posted
There's an interesting question for ID in school supporters:
What would you teach? Not in generalities, but give me the specifics of your lesson plan on ID. Remember, this is a science class, so including a lab experiment that demonstrates the principles of ID is a good idea, and you need to offer scientific evidence in support of ID to explain to the students why it is a valid scientific theory.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But if you can give me solid scientific proof that there is no intelligent creator, not only will I agree that ID has been disproven, but I will probably have to give up my religion.
So, Treso, you openly admit that the Intelligent Creator is God. Not some alien from Alpha Centaures, but God.
I'm going to have to go out for a minute of two to get a big, rubber stopper to keep you from blowing any more smoke up my ass, but before I go, here's your tinfoil hat. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would you teach? Not in generalities, but give me the specifics of your lesson plan on ID. Remember, this is a science class, so including a lab experiment that demonstrates the principles of ID is a good idea, and you need to offer scientific evidence in support of ID to explain to the students why it is a valid scientific theory.
I would have a debate - that's usually an effective way to draw out both sides of an argument. There's pretty clearly no lab that could be done in a classroom to back it up - just as there is no experiment to be done to back up evolution (not to mention atomic theory, quantum physics, genetics, the heliocentric model of the unverse, plate tectonics, cyclogenesis, among countless other scientific theories discussed in science.) On that note, keep in mind that Evolution and ID are not scientific theories per se, but rather historical models built around scientific theories to explain how those theories interact over time.
quote:So, Treso, you openly admit that the Intelligent Creator is God. Not some alien from Alpha Centaures, but God.
Well, in ID it could be some alien from somewhere, but I'd suspect it to be God, given my religion. What's wrong with this?
quote:I'm going to have to go out for a minute of two to get a big, rubber stopper to keep you from blowing any more smoke up my ass, but before I go, here's your tinfoil hat. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
And how exactly is this comment supposed to add to the discussion? Please keep ad hominem attacks off Hatrack.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
We're busy discussing separation of church and state, and trying to keep science in the science class, and non-science out.
You go pushing for some ill-defined and wholly unsupported and unsupportable "wish it were true" sort of concept (not a theory--certainly not a scientific theory) that you would like to see in science classes. You claim that it has nothing to do with God, and it will really help out the science curricula in this country.
But when push comes to shove, you readily admit that you really meant "God" all along.
And, re. smoke-blowing, there's Lisa joining in. Lisa, who hides her Orthodoxy under the wig of "oh, no--I'm reformed" so that she doesn't find herself lumped in with the other religious fundamentalists who are--again--trying to put God in a place he doesn't (by law and by common sense and common courtesy) belong.
So how's about this: You show us some science behind this supposed "scientific" theory of Intelligent Design (assuming there's any intelligence to it at all, and it's not just more smoke), and we can continue this discussion.
Until then, I consider your request no different than Pat Robertson wanting to expound upon the resurrection of Christ in science class.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I would have a debate - that's usually an effective way to draw out both sides of an argument."
But science isn't about debate. The scientific process is not about putting forth all the ideas and letting people choose. ITs about experimental and observational evidence.
"just as there is no experiment to be done to back up evolution (not to mention atomic theory, quantum physics, genetics, the heliocentric model of the unverse, plate tectonics, cyclogenesis, among countless other scientific theories discussed in science."
Well, in my high school, we did labs to back up evolution, genetics, and taking measurements to demonstrate that the earth goes around the sun rather then vice versa would be doable. Quantum physics every high school does some that get at quantum principles, including the double slit experiment. Atomic physics, there are numerous videos showing experiments that show demonstrations of the principles of atomics. Etc etc.
" On that note, keep in mind that Evolution and ID are not scientific theories per se, but rather historical models built around scientific theories to explain how those theories interact over time."
This is false. ID is not a scientific theory AT ALL, while evolution is very much a scientific theory, that has more experimental evidence in support of it then almost any other scientific theory, if not all of them.
Your lesson plan for ID gets an F.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, in ID it could be some alien from somewhere, but I'd suspect it to be God, given my religion. What's wrong with this?
Nothing. Nothing at all. As long as you keep it to yourself; or--more importantly--keep it out of public schools. And I thought that was what we were discussing here: Whether we should keep ID out of public school science classes.
And I also thought the whole thing was "But ID isn't about God." But, of course, now you say, "ID is about God (or "is probably about God"), and what's wrong with [teaching] this [in science class]?"
I've added the [implied] words, based on WHAT WE WERE ALL DISCUSSING HERE TO BEGIN WITH.
So, again, I need that rubber stopper.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for part II of your statement. The parts that CAN be tested (i.e., the testable hypotheses centering on examples of irreducible complexity), have been tested and they are found to be both reducible and not as complex as originally proposed.
In reply to which, Tres said:
quote:Well, I'm not informed enough to answer this. But if you can give me solid scientific proof that there is no intelligent creator, not only will I agree that ID has been disproven, but I will probably have to give up my religion.
Tres, are you saying that you think that, if evolutionary theory is true, there is no room for an intelligent creator? If so, why do you think that?
Evolutionary theory does not address one way or the other the existence of an intelligent creator. It describes the mechanisms by which life adapts to circumstance. Either current theories of how life does this are correct or they aren't (or they're partially correct), but an intelligent creator doesn't enter into it one way or the other.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I agree, but there's an interesting aspect to this "Science is about debate" approach.
quote:"I would have a debate - that's usually an effective way to draw out both sides of an argument."
But science isn't about debate. The scientific process is not about putting forth all the ideas and letting people choose. ITs about experimental and observational evidence.
I would add that on previous pages, the ID supporters were very critical of "Science" when they felt that it had devolved into debate and personalities. They were critical of the scientific community for supposedly rejecting certain "theories" "out of hand."
But then Treso goes and says that debate is good. He says that getting away (apparently) from the scientific method would be a viable approach (in other words--we should have a popular vote as to what we include in science class, regardless of its scientific validity). And then his ilk goes and criticizes science if it steps away from the scientific method and relies on debate-like tactics to move itself forward.
I think I'll get a pack of like a dozen or so stoppers of various sizes. They'll be cheaper that way. The rest of you, just tell me what size you need, and I'll e-mail it to you.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, given the purpose you've laid out for the rubber stopper(s), perhaps it would be cheaper to just buy one for yourself, since this would achieve the same goal.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that should be an excuse to give science more validity than it logically deserves, though. Scientific theories should only be considered facts only if they logically are facts, not just because science has been so successful that we feel the need to label its unverifiable theories as facts.
Tres, there is a sense in which I agree with you. A very weak sense. I agree, insofar as I accept the arguments of the skeptic as valid.
But as the skeptic has shown us, nothing is "logically" a fact, except perhaps the impressions of my own senses at this very moment. Besides that, I have no reliable evidence for anything I believe.
I accept these arguments, but I can't live my life that way. We certainly can't teach our kids anything if we start from the skeptic's premises (we can't even know that we're trying to teach them, the kids might not exist, ha ha).
Science, you'll find, starts from the same assumptions as everyday life, the assumptions that lead me to suppose that my sense-impressions of a book indicate that the book is really there. We look for the best explanation of the data we get from our senses, and eventually (in science) from our instruments.
If the existence of a book is the best way to explain the fact that I seem to see it, then I take it to be a fact that the book exists. Likewise, if evolution by natural selection is the best explanation of evidence gathered by naturalists and bio labs, I take it to be a fact that evolution has occurred. That's scientific realism.
You tell me, I haven't ruled out that ID could've occured. So what? I also haven't ruled out that I'm in the Matrix.
When we're not playing the skeptic (which we can't be doing when we're trying to put together a high school curriculum) the results of science should be treated as facts even when alternatives haven't been ruled out. Just like in everyday life.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I didn't know if other people here minded getting all this smoke blown up their...um...well, where-ever the stoppers would go. I was just trying to be thoughtful.
But maybe I'm the only one here that sensitive to such smoke.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would have a debate - that's usually an effective way to draw out both sides of an argument.
Casting things as a debate won't help either, if we start from your premises. Because from the skeptical premises, nothing can be proven except that we have no knowledge. Neither debater could possibly win. So the kids would leave the class scratching their heads, filled with the profound thought that they know nothing and yet strangely ignorant of both biology and the scientific method.
quote: But if you can give me solid scientific proof that there is no intelligent creator, not only will I agree that ID has been disproven, but I will probably have to give up my religion.
So, Treso, you openly admit that the Intelligent Creator is God. Not some alien from Alpha Centaures, but God.
This is the kind of dishonest illogic we've learned to expect from you in this thread, Steve.
If there's no Intelligent Creator, there's no God.
If there's no God, there could still be an Intelligent Creator.
So Treso admitted nothing even remotely similar to what you claim.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You claim that it has nothing to do with God, and it will really help out the science curricula in this country.
When did I say ID has nothing to do with God? ID clearly has a whole lot to do with God. There's nothing wrong with discussing God in school, in itself. God is discussed in religious, history, and english classes all the time. It's only church and state that we need to keep separate, not all mention of God and state. And while the intelligent creator does not have to be God, it might be.
When you stop insulting me needlessly, ssywak, we can discuss this more.
quote:But science isn't about debate. The scientific process is not about putting forth all the ideas and letting people choose. ITs about experimental and observational evidence.
Science is very much about debating what theory best fits the experimental and observation evidence. Consider my college atmospheric science professor, who dedicated a whole week of class to debating whether or not global warming claims were justified. Part of his research was involvement in that debate. It was a very informative lesson for us students. I'd expect a debate over ID to be similarly informative.
quote:ID is not a scientific theory AT ALL, while evolution is very much a scientific theory, that has more experimental evidence in support of it then almost any other scientific theory, if not all of them.
I've already addressed this exact question several times on this thread. See my comments earlier about the impossibility of setting up an experiment to test conclusively whether or not life evolved into man over millions of years.
quote:Evolutionary theory does not address one way or the other the existence of an intelligent creator. It describes the mechanisms by which life adapts to circumstance.
This is largely true. It doesn't reject the idea of an intelligent creator. It does reject the idea that an intelligent creator would be necessary for life to evolve as it did. So you are right in that you could easily accept Evolution without rejecting religion - I do that myself. I'm not one that believes that Evolution fails to explain life. What I meant to say in the quote you cited was just that you can't prove there was no intelligent creator without rejecting religion.
quote:Casting things as a debate won't help either, if we start from your premises. Because from the skeptical premises, nothing can be proven except that we have no knowledge. So the kids would leave the class scratching their heads, filled with the profound thought that they know nothing and yet strangely ignorant of both biology and the scientific method.
I disagree. I think you are assuming that knowing nothing for certain implies learning nothing. That premise is where the skeptic goes wrong. It is false, because most of the stuff we learn and use throughout our lives is not proven - it is mostly all belief, and it doesn't need to be anything more solid than belief. I don't need to have absolute proof that an airplane won't crash when I get into it - in fact, I don't. Nobody has ever really given me such proof. But I still go on airplanes.
Even kids understand that it is possible to learn things that still might be false, if only from all the times their parents claimed things that turned out not to be true. I suspect they would leave a debate over ID the same way I left the debate I referred to above, about Global Warming. I felt that I had an idea of what seemed true, confident that I could use the belief to make decisions on what policies I'd support regarding the issue, but I also realized that there was another side of the argument.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: And, re. smoke-blowing, there's Lisa joining in. Lisa, who hides her Orthodoxy under the wig of "oh, no--I'm reformed" so that she doesn't find herself lumped in with the other religious fundamentalists who are--again--trying to put God in a place he doesn't (by law and by common sense and common courtesy) belong.
Steve, you are ignorant. Worse, you are arrogant. I don't mind arrogance, and I don't mind ignorance, but the combination of the two is just obscene.
What I posted about "reformed" was mockery. Because there's no such thing in Judaism. There's a Reform Movement, but they get really torqued when you call them "reformed". And anyone who has seen me posting here is well aware that I'm a religious fanatic. Duh. I even got a load of criticism dumped on my head a couple of weeks ago for repeating that fact too often.
I argued against broaching the separation between government and religion, so I was lumped in with secularists. I argued in favor of same-sex marriage (and I'm a lesbian), so I got tarred with anti-religious and leftist. And now you're trying to pretend that daring to argue against your particular scientific orthodoxy makes me a thumper.
When you grow up to the point that you're capable of discussing topics, rather than personalities, you know where to find me. Until then, *plonk*.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, you're religious. Certainly you know some people who are religious but insecure, and who go absolutely hysterical whenever someone even suggests that they might be wrong, no? Or maybe you don't know anyone like that. That'd explain why you don't recognize it in Steve.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you are assuming that knowing nothing for certain implies learning nothing. premise is where the skeptic goes wrong.
That's funny. In your response to my post about scientific realism, and in many of your posts in this thread, you seem to make use of this very premise. I was trying to approach the question as you yourself have.
See my longer post above for the details.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, friend starLisa is back. Splendid. Since my last response to her seems to have gotten lost in a lot of, um, smoke-blowing, let me post it once more :
quote:
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 now so I can stop responding to you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster yet in this thread? He is an excellent explanation of why we observe everything we do without any need for these silly subjects of "science", "religion", or whatever.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: There's an interesting question for ID in school supporters:
What would you teach? Not in generalities, but give me the specifics of your lesson plan on ID.
You miss the point. The only place where ID enters in is the non-central topic of where all the species came from.
Right now, students are taught that random mutations happen, and that natural selection makes unsuccessful mutations die out, while successful ones survive. And that these incremental mutations eventually cross the line into new species.
This is not, itself, a scientific theory. It's also not central to biology or genetics. Darwin and Mendel were contemporaries, and no one can say how the science of genetics would have developed without Darwin's ideas about species coming into being through natural selection.
This entire issue has been blown way out of proportion by the Church of Darwinism and theophobes. The only objection this whole time has been the insistence of some scientists that only a theory based on the absence of God can possibly be acceptable. That's not scientific; that's pathological. Others who aren't theophobic, or at least not as theophobic, have simply allowed themselves to be bullied into going along under threat of being accused of crypto-fundamentalism. <brr...>
Argument by intimidation doesn't deserve much respect. I've seen in this thread how certain posters have insisted on all advocacy of ID being an attempt to sneak God into the classroom. It's irrational and obsessive.
It's kind of interesting, really. To my right, I see homophobes using religion as a cloak to defend their gut feelings. To my left, I see theophobes using science as a cloak to defend their gut feelings. Both of them accuse anyone not on their team of having an insidious agenda.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Remember, this is a science class, so including a lab experiment that demonstrates the principles of ID is a good idea, and you need to offer scientific evidence in support of ID to explain to the students why it is a valid scientific theory.
No scientific evidence has been advanced in favor of the myth of random mutations naturally selecting into a plethora of species. It's not even falsifiable. It's bad science, but it's all there is when you insist that everything must have happened without intelligent design. Which only begs the question of why it's considered any more likely than intelligent design is.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ah, friend starLisa is back.
Only because there's stuff that I don't feel like doing at home right now, and this is a good way to procrastinate.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 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?
Probably not. Not that there is, but I'm not sure why you think fossils are such a good indication of species. Environmental factors can change an animal's phenotype without any genetic shift. Our genes contain an enormous amount of potential variation that never strays across the line into a new species.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 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"!
That might indeed convince me. But your taking what I wrote as meaning that I needed something that extreme before I'd accept evolution was just laziness on your part.
Do you understand that "All A are B" is not the same as "All B are A"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, so not fossil evidence. Let me go back into the lab and look at some genes. Suppose we have two sets of insects that look fairly similar - not quite identical, but they're both insects; six legs, two wings, all that. However, they cannot interbreed.
When I sequence their genome, I find that they are base for base identical along, let's say, 99.9% of the chromosomes. (I'm picking arbitrary numbers, obviously.) However, in one chromosome I find a major difference : One set of fruit flies has
AAG TGA CTA
instead of
ATC AGT GAA;
after that, the bases continue fairly identical. This mutation occurs, let's say, in a gene coding for a protein known as Vitamin X. It happens to be fairly common in the flies' natural environment, so it doesn't really make a difference to their fitness, as long as they don't try to move out of the jungle. Would you accept that these flies have a common ancestor? And would you classify them as separate species?
quote:That might indeed convince me. But your taking what I wrote as meaning that I needed something that extreme before I'd accept evolution was just laziness on your part.
Gosh, I'm so sorry I didn't use my awesome mind-reading powers to see what you actually meant. If you offer something as an example of 'this would convince me', you should offer the minimum that would do so, not the maximum.
Also, since you don't actually want a massive and visible change in phenotype, I'm still waiting for what you actually would accept. Are you still maintaining that a child that cannot breed with its parent is not good enough? What more do you want?
Finally, I'd still like to hear your opinion on those two birds I gave you the picture of.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Dishonest logic? Treso said in that post, and in subsequent posts that his view of the Intelligent Creator was pretty much God. In fact, he says:
"When did I say ID has nothing to do with God? ID clearly has a whole lot to do with God. There's nothing wrong with discussing God in school, in itself. God is discussed in religious, history, and english classes all the time"
And, as I've said: if you want to discuss God in religious, history, and english classes, that's not a problem. Just not in science class.
But this thread is all about whether to teach about God (I'm sorry--ID) in SCIENCE CLASS.
So why is Treso still arguing? Apparently, we're all in agreement.
And as for "Reformed" Judaism;
quote:What I posted about "reformed" was mockery. Because there's no such thing in Judaism. There's a Reform Movement, but they get really torqued when you call them "reformed".
I grew up on Long Island. Many of my neighbors considered themselves "Reformed." The running joke was that "Reformed Judaism" is as close as you could get to atheism, and still go to Temple. No one got "torqued" over it. I don't know why you're having such a problem with it. I think, perhaps, we have different definitions of "Reformed."
And Lisa, I'm sure you've tried to teach math to little kids. You know the type: they just can't seem to get it, but continue to insist that they really do understand it, and that you're wrong.
quote:That's funny. In your response to my post about scientific realism, and in many of your posts in this thread, you seem to make use of this very premise. I was trying to approach the question as you yourself have.
How so? I checked your above post and don't see how my argument entails that knowing nothing implies learning nothing. I don't agree that we should treat theories as facts - I just think we should have faith in theories that we believe to be true. The difference I see between this and treating theories as facts it that faith in beliefs still allows for debate against that belief, whereas treating something as a fact does not allow for such debate.
quote:And, as I've said: if you want to discuss God in religious, history, and english classes, that's not a problem. Just not in science class.
Why not? You act as if this would be outrageous. But there's no rule that says God isn't allowed to be mentioned in a science class any more than there'd be a rule against that in any of those other classes. When part of a proposed scientific model, God would belong in science class.
And again, the creator in ID does not have to be God. That's just a prime possibility of who it could be.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. Is your god testable? If not, out of science class he goes. If he is, then he's not much of a god.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I checked your above post and don't see how my argument entails that knowing nothing implies learning nothing. I don't agree that we should treat theories as facts - I just think we should have faith in theories that we believe to be true. The difference I see between this and treating theories as facts it that faith in beliefs still allows for debate against that belief, whereas treating something as a fact does not allow for such debate.
In my seeing-a-book example, should I also take it as an article of faith that the book is actually there?
If so, it seems like almost every belief will be faith-based, which strikes me as weird. But if the book belief isn't based in faith, if I can believe in the book because it's the best explanation for the fact that I see a book, then can't scientific theories be known in the same way?
Would you support teaching alternatives to my "there's a book" theory, for example the "there's no book, you're really in the Matrix" theory? If not, what makes ID any different?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No scientific evidence has been advanced in favor of the myth of random mutations naturally selecting into a plethora of species. It's not even falsifiable. It's bad science, but it's all there is when you insist that everything must have happened without intelligent design. Which only begs the question of why it's considered any more likely than intelligent design is."
Except, Lisa, this whole statement is false.
First, scientific evidence has been offered on this thread. I can only assume you didn't read it.
Second, it is falsifiable. Here's an experiment you can do to falsify evolutionary theory.
Take a species that has a short generational period, and select a population from that species that statistically reflects the population as a whole. Place environmental pressures on that species. Observe teh species for X generations. See if the substrains can breed with each other. If they continuously can, then evolutionary theory would have a data point against it.
This is a weak falsification, because you can't draw the experiment out to X=infinity for every species. Nevertheless, speciazation occurs when this experiment is done, adding experimental evidence to evolution. If speciazation did not occur within X generations, then evolution would be falsified. If you use short life-span species, then you can get X to be statistically significant for evolutionary process.
This has been observed in the lab, and in nature.
A stronger falsification experiment would be to genetically watch the subspecies created by environemtnal pressure. Evolutionary theory predicts that traits that are successful within the pressured environment will increase in frequency, and hindering traits will decrease. If this does not happen, then evolutionary theory is falsified. If it does happen, then its a data point in favor of evolution. Increase and decrease of pressured traits can be observed in fewer generations then speciazation in most cases.
This happens under experimental settings, and we've also observed in nature.
I'm not a biologist by training, but I'm sure that someone like Rabbit could provide you with more experiments that could be performed (and have been) that could falsify evolutionary theory.
But most complex theories cannot easily be falsified by a real experiment.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
" It's also not central to biology or genetics. Darwin and Mendel were contemporaries, and no one can say how the science of genetics would have developed without Darwin's ideas about species coming into being through natural selection."
Except mendel's theories, and darwin's theories, complement each other perfectly. saying "If darwin hadn't come along, we might not have the theory of darwinistic evolution," is simply a dodge on the whole issue. So what? Darwin did come along, and despite being one of the most tested theories in science, evolution has yet to be falsified.
I also think its highly dishonest or highly ignorant ot say evolution is not central to biology or genetics. Evolution binds all biological sciences together, including genetics. Evolution tells us about population genetics, rather then individual genetics.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps we should rephrase that to 'a single experiment'.
By the way, starLisa, it was mentioned earlier in this thread that the Universe could not be as it is without evolution, and you dismissed this; I think you misunderstood, though. I believe that what was intended was this statement :
a) Let there be a population of imperfect replicators b) Let there be a continuous culling of this population according to some criteria; these criteria are such that there is a strong correlation between fitness in one generation and the next c) Then those replicators with the best match to the criteria will be the ones with most children, and will eventually dominate the population.
This is, in some sense, a tautology; I think you even agree with it, since you do apparently agree that there can be variation within a species and that selection pressures can act on them. I really cannot see how you could arrange the Universe as we know it and not have these statements follow from each other. Where we disagree, apparently, is on whether genetics - now we are getting into specific things, not the generic 'imperfect replicators' - can produce sufficient variation to produce new species. And, incidentally, I'm still waiting for just how you define species.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And evolutionary closeness is routinely (and successfully) used to predict the location of genes in related species.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm also waiting for how they define "Intelligent Design" as science.
Well, Tres certainly doesn't think it is science. He seems to be suggesting that it be taught as an alternative to science.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why not? You act as if this would be outrageous. But there's no rule that says God isn't allowed to be mentioned in a science class any more than there'd be a rule against that in any of those other classes.
Class, as part of the new requirement to mention God as part of your high-school curricula, I would like to make the following statement:
There is no scientific proof that God exists. There is no scientific proof that "Intelligent Design" has any value whatsoever as a means of understanding life on earth, or--to be totally frank--anything at all. And though there is some evidence that both Jesus Christ, Moses, and Mohammed lived during the times described (in their repective texts) as men, there is no evidence whatsoever that they were either "prophets" of this non-existent God (in that they actually heard Him speaking directly to them), or somehow (in some poorly described myth devolved from an original and preceding Mesopotamian world-creation myth) descended from him, or were posessed of any "supernatural powers."
If you would like to learn anything more about any of these world-creation or morality myths, you are free to attend religious services at any of the local churches, temples, synagogues, or mosques. However, this is Gym class. I need you to run around the football field 100 times, or at least until you start to feel dizzy."
I studied the Bible in English class. In fact, I knew it better then than any of the other kids in my class. It was honors English, it was a public school, and I was an atheist back then, too. The class had a normal distribution of Christians (various typical sects), Muslims, and Jews (no Hassidim, obviously, though we did have some who reformed themselves into that sect later in their High School careers), and we discussed the Bible as literature. Our teacher, IFIRC, was a practicing Jew; I would bet that we spent a little more time on the Old Testament, vs. the New.
Then maybe we can fit in an "Alternatives" class. We can teach all the discredited theories in there. I wonder if you could get anyone with any brains at all to attend. Would it be good towards college credits?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Perhaps we should rephrase that to 'a single experiment'."
You are right. "A single real experiment," was closer to what I meant, rather then "a real experiment."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
You wouldn't have to call it an "Alternatives" class. You could call it what it really is: "Comparative Mythologies and Religions." To be honest, it could (and probably should) be an honors English/Soc. class, and would be usable for college credits.
I think we have a solution. Any takers? Or do you religious zealots still want to insist that we teach non-science in science class?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm also waiting for how they define "Intelligent Design" as science.
I believe there is a way to do it. I haven't actually seen it proposed...yet, but that is because the people proposing ID are doing it because of a religious "agenda" rather than a scientific one, for the most part.
I would propose the following as a scientific theory of non-evolutionary change in species. I would call it "Exogenous Influences theory." Its main tenets are like ID's related to irreducible complexity, but they are generalized and don't necessarily rely on a act of purposeful creation, but...should such an act occur in a detectable fashion, the theory could, in fact accept that as a special case of the more general EI theory.
Here it is:
Background on Evolutionary theory as a starting point: For the purposes of Evolutionary theory, the Earth is a "closed" system. That is, Evolutionary explanations of genetic material we find here on earth are based on that genetic material evolving here and that the final forms we see (the phenotypes that survived through to today) are the end result of endogenous selection pressures. That summarizes the basics of evolutionary theory. Mutations take place only in the context of local (earth-bound) selection pressures.
EI theory posits the following:
1) There are sources of genetic material and/or mutation that are exogenous -- that is, they arise from other-than earthbound sources.
2) Evidence may be found for these exogenous sources in the following types of phenomena: a) relatively "sudden" appearance of novel and extremely complex forms or phenotypes/functions/structures without clear precursors identifiable in either the fossil record or through comparative analysis of closely related or ancestral species.
coupled with:
b) A clear lack of selective advantage to any animal possessing any possible precursor or intermediate version of the identified form, phenotype, function or structure. (note: this is the "irreducible complexity" hypothesis of ID, restated to separate it from the non-gradual and gap in the fossil record portions of the ID hypothesis.
In EI, both conditions (a and b, as opposed to "a or b") must be true in order for the observed phenomenon to serve as an example of exogenous sources.
Because the EI theory is truly silent on what the Exogenous Source is, it really does have no baggage with respect to religious implications. And, it really does pose a testable challenge to the theory of Evolution. If even one such source is found, at the very least it would have to be treated as a "special case" under current evolutionary theory that would require the current theory to be modified to say "once the genetic material is incorporated on Earth, the laws of natural selection apply."
There would be, IMHO, immense value in finding such examples. So much so that I would think a search of example phenomena meeting both 2a) and 2b) would be a worthwhile endeavor. Putting together the list of things that meet 2a and cross checking it against the list of things that meet 2b would seem, again IMHO, to be an excellent thesis project, if not the work of several labs around the country.
In addition, EI theory is akin to other "provisional" theories in other branches of science (like relativity was right after Einstein proposed it -- appealing but as yet unproven, and thus not accepted). It would allow for it to be taught (especially in higher-level classes) and would set some more-or-less clear criteria for what would qualify as genuine examples. Assuming we could all agree on what terms like "sudden" and "complex" mean in the context of evolutionary theory.
I suspect that ID theorists would not be happy with the EI generalization of their theory. But it is, in fact, exactly what they are talking about from a scientific standpoint -- stuff that happens too quickly and is too complex for evolution to explain must've come from "somewhere else." Where that someplace else is, or whether it involved a directed involvement of a higher intelligence, they really cannot (and should not) say. It goes beyond any possible evidence and closes out other valid alternative explanations.
So...what say we all start with Hatrack and stop calling ID "intelligent design" and instead refer to it by it's proper name "Exogenous Influences" theory. Or, if someone has a snappier title, I'm all for it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has also been refered to as "Panspermia."
There's a recent article about it in last month's Scientific American. It, too, (as a theory) has been around for many years. The SciAm article mainly deals with the possibility that bacteria and other DNA carriers could survive the hazards of accidental travel through space.
But it still raises the question of what new theories should be presented to science classes. Does Panspermia get a free ride to the front of the line, just to assuage the ID proponents? Are there other, perhaps better supported theories, that should be included first to make science education more up-to-date?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
2b's not really irreducible complexity, its a "missing ancestor" assertion -- sort of like the "missing link" assertion, but somewhat more defensible.
Its not that there's irreducible complexity, its that there's complexity unexplainable in the established context; very different.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I argued against broaching the separation between government and religion, so I was lumped in with secularists.
If it makes you feel any better, sL, I'm pretty sure no one here on Hatrack has confused you with a secularist. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Charles did an experiment on evolution. He propogated a culture of mold, heated it up over the course of a week until most of the mold was dieing off. He took a second culture of mold, genetically identical to the first, and kept it in a cool damp area where it flourished. When he was done he took genetic samples of the two molds and compared them to each other and to the genetic code of the originals. He hopes to show how some of the mold evolved to be heat resistant. We are waiting for the DNA tests to be returned.
Adam's lab work was on ID. He took 5000 earth worms to church. He set them under 24 hour vidoe surveilance while a team of volunteers sat over the worms praying. There prayers went, "God, if you really want your children to avoid the perils of the church of Darwin, show us a sign. Turn one of these worms, any one, into a dove, or into anything other than a worm."
They too are awaiting results.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you support teaching alternatives to my "there's a book" theory, for example the "there's no book, you're really in the Matrix" theory?
If a significant number of people believe it, then yes.
It should also be noted that saying a belief is uncertain does not mean it is no more justified than any other alternative. Some uncertain theories are far more justified than others, and the ones we choose to have faith in are the ones we consider most justified. I would hope that we'd teach these ones we consider most justified - where "we" in this case doesn't just mean me, or scientists, but the people of the country who are ultimately responsible for government-run schools.
quote:Sigh. Is your god testable? If not, out of science class he goes. If he is, then he's not much of a god.
ID'ers think he is testable, or at least those who believe God is the intelligent designer. Why would that make God any less of a god?
quote:Well, Tres certainly doesn't think it is science. He seems to be suggesting that it be taught as an alternative to science.
No, I simply think non-scientific theories should be discussed in science classes if they are related to science. Evolution is the example I'd point to, but in addition to that science classes often include strictly unscientific but science-related claims such as: the age and origin of the universe, medical and other science-related ethics questions, science-related government policies, the history of science, math in general, and the rules of the scientific method. Science class should not just tell us what science has tested, but also how to apply and fully understand those theories. This includes applying and combining scientific theories into a historical model of how life came to be as it is today.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes, you're right, IDers do think that. And in every test they have proposed, ID has failed. Wupsie.
Another thing : Would you teach string theory in high school classes? Let me assume for a moment that ID is testable and not already discredited; then it is clearly the cutting edge of science, the next paradigm if you will. As such, it has absolutely no business in high schools, any more than quarks did in their time as the radical new theory.
A testable god is a bad thing because it shows that its believers do not have the brains to say "Well, it's only doing that to test our faith."
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Adam and Charles were in school.
Charles did an experiment on evolution. He propogated a culture of mold, heated it up over the course of a week until most of the mold was dieing off. He took a second culture of mold, genetically identical to the first, and kept it in a cool damp area where it flourished. When he was done he took genetic samples of the two molds and compared them to each other and to the genetic code of the originals. He hopes to show how some of the mold evolved to be heat resistant. We are waiting for the DNA tests to be returned.
Adam's lab work was on ID. He took 5000 earth worms to church. He set them under 24 hour vidoe surveilance while a team of volunteers sat over the worms praying. There prayers went, "God, if you really want your children to avoid the perils of the church of Darwin, show us a sign. Turn one of these worms, any one, into a dove, or into anything other than a worm."
They too are awaiting results.
Because knocking down a strawman that you set up yourself is so much easier than honest discourse. More satisfying, too, I guess. <sigh>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I argued against broaching the separation between government and religion, so I was lumped in with secularists.
If it makes you feel any better, sL, I'm pretty sure no one here on Hatrack has confused you with a secularist.
Heh. Not lately, at any rate. But if you look back, you'll see that they did indeed. Against religion in schools? In favor of same-sex marriage? Definitely not "religious" by the standards of some people here.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: And evolutionary closeness is routinely (and successfully) used to predict the location of genes in related species.
You're bringing in evolution again where it isn't warranted. I don't need to suppose common ancestry in order to work with obvious similarities.
What you're doing is a lot like when someone in Congress hangs a rider on a bill that has nothing at all to do with the rest of the bill. The President (or governor, if it's on a state level) is put in a position where he either vetos the whole thing, including the parts that are good, or is forced to accept the extraneous part.
It's dishonest in politics. It's worse in science.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "No scientific evidence has been advanced in favor of the myth of random mutations naturally selecting into a plethora of species. It's not even falsifiable. It's bad science, but it's all there is when you insist that everything must have happened without intelligent design. Which only begs the question of why it's considered any more likely than intelligent design is."
Except, Lisa, this whole statement is false.
First, scientific evidence has been offered on this thread. I can only assume you didn't read it.
Second, it is falsifiable. Here's an experiment you can do to falsify evolutionary theory.
Take a species that has a short generational period, and select a population from that species that statistically reflects the population as a whole. Place environmental pressures on that species. Observe teh species for X generations. See if the substrains can breed with each other. If they continuously can, then evolutionary theory would have a data point against it.
You forgot to mention that the substrains have to breed true. Damaging an organism so that it can't breed doesn't count.
And if this is so easy, it would have been done.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its obvious that two creatures which look vaguely similar are going to have their genes in the same locations? Heck, sometimes they don't even look similar at all.
Do tell how that works.
If I recall correctly, there are even cases where things which were placed near each other classificatorily (a judgment often made due to appearance) without evidence of evolutionary nearness were not found to have this same similarity of gene structure. I'm not sure where I'd dig a case up (it'd be hard to search for without fairly in depth knowledge of the literature; I'll browse around, though), but presupposing such a case exists, it would seem to throw a wrenchwork in whatever alternative hypothesis you're about to make.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, I simply think non-scientific theories should be discussed in science classes if they are related to science"
Which ones? Who decides? Should the Government of the United States impose its will such that the Judeo-Christian creation myth is taught, but acknowledge that there just isn't enough time to teach the Hopi myth, or the Navajo myth, or the Buddhist creaton myth? How much time do we take away from our already overburdened curricula schedule to teach what has been known for decades (or even centuries, in some cases) to be simply myth and without any scientific value?
When can we stop teaching Zeus in science class?
I find it very interesting that so much of our current scientific thought, including a lot of mathematics, is based on knowledge first developed in Islamic countries. Look at those countries now. What do you think of those countries today? Certainly, there are pockets of "worthwhile" higher education there, but for the most part, we think of the madrassas--schools steeped in religious fundamentalism, schools lacking in basic education: math, science, some semblance of unbiased history. We think of those countries without much respect for their current state of education.
And religious fundamentalists in our own country, while decrying the horrible state of affairs in the world--and always finding (these days, at least) the Islamic nations and their fundamentalism to blame, would introduce (introduce, mind you) the same type of fundamentalist, religious, anti-intellectual thought processes here in our own country. And they'll wrap themselves in the flag* while doing it, too.
*at a minimum, they'll say "we're doing it for the betterment of national science education!"
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
<-- Tears of frustration. If you don't mean what you say, please say so now so I can stop responding to you.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
