quote:Science is a wonderful tool that doesn't deserve the ignorant mangling that starLisa and Tres have been subjecting it to here.
Was it really necessarary to label it "ignorant mangling"? I advocate defending science from overzealous scientists and the dangers of dogmatism. I don't advocate "mangling" it.
quote:However, Zeus with his lightening bolts, spontaneous generation, the concentric crystal spheres that held the planets "above" us, angels, demons, God himself, space aliens, and a flat Earth are or were all detected at some point in our history through introspection and logic. It is only insofar as the effects of these things outside of our heads have or have not been identified and investigated that we can move them from the realm of wishful thinking and into any semblance of reality. Clearly, introspection and logic can only get us so far. Clearly it is just as likely to lead us to outright falsehood as it is to lead us to any kind of truth.
I agre that introspection and logic can only get us so far - but that does not mean it is just as likely to lead to falsehood as it is to lead to truth. To say so would not be giving enough credit to human judgement in those areas. It should be remembered that introspection and logic invented science itself, and is being used right now in this discussion to try and determine the nature of science.
It should also be remembered that science has had plenty of its own failures. The list of failed scientific theories that were once widely accepted is very long.
Finally, and most importantly, I think it is false to say that these things only move into reality once they effect things outside our heads. I'd argue the exact opposite - that what goes on insider our heads is the only thing that ultimately really matters. Physical things have no meaning - only the way physical things influence our experiences and happiness has meaning. So, if these things don't influence anything outside our heads, they can still be important if they do influence our state of mind. Or to give an example, if God were to cause you to feel nonstop pain, then God definitely matters to you, whether or not He impacts anything physically.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Or to give an example, if God were to cause you to feel nonstop pain, then God definitely matters to you, whether or not He impacts anything physically."
Treso, that's such a meaningless statement, I don't know where to begin.
1) If I were to feel nonstop pain, like a permanent migrain or torture at the hands of US Federal agents, how would I somehow know that it was really "God" giving me that pain. Especially since there is no God, I would have to conclude that the pain was coming from some known or currently unknown source.
2) "...pain...whether or not He impacts anything physically." Well, even if I'm feeling pain from some phantom limb, it's got to be a physical pain. What else could it be? Something is causing my physical neurons to react to a "painful" stimulus.
But, clearly, whatever is causing me that pain definitely matters to me.
Oh, and BTW, I refuse to allow myself to devolve into sophistry ("all that matters is in our own heads"). Though I am quite fond of myself, I'm not so nearly full of myself as all that.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about neurons firing. I'm talking about God making you feel pain without anything physical happening at all.
And presumably, if God exists, he can make you aware when it is He that is making you feel pain.
quote:Oh, and BTW, I refuse to allow myself to devolve into sophistry ("all that matters is in our own heads"). Though I am quite fond of myself, I'm not so nearly full of myself as all that.
No, rejecting an argument as "sophistry" without giving a real reason is sophistry. What I said is not.
If something matters (in of itself) that is not people or that which is in the minds and perceptions of people, then what is it? Happiness, sadness, love, passion, faith, understanding, enjoyment, pain - all of these things are in the mind. But even more than that, all the most significant aspects of physical objects - their feel, shape, look, sound - are only found in the human perceptions of them. The physical world itself is just a bunch of atoms arranged - which in of itself holds no value.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
No offense, dear, but just how stupid would you like us to be?
quote:Because for all you know, we were designed by some alien race
And then they were designed by some alien race, and then they were designed by some alien race, and then they were designed by some alien race, and then they were designed by some alien race, and so on, and so on, until...
Cripes. What caused the Big Bang? Eventually, you're going to get to a place where you have no answers.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not talking about neurons firing. I'm talking about God making you feel pain without anything physical happening at all.
That relies entirely on consciousness being separate from its neural substrate, which is totally non-obvious. In other words, you have to have a soul separate from matter for this to work. So it's not going to be a very convinving argument to an atheist. (A-soulist?)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: starLisa, would oyu care to reply to my post on the previous page? You appear to have missed it,
It's not so much that I missed it as that I've been in a drug induced stupor since this morning. Sorry for the inconvenience.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Would you accept this as proof that evolution can happen? Just to recap, we have a lineage where each child is able to breed with its mother, but the endpoint would not be able to breed with the beginning, assuming the latter were somehow miraculously preserved. If we could observe such a thing, would you concede evolution to have occurred?
If fruitflies and dragonflies are separate species (I'm not assuming that after the polar bear fiasco, but let's say), and you could get dragonflies from breeding fruitflies to look like dragonflies, I'd concede that it's possible for new species to come about that way.
Of course, what you're talking about there is, by every definition in the world, intelligent design. How intelligent depends on the person breeding the fruitflies, but it's still a process with intent behind it.
Why? Are you claiming that this has happened?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I believe frined starLisa also requires that the new species look significantly different, hence my dragonflies in the example above.
No, I don't require any such thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, it's not an uncommon strawman on Creationist sites. Ken Ham is always saying "Whoever saw a cat give birth to a dog?"
Well, that's stupid. But I'm not surprised that you're incapable of distinguishing between what I'm saying and what someone like that is saying. All heresy against evolution is pretty much the same, right?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Cripes. What caused the Big Bang? Eventually, you're going to get to a place where you have no answers."
If your hypothesis is that ID is true, and evolution not, because we were designed by little green men, then you have to answer how the little green men came into being. The only way ID becomes a seperate concept from evolution, is if those little green men were created, because evolution contains within it the fact that intelligent agents can modify living organisms, which will then alter further over time through the processes of evolution. If you wish to propose ID as a serious competitor to evolution, rather then as a small subset of evolution, you need to say that the little green men were created by an intelligent designer that is not subject to the laws of evolution. But little green men don't fit that category, themselves, so they can't create the next stage of little green men.
On the other hand, big bang theory has several viable hypotheses about what caused the big bang, that fit within our current understanding of the universe. So, the big bang doesn't need an intelligent designer to set it off, by our current understanding.
But, by our current understanding, little green men have to have come from somewhere that is not other little green men.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Ham is also fond of saying things like, "Excuse me--were you there?" Which counts, I guess, when you're discussing evolution, but doesn't count when you're discussing miracles, or God, or Christ, or some "intelligent designer."
Have we somehow lost Ms. Lisa? After we refuted or poked holes in pretty much everythnig she presented, she just sort of disappeared...
Well, Steve -- or may I call you Dick? -- I've been in excruciating pain, and I have better things to do when I'm hurting than to argue with someone as closed-minded as yourself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You've mistated that. It's "Everything subject to time and causality needs a creator." If you postulate that God is outside time and causality, there's no reason why God would need a creator.
Actually, no matter what you do, you eventually get back to an irreducible primary. If it's the Big Bang, where did the stuff for that come from. If it's an eternal universe with no beginning and no end, where'd that come from.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe friend starLisa also requires that the new species look significantly different, hence my dragonflies in the example above.
No, I don't require any such thing.
Then I don't understand how you can so cavalierly dismiss all the examples of speciation that have been given to you. People have pointed out several cases where the child was unable to breed with its parent. Just what more do you want? I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Would you accept this as proof that evolution can happen? Just to recap, we have a lineage where each child is able to breed with its mother, but the endpoint would not be able to breed with the beginning, assuming the latter were somehow miraculously preserved. If we could observe such a thing, would you concede evolution to have occurred?
If fruitflies and dragonflies are separate species (I'm not assuming that after the polar bear fiasco, but let's say), and you could get dragonflies from breeding fruitflies to look like dragonflies, I'd concede that it's possible for new species to come about that way.
Of course, what you're talking about there is, by every definition in the world, intelligent design. How intelligent depends on the person breeding the fruitflies, but it's still a process with intent behind it.
Sure, it's intelligent design as I set up the experiment, but that was only to have a record of very step on the path between fruit fly and dragon fly. (No offense, but I'm doing baby steps here and starting with really obvious stuff.)
If it happened in nature, it would take a lot longer and the evidence would be a bit spottier. Let me take one step back from the biologist, and instead say that each and every generation of this process (now taking a bit longer since it's not being artificially speeded up by radiation) left a fossil. Would you accept such fossil evidence?
Out of curiosity, are the two birds shown in this picture of the same species? It can sometimes be a bit difficult to tell just from coloration, so let me give you the added information that they are not able to interbreed. (And no, I'm not doing a nasty trick like giving you two female birds!)
quote:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, it's not an uncommon strawman on Creationist sites. Ken Ham is always saying "Whoever saw a cat give birth to a dog?"
Well, that's stupid. But I'm not surprised that you're incapable of distinguishing between what I'm saying and what someone like that is saying. All heresy against evolution is pretty much the same, right?
But you're the one who posted, in this very thread, as an example of what it would take to convince you, the words "A cat giving birth to a non-cat that breeds true"! Allowing for your vocabulary being a bit better than comrade Ham's, that's almost word for word the same!
<-- Tears of frustration. If you don't mean what you say, please say so!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You've mistated that. It's "Everything subject to time and causality needs a creator." If you postulate that God is outside time and causality, there's no reason why God would need a creator.
Actually, no matter what you do, you eventually get back to an irreducible primary. If it's the Big Bang, where did the stuff for that come from. If it's an eternal universe with no beginning and no end, where'd that come from.
Exactly. So why not stop at the Universe? We can actually point to that and say, "Well, we don't know where this comes from, but there it is." Gods, on the other hand - tricky beasts to pin down at the best of times. This is Occam's Razor in action.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres: Finally, and most importantly, I think it is false to say that these things only move into reality once they effect things outside our heads. I'd argue the exact opposite - that what goes on insider our heads is the only thing that ultimately really matters.
OK, this is a bit outside the core discussion of ID, but I have to disagree somewhat with this. Perhaps what goes on inside your own head is the only thing that matters to you, but in what we call "the real world" that simply isn't the case. The war in Iraq is certainly not going in inside my own head. I think it matters. I'm sure it matters a great deal more to the people whose lives are being ruined by the violence on both sides. Now, the justifications for that violence can be said to be going on inside the heads of the perpetrators. And in a free society, they are free to fantasize about any manner of justifications all they want. And why? Because ultimately it doesn't matter in the real world until such a point as those internal musings begin to interact with the real world, in this case in the form of war. That's when those things matter in the real world.
God is the same way. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want about God. Unless your God starts making a recognizeable affect in the real world, ultimately he doesn't matter in the real world. He might matter to you in your own head, but he doesn't matter to the rest of us.
quote:Happiness, sadness, love, passion, faith, understanding, enjoyment, pain - all of these things are in the mind.
Yes, but if they are only in your mind, then I submit that they are not "real" in any shared sense of the word but simply theoretical or at worst delusional. Take "love" for instance. To the degree that love is in your head alone, it doesn't matter in the real world. Love only matters when it is expressed and shared, the point at which it has recognizeable effects in the real, shared, world. All the other things on your list are like this as well. I can elucidate on each if you want, but I think you get my point.
To the degree that those things are only in your head, having no recognizeable or identifiable effect in the shared world, they are no different from my squirnk above, or the purple unicorn I'm thinking of now, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodly appendages).
Now, all the things in your head matter to you of course, just as all the things in my head matter to me. But are they "real"? Well, you can say "yes", but only in a very subjective, relative way. Sure they are real to you. The pain in your head, for which you can find no external cause is "real" to you. In a theoretical sense, if there truely is no external cause, most of us would consider the pain a delusion under which you are suffering. Since the cause can't be found, you might decide to label the cause "God". You might even decide that because the cause of your pain is called "God", your pain itself is evidence of God. After all, you pain wouldn't be there without a cause, right? But none of that is real in the shared world except to the degree it is detectable and identifiable in the real, shared world.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
ID (as a movement) is not a scientific movement that is being squelched. It is a political, social movement that wants to discredit science and scientific thinking. Its methods are not to lay out falsifiable hypotheses to see how they hold up against observation. It's method is to rally up those uneducated in science or with a political agenda served by the discrediting of science. That's why the "battle" is going on in public school boards and ballot boxes and not in laboratories and reputable universities.
The irony is that science is ultimately impervious to the obfuscation of the political IDers. Science has and will continue to take the "Ha! Gotcha!" moments of the detractors (like "examples" of irreducible complexity) and turn them into opportunities for new scientific insight. Detractors can point to the "long list" of science's "failures", but science actually has a very good track record of ultimately weeding out it's own mistakes. In a very real sense, a failure in science is also a success. Nearly every grand failure you can point to in science was either caused by an even greater success, or was very shortly followed by a string of successes. Change in thinking in science is slow, sometimes. But once it happens the change can spark startling new discoveries in a wide range of scientific fields.
Another irony is that the ID movement is fighting a ghost. Political IDers are offended because they see science as a challenge to the very existence of God. They portray scientists as uniformly requiring that there be no God. In this sense they are poking at shadows. Sure there are strongly atheistic scientists, but there are also strongly atheistic philosophers, engineers, politicians, and artists. Science doesn't require that there be no God, even if sometimes scientists themselves lose sight of this in their rhetoric. Or even if IDers falsely perceive this conclusion from their rhetoric. So in reality the ID movement is trying to poke God through some percieved cracks in science without realizing that God is already there to the degree that He is really anywhere at all.
An even greater irony is that the IDers (as a political movement*) are cheapening the very thing they think they are defending, the idea of God. OK, so suppose science were to end the debate by saying officially, "We'll continue with our research into the nature of the universe officially acknowledging that it is possible that somewhere ultimately this is all the result of an intelligent designer." What has the ID movement gained? We have learned nothing about the nature of this "designer". What if we discovered incontrovertible evidence that life on earth was designed by an intelligence? Would that injure the theory of evolution? Not at all. It would move theories of the Origin of Life back a level, but it certainly wouldn't mean that evolution hasn't occurred ever since that life was designed and placed here. It also wouldn't support the idea of a divine creator. Discovery of hard evidence of an intelligent creator in no way implies divinity on such a creator. There is no logical progression directly from "life was created by an intelligent designer" to "God created life on earth" except insofar as you strip from God any of the other attributes you believe he has. In other words, an intelligent designer is not logically an omnipotent, omniscient, careing, loving, salvation bringing being of any kind. An intelligent designer could very well be an extinct race. Our "intelligent designer" could be the equivalent of a sadistic child playing with a very, very sophisticated chemistry set. From one point of view, the existing evidence just as strongly points to that theory as to not. So, contrary to the apparent intent of the political ID movement, labeling all the "unknown" of science "God" does not make all that "unknown" evidence of the existence of "God" as the word applies in any other context.
___________________________
* In the above post, I'm referring to the ID movement. Not to the simple and inargueably possible (yet non-scientific) concept that somewhere along the line an intelligence brought about the universe.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That relies entirely on consciousness being separate from its neural substrate, which is totally non-obvious. In other words, you have to have a soul separate from matter for this to work.
I know there are many philosophers who claim it is logically impossible to have pain without neural firing, but I have to say it's very very easy for me to imagine discovering that I feel pain yet that no neurons are firigin accordingly. That this is possible, I think, proves (in a way that I think should appeal even to atheists) that we must have as soul.
quote:OK, this is a bit outside the core discussion of ID, but I have to disagree somewhat with this. Perhaps what goes on inside your own head is the only thing that matters to you, but in what we call "the real world" that simply isn't the case. The war in Iraq is certainly not going in inside my own head.
Well, yes, this is getting off track... but anyways...
Does the War in Iraq matter for its own sake, or does it matter for the effect it has on people?
quote:Yes, but if they are only in your mind, then I submit that they are not "real" in any shared sense of the word but simply theoretical or at worst delusional. Take "love" for instance. To the degree that love is in your head alone, it doesn't matter in the real world. Love only matters when it is expressed and shared, the point at which it has recognizeable effects in the real, shared, world. All the other things on your list are like this as well. I can elucidate on each if you want, but I think you get my point.
So, if you feel very unhappy but appear and act happy, then you aren't really unhappy? If you feel in love but don't express that love in actions, then you aren't really in love? Or, if don't feel any love for someone but act/pretend like you do, then you really are still in love?
quote:But none of that is real in the shared world except to the degree it is detectable and identifiable in the real, shared world.
I agree. But my point was that this shared world is only of significance insofar as it impacts people and their minds. In that sense, the things that are just "real to me" and "real to you" are much more "real" than the things in the shared world.
quote:Unless your God starts making a recognizeable affect in the real world, ultimately he doesn't matter in the real world. He might matter to you in your own head, but he doesn't matter to the rest of us.
But if he matters to each individual in their own head, then he would matter to everyone.
God is of a different case, though, because most religious people believe He DOES make a recognizeable change in the world. The Bible would be an example of something that would not physically exist if it weren't for God, at least according to Christians. But the thing is, He doesn't seem to influence the world in ways that are testable by science. If God performs a miracle, we cannot expect the same miracle to be performed again if we set up the circumstances the same. (And if God did perform a miracle everytime certain circumstances occurred, science would no longer call it a miracle, and would simply call it a law of nature that doesn't need God to explain it.) In this way, God could be objectively observable, but not scientifically testable.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, to some extent this discussion is moot —though I do not want to see ID included in the official state curriculum or in science in texts, other than, perhaps, as a declaimer that "the majority of religions argue that the universe is the product of an intelligent designer." I say this because, in my 12 years in education, I have known ONE science teacher that actually taught natural selection as the solid scientific position that it is. Most science teachers in my area do not actually agree that natural selection's acting on variations and mutations is sufficient to explain biological life. Most science teachers I know are Christians of some stripe.
You want to know why the public doesn't buy in to evolution? Their bloody teachers are telling them it is simply a theory, one of many.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a political, social movement that wants to discredit science and scientific thinking.
This is a villification of the ID movement, not an accurate characterization. It's easy to label any dissenting group of scientists as attempting to discredit science, but in reality that dissent is just discrediting one particular theory, not science itself. This is how science is supposed to work. It is not appropriate, especially in the field of science, to assume evil motivations by the side you disagree with, when you could just as easily assume that side is simply seeking the truth through science.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this way, God could be objectively observable, but not scientifically testable.
Which brings us back to the beginning. By labeling that which you observe, "God", you are not increasing your knowledge of what "God" is, but rather adding the observed phenomenon to your entirely subjective roster of the things that constitute "God".
In other words, if we could determine that water turns to wine under specific circumstances every time those circumstances occur and you label the power behind those circumstances "God", you have not shown anyone any evidence of the existence of the being represented by the word "God" in most Christian's minds. You have simply added "the power to make water into wine in these specific circumstances" to the list of things you call "God". Since I don't buy all the other things presumably on your list, making the connection has no meaning. You might as well have labeled it "water-wine force" or "Freda".
The difference I guess is whether you believe in an objective reality. If all that really matters is what goes on in your head, I guess you can't say that you do.
quote:So, if you feel very unhappy but appear and act happy, then you aren't really unhappy? If you feel in love but don't express that love in actions, then you aren't really in love? Or, if don't feel any love for someone but act/pretend like you do, then you really are still in love?
Excellent questions. What do you think? First, I didn't say that unhappiness that is only in your head isn't real. It is real to you. I said that it doesn't matter until it affects the real world. Even if I love you very much and hold your happiness above even my own in importance, if your unhappiness does not have any indentifiable or detectable affect on the real world we share, how can it possibly matter to me that you are undetectably, unidentifiably, unhappy? Somewhere along the line it has to enter our shared world before I can even acknowledge it exists.
This discussion is severely hampered by definitions, though. What does it mean to "feel unhappy" in such a way that it has no effect on the objective world? When I feel unhappy it has observable effects. If you feel "unhappy" but it has no effect on your relationship with others, no effect on your appetite, your sex drive, you ability to work, sleep, enjoy life in general, then what exaclty is this "unhappiness" you feel? And does it matter? How? Why?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a political, social movement that wants to discredit science and scientific thinking.
This is a villification of the ID movement, not an accurate characterization. It's easy to label any dissenting group of scientists as attempting to discredit science, but in reality that dissent is just discrediting one particular theory, not science itself. This is how science is supposed to work. It is not appropriate, especially in the field of science, to assume evil motivations by the side you disagree with, when you could just as easily assume that side is simply seeking the truth through science.
Sure it's not appropriate in the field of science to assume evil motivations. But this isn't being fought in the field of science. In reality, the field of science is impervious to all the non-science baggage the movement is carrying. This is being fought in the field of Public Education, and on internet forums such as this because it is these arenas where the semantic, and philosophical arguements can find any ground at all. Scientists insofar as they are acting in their roles as scientists and not as politicians or philosphers, aren't debating this issue at all because it isn't science.
And I believe that it is an accurate description of "the movement". Science doesn't need a "movement". Can you show me any scientific error that was corrected by a "movement"? "Movements" are carried out by people whose scientific ideas have been found lacking and rather than revise their thinking and continue on in science they want to confuse the issue because, by golly, their idea is right, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof.
Furthermore, science doesn't need a "movement" because science isn't a monolithic group of people shutting out the dissenters. Everyone is free to pursue science. If you think ID is such a hot scientific topic, come up with some experiments and find some evidence for it. Once you do that, and the evidence passes peer review, you will probably be hailed as the greatest scientist of all time. You will probably also be given the blessings of the pope. The ID movement, though, isn't interested in doing the science. They are interested in discrediting the science that real scientists are doing. That's why the "debate" tries so hard to focus on the shortcomings of Evolutionary Theory (none of which are fatal, by the way) rather than to demonstrate the scientific merits of their alternative idea.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Was it really necessarary to label it "ignorant mangling"? I advocate defending science from overzealous scientists and the dangers of dogmatism. I don't advocate "mangling" it.
You misundertsand me. What I was trying to say was that your arguments rest almost entirely on you claiming things that aren't true and then repeating these claims no matter what anyone says. You are mangling science either through ignorance or dishonesty.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"But I'm not surprised that you're incapable of distinguishing between what I'm saying and what someone like that is saying."
I suppose you are being sarcastic -- because I am shocked. Basic logic would tell us that all dogs are non-cats, but NOT all non-cats are dogs. In fact the overwhelming majority of non-cats are not dogs.
So to even hint that the phrase 'show me a cat produce a non-cat that breeds true' is equivalent to 'show me a cat produce a dog' is idiotic, and that person should not even participate in this debate.
Why, Lisa could have meant 'show me a cat produce a cockroach,' or 'show me a cat produce a tomato'! She might even have meant 'show me a cat produce offspring that won't breed with the parent, but that breed true.' Or perhaps she meant 'show me a cat produce offspring that wouldn't breed with the parent's great-great-great-great-great-grandsire, but that breed true.' Oh no, wait, that last one would be cats and tigers.
By the way, Lisa, what did you mean?
quote:"Actually, no matter what you do, you eventually get back to an irreducible primary."
That's what you think.... but wait:
quote:"If it's an eternal universe with no beginning and no end, where'd that come from."
If it's an eternal universe with no beginning and no end, then I would think science could investigate its origins and destiny forever, successively revealing answer after answer, and never reaching an irreducible primary.
quote:"Eventually, you're going to get to a place where you have no answers."
Oh, we're there. Only thing is, there's (always) a way of looking for those answers, called science, as long you have something to observe, test, investigate, and so forth. You seem quite satisfied, when you hit a spot with no answers, to simply say, 'Well! It must be God! or Aliens! or whatever!'
Oh, but wait. You also favor teaching about this in science classrooms. So you must believe that this Designer or Entity or Force can be observed, tested, investigated, and so forth.
But you haven't even made a succinct statement about what It is. Or even a non-succinct statement.
quote:"...there are serious problems with the idea that life as it exists today could ever have come about the way that evolution claims."
Given your obvious ignorance about 'what evolution claims' I'm surprised you're willing to go out on this limb (I myself would not make an equivalently authoritative statement about, say, diesel engines).
I'm still interested in hearing what these serious problems are, however; and also in hearing what evidence exists that such problems, if any, are solved with the presence of a... a what? an alien? a designer whatchamacallit? -- that wouldn't also be solved by invoking any all-powerful, invisible entity operating outside space and time.
And in particular, interested in hearing what scientific work has been furthered in the field of whatchamacallitism, such that it warrants being taught to pupils as science.
quote:Lisa committed to the ether: "I have better things to do when I'm hurting than to argue with someone as closed-minded as yourself."
I'm sorry you're hurting. I am, too.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know there are many philosophers who claim it is logically impossible to have pain without neural firing, but I have to say it's very very easy for me to imagine discovering that I feel pain yet that no neurons are firigin accordingly. That this is possible, I think, proves (in a way that I think should appeal even to atheists) that we must have as soul.
No, it proves only that you have an imagination.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I'll likely never get a reply tackling my example of individuals of one species (or shall we say, group of plants that can have fertile offspring together) having offspring which are members of another species (group of plants that can have fertile offspring with each other, but not with their parents).
Or one dealing with ring species.
And no, sL, that would not be evidence for an intelligent designer. If all the selection could have occurred in nature (for instance, if there were an advantage to the dragon-fly like traits), then its evidence for natural selection, just a way of looking at a very specific subset of it. It would only be even vaguely suggestive of an intelligent designer if the selection could not have occurred in nature, and more likely it would suggest we just didn't know something about how nature worked (since that's pretty much been the rule for when we've thought to find something that couldn't happen in nature).
(btw, its worth remarking that I've added substantial new genetic information to a species -- specifically, a species of bacteria. It was in AP Bio, and all I did was take the bacteria and mix them up with certain naturally occurring enzymes and bits of DNA. Plus, its possible to do this even simpler, just kill a bunch of bacteria in certain ways and toss them in with a bunch of other bacteria, and some of the second group of bacteria will absorb genetic information they didn't have before).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Troost found 54 % (173 out of 320) of Indiana secondary school biology teachers believed evolution was theory, not fact, and 43 % (N=163) that evolution should be presented in public schools as one of several alternative theories of origins.23 Troost found fully 73 % of the teachers were creationists of some sort (many were theistic evolutionists), and 72 % rated themselves as ‘very religious’. The survey also found that, contrary to Troost’s expectations, the religious teachers put as much emphasis on evolution as their non-religious colleagues."
I will shop around for more reliable stuff...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am concerned, though only mildly because I see little potential of significant change.
Science teachers are rarely scientists. In the foreseeable future, they will remain non-scientists. Despite teaching it, most science teachers I know have little understanding of the scientific method. This got somewhat better in high school, but I live in a town with a university where strong scientific research is done.
While I would love to see science teachers become scientists for the most part, I don't see a way for that to happen.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I know there are many philosophers who claim it is logically impossible to have pain without neural firing, but I have to say it's very very easy for me to imagine discovering that I feel pain yet that no neurons are firigin accordingly. That this is possible, I think, proves (in a way that I think should appeal even to atheists) that we must have as soul.
Excuse me - in a single sentence, you managed to go from "I can easily imagine" to "this is the case." Usually that kind of leap is a little better hidden.
Also, it's not philosophers who claim that pain = neuron firings, it's neuroscientists who have stuck needles into people and watched their MRIs flare.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"While I would love to see science teachers become scientists for the most part, I don't see a way for that to happen."
It is happening to some degree. More and more university education programs are requiring that students take courses on how to teach scientific methodology.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should add that I regularly end up teaching natural selection in my literature class since it is so dismissively taught by science teachers at this school...
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is true, but the existence of such courses is only a first step. Right now, my main experience with education majors is such courses are viewed as trials to be swiftly forgotten, though I hope they have some impact.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there was no difference between religious and non-religious teachers in the emphasis (or lack of it) that they put on evolution, then why is the percentage of teachers who are religious relevant?
As a side note, I dislike the term “theistic evolutionist” though whoever wrote that survey would probably think I am one, because it implies either that evolution is held as part of my religious belief – which it isn’t – or that I consider my beliefs about God part of biological science – which I don’t. I am a theist, and I believe that the theories of evolution accurately describe what we have observed about the natural world. Neither of those in any way relies on the other, nor impinges on the other.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I only think the lack of scientific understanding is sad, I care not about religious affiliation.
I see your objection to theistic evolutionist, but at the same time don't see another simple abbreviation for the belief.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, why should there be a term for this? Do we also need a term for math teachers who play soccer? Kiwanis members who like grapefruit? People who are anti-abortion and gay?
If religious belief isn’t relevant to how science is taught (and I don’t think it is or should be) then how is this a helpful term?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it describes a group of people in an easy way, giving a convenient term to use in a relevant discussion.
Do you object to it because it doesn't fit you, or do you object to it because you think it describes a belief no one holds? Or do you reject the value of even identifying a person who believes evolution is God's tool for guiding creation? How is this less valuable than identifying who is a Christian or Muslim, Democrat or Republican? Actually I think it's a far more precise and less baggage laden term than either of those 4. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually like theistic evolution (though I don't believe it) as an alternative to ID and creationism. God set up natural selection, and let it run. Works for me. I can respect that while disagreeing with it.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belief in the sense that the whole of what a person believes constitutes a belief.
I amend my statement: "I see your objection to theistic evolutionist, but at the same time don't see another simple abbreviation for the combination of beliefs."
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the problem with that is that it makes the assumption that "ordinary" evolution is atheistic, which is not the case. Evolution says nothing about whether or not God exists. From a purely scientific perspective, where no one is trying to wrangle the concept into an inaapropriate context, theistic evolution makes no more sense as a pairing than theistic electro-magnetism.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand that, Squick. DKW, was that your objection, too?
And Squick, I agree that is a problem with the term, but I don't think it is a fatal problem. After-all if we're talking about the junction of spiritual and natural world beliefs, and the big debate were about theories of electro-magnetism, then theistic electro-magnetist might also be a useful term. In that case, to be fair to the term, you'd also have to label the atheistic and agnostic electro-magnetists as such so as not to imply spiritual belief (or lack thereof) from belief in electro-magnetism alone. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you show me any scientific error that was corrected by a "movement"?
Evolution, plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, the heliocentric model of the universe, and so on... all are instances of movements that changed science for the better.
quote:Furthermore, science doesn't need a "movement" because science isn't a monolithic group of people shutting out the dissenters. Everyone is free to pursue science.
If this were true then why do certain scientists feel the need to forbid any discussion of alternate theories in science class, when it comes to evolution? Why do certain scientists label proponents of alternate theories as not being real scientists? You did this yourself. If your beliefs cause everyone to refuse to accept you as a scientist, then you really aren't free to be a scientist - or at least you aren't free to contribute to what other people consider to be science.
I suppose everyone is free to do science for themselves. But if not everyone is taken seriously, that doesn't really matter much. The fact of the matter is, there rarely is evidence so clear cut in science that all scientists immediately change their ways. Instead, scientists must be slowly convinced through small problems which the much larger theories. If we teach all our young scientists not to respect the possibility of alternative theories when it comes to evolution, then convincing will be nearly impossible, and science will no longer be open. In this way, the intelligent design "movement" is an important step towards protecting the integrity of science.
See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn for more on scientific movements, and the way in which science is usually open mostly just to those who accept the more popular views. It's probably my favorite book as far as philosophy of science goes - although it certainly has it's faults.
quote:Troost found 54 % (173 out of 320) of Indiana secondary school biology teachers believed evolution was theory, not fact, and 43 % (N=163) that evolution should be presented in public schools as one of several alternative theories of origins.
I will have to say, David, that I do find it fairly disturbing that 46% of Indiana biology teachers apparently believe the evolutionary theory is a fact. To fail to teach kids the difference between facts and theories is doing science a serious disservice. The facts in science are experimental observations. The theories are the models used to explain them.
quote:You misundertsand me. What I was trying to say was that your arguments rest almost entirely on you claiming things that aren't true and then repeating these claims no matter what anyone says. You are mangling science either through ignorance or dishonesty.
And do you think that sort of ad hominem is an appropriate thing to say on Hatrack? And if so, am I allowed to say it when you insist on repeating the same claims that I believe aren't true? Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'd hazard a guess that "Theistic Evolutionist" was a term first self applied by those who identify as such rather than a term thrust upon anyone. I first read it on this forum, and I'm pretty sure it was in the form "I consider myself a theistic evolutionist".
In that regard, it may not apply to a specific person, per se, but that doesn't mean it's an inaccurate word where it does apply.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
<-- Tears of frustration. If you don't mean what you say, please say so!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
