found. They have been found world-wide. They have been found world-wide in the same geologic layer, providing further evidence of a massive meteor strike at the hypothesized time. This is entirely a matter of history and is being and has been tested.
Finding things that are consistent with a theory is not a scientific test. That would just be finding historical evidence, making the meteor crash, strictly speaking, a matter of history rather than a matter of science. In the same way, ID theorists could look for evidence of miracles or the truth of the Bible and so on to support their claims - but that would not be a scientific test either.
A scientific test is a reproduceable experiment where you see what happens in a given circumstance. Do X and Y will happen, every time. Drop a ball of a certain weight and it will fall at a certain speed. Place an animal under certain condititions and it will react in a certain way.
So, strictly speaking, past evolution is not science, because we cannot set up the conditions of the origin of life and watch it slowly evolve into man. This is not an experiment that can be done. Yet, we clearly want to discuss that issue in science class. That is why attempting to hold science education to an extremely strict definition of science is not a good idea. Instead we want to discuss not only science itself but also how to understand science in the context of everything else we know. The latter also is a proper concern of scientists.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only that anthropology and archeology are a science, under the strict definition people are applying to Intelligent Design. Are you suggesting they are?
After all, it is easily conceivable that an archeologist could someday find very strong evidence for God. Does this make God scientifically testable?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of statistics. We are living in a very large very old universe, that is possibly even one of countless many others. In such an extremely large pool of possibilities, was life not bound to pop up somewhere by pure chance at least once? People say that life couldn't have been random. These people just can't comprehend how truly large and old this universe is. Life is too unlikely to happen, to have aliens, and too much of a possibility to allow for G-d.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Less flippantly, facts about how things used to be are necessary to narrow the field of what possible processes (or paths the universe has taken) occured to get us to this point. And as such are useful and important.
As for simulation, there is a lot of simulation work that takes place, that's the wonderful thing about evolution, since it applies to all living organisms, you can test evolutionary theory in things that breed really fast, like bacteria, flies, rodents and fish. And short of that, you can do computer simulations.
Anyway, evolutionary theory does use simulation.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: ID makes no empircal claims. That's what makes it non-science.
And yes, it's possible for God to be scientifically testable. If God showed up on my door step and said "here i am!' and i said, cool, lets go show you off around the world, and write some papers on the cool and theory defying stuff you can do, and God went "Sure, let's go to it!" Then God is scientifically testable.
But ID doesn't make any claims as such, they never indicate what amazing theory defying stuff God is capable of, they never say what the implications of that are for theory, they never make any inferences from that stuff about the nature of the universe.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Speaking of statistics. We are living in a very large very old universe, that is possibly even one of countless many others. In such an extremely large pool of possibilities, was life not bound to pop up somewhere by pure chance at least once? People say that life couldn't have been random. These people just can't comprehend how truly large and old this universe is. Life is too unlikely to happen, to have aliens, and too much of a possibility to allow for G-d.
I'm not sure exactly what this post is trying to indicate. Nothing precludes a creator outsides space and time. But nothing indicates it either. So inferrences made about the universe based around the existence of such a creator are pure abject speculation and bear no relationship or connection to empirical reality.
Or more succinctly, God may or may not exist, but since there's no proof, theory based on the existence of God aren't science.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only is ID "theory" not testable, it also by definition cannot be supported with evidence. "ID theorists" have worded the "theory" to prevent the possibility of such support.
Which isn't surprising, as no such support exists.
The only argument "ID theorists" make is irreducible complexity, which is not a scientific argument -- not only is it untestable, it is also evidentially unsupportable. It relies entirely on the "theorist's" judgment of the complexity threshold beyond which a designer is implied.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
That's... hilarious. Is that honestly the best you can do?
Perhaps you would explain for the benefit of us dogma-blinded scientists what makes it so hilarious? I always like to be let in on jokes.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to make a personal declaration. I object to efforts to 'teach the controversy' for three reasons.
I have propounded on two of these reasons in these forums at some length:
1. The essential dishonesty of the actors, who:
claim there is a controversy when there is none
apply arguments which I am sure at least some of them know to be flawed, but which have proven successful at swaying ill-educated minds
calculatedly avoid talking about God or Creationism, cloaking both their purpose and their faith.
2. The patent wrongness of attempting to stretch science into an appropriate forum for deific theorizing. Is it important for people to be educated in the knowledge that there are multiple and sometimes competing ideas extant in human culture about the origin and purpose of the universe? Of course. Should educated adults have an awareness that some people devoutly believe existence is guided by a non-physical intelligence or set of spiritual laws? Of course. Should students in a pluralistic society be offered the opportunity to adopt those views for themselves? Of course. Does any of the above have anything to do with science? No.
But...
... I have only tangentially alluded to, and never discussed, my third reason for opposition to ID.
3. It narrows the definition of a Designer (or God, or deity) -- something I would have thought religious people would object to. And furthermore, it narrows it to a definition that contradicts my idea of what God probably is, if God exists.
It is one thing to attempt to destroy science, and another to use science to establish a universal claim for only a particular sort of deity. This effort is a slap in the face to believers as well as to scientifically minded people.
If anyone is interested, I can say more on these themes.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Finding things that are consistent with a theory is not a scientific test.
This is probably a semantic arguement, but, clearly I disagree. Science is about creating a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis. Gathering evidence for or against it is one way of scientifically testing that hypothesis.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If He truly is an inifite, omniscient, and omnipotent being, does it not make sense that He exists through His own will
No. Nothing ever experienced has ever followed that path. Nothing ever observed has been able to create itself "by its own will." There is no extrapolation to be had from any known experience to make one think that such a thing is possible. A good starting place would be to create something (anything!) purely from someone's will.
I will a red ball to appear before me...nothing.
So we've gone from "Everything that exists needs a creator" to "things can be created by will alone" to "things exist that create themselves through their own will." Man, I haven't been that stoned since college.
Treso,
quote:(1)Students need to learn that science is a method of evaluating different theories based on observations - not a set of dogma laid down by scientists. (2) But the latter is the message when science refuses to even discuss the possibility of Intelligent Design as an alternate theory
(1) Well, that's what they teach my kids in science classs, no "ID" required.
(2) I agree with Fugu. Why stop with just the Christian creation myth in science classes? Why not add the Mayan myth? Or the one true religion of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (blessed be his noodly appendages)?
On the other hand, would you apply the same criteria to religion, or else followers will rightly conclude that religion can't be trusted to give us accurate explanations of its data? Would you mind if I attended your church and gave a sermon on the non-existence of God?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"That's... hilarious. Is that honestly the best you can do?"
Hey, great counterargument! Can I borrow it sometime?
I thought it was all the link deserved. The thing spends the first half giving various definitions of "species", which was a good sign that we were in for some weasling further on. It means we're going to be offered examples of "speciation" that are nothing of the sort, and then given "alternate definitions" of "speciation" that do fit. Sort of like shooting an arrow into a wall and then painting a bullseye around it.
The author notes the dearth of papers making claims of observed speciation. He explains this by saying, "Well, it's because everyone knows it's true!" <snicker> And he tests it... gawd... he tests it by asking some grad students and faculty about observed speciation, and interprets the "Um... well... sure, there must be literature on it" answers he got as supporting his thesis that this is why the literature doesn't exist.
"But everyone knows it's true" is not science.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:"The question is whether random mutations can ever result in such complexities as eyes, kittens or Charles Darwin.
Those who insist that it's all just happenstance have an ideological axe to grind every bit as much as the fundamentalists.
Lisa, I have had the impression from other threads that you have a pretty incisive mind, but the above arguments deeply disappoint me.
Gosh, John. I feel... terrible. Just awful. The last thing I ever wanted to do was to disappoint you.
Wait, no. That was someone else I cared about disappointing. Never mind.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Evolution does not say that eyes or kittens are the result of random mutations; nor is it anywhere taught that evolution is 'just happenstance.'
'Scuze? Evolution means random mutations, natural selection of successful mutations, and speciation deriving from those naturally selected successful mutations.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Some of your arguments up till now were provocative. Now you are just making wild, lazy claims that may sound good to a child, but which are actually nonsensical. Je suis désolé.
Eineni mevina Tzarfatit. Slach li she'ein li musag ma she-katavta.
Though I can figure it out. "I am... desolate"? "Devastated"? Well, John, I don't think that the claims I posted are wild or nonsensical. Lazy, perhaps, but in a good way.
If you have specific issues with what I wrote, perhaps you can point to them, rather than tossing sweeping generalities about what a sad job I'm doing of expressing myself. Who knows? Maybe the act of formulating your criticisms will help you to understand what I was saying.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did...
What part of evolution never happened? Perhaps biological populations do not reproduce and die in successive generations, selectively passing on mutations and heritable traits. No, there's no evidence of that.
Do you have evidence that Felis catus is descended from another species? If so, how did that happen? Do you have evidence that Felis catus and Felis tigris have a common ancestor? I mean, other than the fact that they're similar.
Genetics is genetics. Variations within species are common. Find me an example of such variations crossing the line into other species.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Perhaps branches of the tree of life did not die off, resulting in huge numbers of long-extinct species? Nope, no evidence of that.
So you're saying that the extinction of the dodo proves... what, exactly? Yes, species have died off. What you haven't shown is new species coming into existence.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Perhaps it is impossible for evolution to have occurred, since it requires so many eons of time to have elapsed, for which there is no evidence? Perhaps kittens and earthworms and biologists share a common cellular 'blueprint'? Nope, no evidence of that.....
Similarity doesn't prove common ancestry. That's the point you keep missing, John. It's consistent with it, but it's not evidence of it. It's more suggestive of a common designer, in fact. Variations on a theme.
And even the most extreme theories about the age of the Earth, let alone of the Universe, aren't sufficient to account for the development of life as we know it by means of random mutations and natural selection. Even if such a mechanism had ever been observed. Which it hasn't.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Gee, one wonders what evidence for ID would satisfy someone like you!
Evidence for ID? Hard evidence? There is none, John. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. Which puts it on par with Darwinian evolution.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:"...can only come from faith. Faith that everything happens without design and that everything is the result of unchanging processes."
I don't deny there is an underlying faith to 'idealized science' -- but it is not a faith in 'absence of design,' nor is it a faith in 'unchanging processes.'
John, look at the hysterical reactions to scientists who dared suggest that a non-religious intelligent design thesis was legitimate. There is an absolute imperative to find explanations that exclude God. There's also ample reason for the existence of that imperative. But there's no logic to it in terms of the science.
We see various species. We understand genetics. And we try to extrapolate outwards from there, but we've gone far beyond anything that's been proven, or that's even provable. Theories beyond that point are all speculation. Life emerging spontaneously from primordial soup is the stuff of science fiction. Not of science. Not of good science.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: The faith in science is a faith that the physical universe is understandable to human intellect.
That's what it should be. But it's not. When a proposition is not falsifiable, the appropriate thing to do is not say, "It's out of bounds". It's to say, "At this point, we can't determine the truth or falsity of the proposition". Because even in that case, there can be evidence that leans towards or away from the proposition. And that's of value. Scientific value. It doesn't help us in terms of certainty, but it does speak to likelihood.
I just scratched the side of my nose with my fingernail. That's unfalsifiable. It's an event that just happened, and it's real, but it's not falsifiable. So nothing that happens from here on in can be seen as a result of my having done so. Don't you see how nutty that is?
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: This is a knife-edge of faith, because at the same time we acknowledge that it is very, very unlikely ever to be actually so understood. And if you look at ALL of the universe (e.g., faith itself, inspiration, beauty, hate, imagination, deific concepts -- not just the physical universe), science pretends to illuminate only a small corner of existence.
But this faith is enough to keep us working, asking, questing.
Very poetic. And I think we both have the same goal here. But I think you've taken the lazy way out by excluding a set of possibilities for reasons that are not supportable.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(2) I agree with Fugu. Why stop with just the Christian creation myth in science classes? Why not add the Mayan myth? Or the one true religion of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (blessed be his noodly appendages)?[/QB][/QUOTE]
I agree. I think all religious views should be excluded from the classroom. Not least of all the Christian one (which is really the Jewish one that Christians have co-opted).
So what? The issue is that a quasi-religious dogma is currently being taught in the schools. That idea is that genetics can be extrapolated back into the past, and that a process of natural selection of successful mutations can result in speciation. The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Why is that any more acceptable? You can teach genetics without extending it beyond what can rationally and scientifically be said about it.
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: On the other hand, would you apply the same criteria to religion, or else followers will rightly conclude that religion can't be trusted to give us accurate explanations of its data? Would you mind if I attended your church and gave a sermon on the non-existence of God?
Thanks for acknowledging that you see the classroom as a sort of Church of the Non-Existence of God.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're saying that the extinction of the dodo proves... what, exactly? Yes, species have died off. What you haven't shown is new species coming into existence.
Have you ever been to a museum? seen early human fossils that kind of look like us but not? seen dinosaur fossils that never saw a human walk this Earth? What exactly is proof for you?
quote:The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Yes. Yes, that's what Darwin wanted to do. He created the theory out of thin air to destroy God. and every single person who believes it also wants to destroy God. The billions of people who accept evolution as a scientific truth are out to destroy God.
posted
I am no more out to "destroy God" than I am out to destroy my kids' imaginary playmates. I just think that they'd be much better served if they didn't bring their imaginary playmates to school with them.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And StarLisa, I just want to check on this:
It makes sense to say that evolution works from this point forward, but it does not make sense to say that it worked in the past?
Or is it the case that you will only allow for small-to-moderate changes within a given species, and not allow for the creation of any new species, either now or in the future (based on the available evidence and your interpretation of it, of course)?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did
Piffle. Everyone knows that the polar bear is descended from the mink. Well, a mink-like ancestor, anyway.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think that StarLisa actually needs to see it happening, right before her eyes. Like in "The Hulk," or "Fantastic Four."
But, you know, like, for real.
The same way that she needs to see God appear, right before her eyes, to know that He's really, truly, real.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I think that StarLisa actually needs to see it happening, right before her eyes. Like in "The Hulk," or "Fantastic Four."
But, you know, like, for real.
The same way that she needs to see God appear, right before her eyes, to know that He's really, truly, real.
It appears as though you have just supported StarLisa's point on the parallels between faith in God and faith in Evolution.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're defining "science" in a way that can possibly exclude what really happened from consideration?
That troubles me. I think of science as a means of discovering the truth. Learning about reality. If rules of science are created that can rule something as being untouchable by science, even though it might really be the case, then those rules make science diverge from the quest to discover the truth. I don't think that was ever the intent of science.
quote:So science requires that a possibility be ruled out, because it doesn't fit the rules of scientific inquiry.
The scientific method is a means of uncovering the truth but it isn't the only means. Science does not require that we rule out possibilites that don't fit the rules of scientific inquiry. Science is simply incapable of drawing conclusions about possibilities that don't fit the rules of scientific inquiry. Those types of questions exist outside the realm of science. Some of the most important questions we face as human beings fall outside the realm of science.
What is love? What is ethical? What is beautiful. Is there a God? Do human's have inalienable rights? Was the Universe designed by (an) intelligent being(s)?
All of these questions are important, but they are questions science can't touch.
Your error SL is in assuming that when scientists claim that a theory is not scientific, they are claiming it is wrong. This is simply not true. A theory which is not scientific is one that has not (or can not) been tested by the scientific method. This says nothing about whether or not it is true. In fact, in the case of Intelligent design, scientist are simply claiming that validity of this theory can not be tested within the realm of science.
For anyone familiar with Gödel's theorem, such a conclusion should not be surprising.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand her correctly, sL is also claiming that by such a definition of "scientific theory," evolutionary theory is unscientific.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Yes. Yes, that's what Darwin wanted to do. He created the theory out of thin air to destroy God. and every single person who believes it also wants to destroy God. The billions of people who accept evolution as a scientific truth are out to destroy God.
Right.
Um, the idea of the theory of evolution (as is the case with all theories) is to eliminate as much of the unknown as possible, in effect eliminating (the idea of) God from the equation, or as Lisa stated, "make God appear to be unnecessary."
Do you disagree with that? Because it seems that you're equating "make God appear to be unnecessary" with "destroy God," which is quite simply not the case.
And I think therein lies much of the problem. People are so quick to try to turn this into a debate over which is correct while assuming that only one is, when in fact, the issue really is about which field of study these different things be taught under.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cute, BQT. The only problem is that there is a lot of very good evidence for evolution. What I was actually trying to do is show that to compare the level of "faith" required to sustain belief in evolution pales before the level of faith required to believe in God, creationism, or ID (those last two being, of course, the same thing)
And I am quite spefically avoiding the whole "religious" argument of "how do we really know anything?" and "isn't it all just faith, anyhow?" since I find those quite disingenous.
quote:Originally posted by Jaiden: starLisa, why and how do you pick and choose who to respond to?
Very often I respond to the first person to say something. If other people say the same thing, I assume that my initial response covers it.
Why? Did you ask me something that I didn't answer?
One of the annoying things about these boards is that you have to scan through everything to find anything that's directed at you. Also, some people refer to me here as sL, rather than Lisa, and I don't always see that, because it's not what I'm used to.
Oh, also, if it's like in the morning before I leave for work and it's obvious to me that I'm not going to have time to finish a decent response without being late, I might skip it momentarily. And sometimes, I forget about it.
This isn't Go Ask Lisa, after all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Questioning evolutionary theory" does not imply "suggesting that there is an intelligent designer," because an intelligent designer whose existence cannot be evidenced falls outside the realm of science. Science is interested in testable hypotheses. That's been said several times already in this thread, actually.
That has been said, but it has also been refuted by me, or so I think. As I mentioned, evolution as an historical account of the origin of species is not testable, and since science is interested in that, science cannot be only interested in testable hypotheses. Science is concerned not only with what can be tested scientifically, but also all the possible inmplications and explanations of that which can be tested scientifically.
quote:Gathering evidence for or against it is one way of scientifically testing that hypothesis.
If this were true then God's existence is definitely testable, because we can gather evidence for or against it, including Biblical accounts of history, historical proof (or lack thereof), various phenomena, etc. But I think science requires a much stronger and more specific type of testing than that. It requires testing that is in accordance with the scientific method.
quote:Tres: ID makes no empircal claims.
It claims that an intelligent designer exists and that we will see his handywork in the design of the universe - a design which would otherwise be impossible, according to them. This is empirical. It's just an empirical claim that is difficult to distinguish from the empirical claims made by competing theories.
quote:Why stop with just the Christian creation myth in science classes? Why not add the Mayan myth? Or the one true religion of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (blessed be his noodly appendages)?
The same reason we teach kids American History but not Zimbabwean History - there's an infinite number of possible topics to cover in school, and we only have time to cover the ones they will need to know about. There are lots of Christians in America who believe in God, so that is very relevant to students learning this. If there were many Americans who believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster then that would be relevant to, and we should consider discussing it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:sL added "or even childish," which I think makes Teshi's statement entirely justified.
I see your point, but I can't entirely agree. I do think that much of the purpose of scientific discovery is to remove God from places where He need not be and the continued belief in God for those situations would indeed be quite childish. So to an extent I do agree with that statement of Lisa's.
And I still think that using science to replace God as an answer to certain questions is not the same thing as trying to destroy God. Like many people have shown here, the idea of God and science can coexist.
Anyway, that wasn't really the main reason why I posted in the first place. What bothered me is that now both sides have resorted to snide, sarcastic comments. I found this discussion much more enlightening when at least one side tried to remain dignified with its responses.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
No, I haven't posted anything on this thread beyond that. I'm not an active poster (but an active reader).
I just noticed that quite a few people were posting alternative views but you were only addressing some of those people. I was just curious how you decided which to address. I understand that some say the same thing, but I find some say very different or unique things. I also know it isn't "Go Ask Lisa"- I was just glancing at things and it seems you concentrate on one post/poster at a time. I was just curious how you selected.
So if people write starLisa clearly at the beginning of a post are you more likely to respond?
Posts: 944 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're saying that the extinction of the dodo proves... what, exactly? Yes, species have died off. What you haven't shown is new species coming into existence.
Have you ever been to a museum? seen early human fossils that kind of look like us but not? seen dinosaur fossils that never saw a human walk this Earth? What exactly is proof for you?
Evidently more than it is for you. What's your basis for saying that we didn't live at the same time as homo neanderthalis and homo habilis?
My sister looks a bit like Sarah Michelle Gellar. But if they're related at all, it's quite distant. I don't take resemblance as proof that our milkman and the Gellars' milkman were the same guy.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Yes. Yes, that's what Darwin wanted to do. He created the theory out of thin air to destroy God. and every single person who believes it also wants to destroy God. The billions of people who accept evolution as a scientific truth are out to destroy God.
quote:The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Yes. Yes, that's what Darwin wanted to do. He created the theory out of thin air to destroy God. and every single person who believes it also wants to destroy God. The billions of people who accept evolution as a scientific truth are out to destroy God.
Right.
<yawn>
Unfortunately that does little to prove your point, or to add credibility to anything else you've stated. Ignoring it probably would have been the better response.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
