Federal judge expects to rule no later than early January. Hopefully we can end this attack on the wall between Church and State. *crosses fingers* I find it unsettling that the law office representing the Christians is located in Ann Arbor...which is supposed to be the cultural and intellectual center of Michigan.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Jesus über alles.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
I was just wondering how one would argue the theory of intelligent design if one was using it against you for the existence of a Creator. From what I can tell, no one can really argue against it because no one was there when it happened and it also seems so darn logical.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Intelligent design seems logical? I, and a number of other people well educated in logic, disagree, suggesting it is perhaps not as logical as you suppose, and your supposition may in fact be based on inadequate consideration on your part.
As for not being able to argue against it because no one was there, I suggest that you might consider all the silly things I could say that nobody was there for, yet nobody sane would consider credible in the least.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think what you mean, Pericles, is not that no one can argue against it, but that no one can disprove it.
The very fact that it can't be disproven makes it unscientific. If it is not science, it should not be taught in a science class. Most of us have no problem with ID being taught in a philosophy, humanities, or social studies class where it belongs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You hit the nail on the head Karl Ed. I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design. In fact, I believe in some version of intelligent design. I do have a serious problem with teaching intelligent design as science.
Science is a way of seeking truth. It is not the only way, but it is a method for seeking truth which is very important to modern society.
In science we seek truth by
1. Observing natural phenomena and developing hypotheses to explain them.
2. designing experiments which are capable of disproving our hypotheses.
If a hypothesis is hold up under a large number of experiments which could disprove it, we name it a theory. If it holds up on a very large number of experiment which could disprove it we name it a law.
The second step is what makes science different from most other ways of knowing, It is what makes science so powerful. We have a cleary defined process for rejecting and refining or Hypotheses. That process allows us to progress in our understanding of the world.
But as powerful as the scientific method is, there are some questions it simply can't tackle. In order for a theory to be scientific, it must have been tested in experiments that could prove the theory wrong. In fact, it must be continuously subjected to new and more clever experiments which are designed to disprove the theory.
Intelligent Design is an example of a theory which science can not address. While many people do observe natural phenomon and find Intelligent design to be a plausible explanation for their observations, it is impossible to take this hypothesis to the next step. What evidence would you look for which could prove that there wasn't an intelligent designer? Until we can answer that question, it will be impossible to explore the question of Intelligent design scientifically.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The issue of Intelligent Design is a social one. Not a scientific one.
There's ample reason to support Intelligent Design scientifically. But Intelligent Design has a flaw, socially. That is that we don't like saying, "We don't know." It makes people uncomfortable. People will gravitate to anyone with answers, even if the one without answers is making more sense.
John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong." And that's true, but it runs counter to human nature, at least in our times. People want assurances and certainty.
So what will happen if you teach kids that there are two possibilities: Random Evolution and Intelligent Design? The only thing they'll be able to find to paint a concrete picture of an Intelligent Designer is going to be God. It doesn't matter how hard teachers try to avoid bringing God into it. And since the dominant idea of God in this country right now is the Christian one, it will effectively be bringing the Christian God into the classroom, in violation of the First Amendment.
The problem is, though, that while this is certainly true, and certainly a valid argument for barring the teaching of Intelligent Design on social grounds, it has zero validity in terms of science. Even if everyone on Earth who believed in God were to disappear tomorrow, Intelligent Design would still be a valid theory. The most likely theory, in fact. It just wouldn't be as satisfying emotionally.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think, therefore I accept evolution.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There's ample reason to support Intelligent Design scientifically.
I take issue with that. I believe that Intelligent Design is a theory which is consistent with available data. But to say something is supported scientifically means more than saying that it is consistent with the available data.
For a theory to be scientific, it must have been tested in experiments that could have disproved it. That can not be done with intelligent design. To teach ID as science would be to give people a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There's ample reason to support Intelligent Design scientifically.
No, there isn't. Unless you're using the word "ample" in some way that makes it mean "none whatsoever" that I was previously unaware of.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Even if everyone on Earth who believed in God were to disappear tomorrow, Intelligent Design would still be a valid theory. The most likely theory, in fact. It just wouldn't be as satisfying emotionally.
It would still be a valid hypothesis, but it wouldn't be a valid scientific theory until some one could design and perform a large number of experiments that were capable of disproving the theory. Those test are what make something a scientific theory and ID simply does not qualify.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well put, Rabbit. Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
starLisa wrote:
quote:"There's ample reason to support Intelligent Design scientifically."
No, there isn't.
Also:
quote:"...Intelligent Design would still be a valid theory. The most likely theory, in fact."
Perhaps, but not a scientific one.
As to your main point, that society tends to prefer certitude, even when wrong, and eschew "I don't know" -- while the observation may be true (I don't know) in a very general way for human nature, I cannot overstress how strongly I feel that you have applied the idea backwards to the issue at hand.
Science thrives on "I don't know." Science is all about "I don't know." And then, when you are trained in scientific thinking, you get better at stating very precisely what you don't know, and formulating more and more useful questions that, bit by bit, whittle down the "I don't know" until there is a semblance of an answer.
If you're very good, or very lucky, your answer may help create the foundation for others who come after to attack other questions. And the nature of the universe (so far) seems to be such that there is no end to "I don't know's". I don't think theoretical physicists are going to be out of work any time soon, because we have figured every damn thing out.
On the other hand, it is Intelligent Design that claims to provide the pat answer. It is Intelligent Design proponents who say, "don't try to apply the methods of science (i.e. asking questions) to this 'theory.' It is enough to be able to say that life, or the universe, could have come about from purposeful causes -- and if you accept this theory, you can relax all your pointless efforts to unravel nature, and go get jobs as productive members of society."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I have one sincere wish regarding Intelligent Design. That is that everyone would read Miller's The Search for Darwin's God before talking about ID as if it had much, if any, real support among experts in the field to which it supposedly applies, let alone among scientists who are also faithful Christians.
ID is not good science, nor does it pose any serious problems for those who hold that the theory of Evolution offers a better explanation for the facts as we know them...and learn more.
The early examples proposed by ID's proponents as "irreducibly complex" biological mechanisms (things that couldn't possibly have evolved) have all been shown to be readily explainable through Evolutionary means, once studies are carried out. The response among ID theorists has been the very unscientific reaction of saying nothing about those things anymore and just picking new "irreducibly complex" things to talk about. Or to ignore the contrary data.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I have one sincere wish regarding Intelligent Design. That is that everyone would read Miller's The Search for Darwin's God before talking about ID as if it had much, if any, real support among experts in the field to which it supposedly applies, let alone among scientists who are also faithful Christians.
ID is not good science, nor does it pose any serious problems for those who hold that the theory of Evolution offers a better explanation for the facts as we know them...and learn more.
The early examples proposed by ID's proponents as "irreducibly complex" biological mechanisms (things that couldn't possibly have evolved) have all been shown to be readily explainable through Evolutionary means, once studies are carried out. The response among ID theorists has been the very unscientific reaction of saying nothing about those things anymore and just picking new "irreducibly complex" things to talk about. Or to ignore the contrary data.
While I do not doubt the existence of an intelligence that exceeds our own and of a creator, I have to conclude that the creator worked through the laws of nature to achieve the world that we can see and study. One of those laws is something that is as close to the current theory of Evolution as makes no appreciable difference.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
I'm not precisely sure, but is not theory of intelligent design suggest that due to all the natural order in the universe, there must have been something that made it this way, and was just not coincidence? And if this is the case Fugu, or anyone for that matter, how is this not logical? That the universe and planets and ecosystems etc etc are all subjects to some randomness and by chance, came to work together. I understand that ID is not a scientifically sound theory, but can you please explain why it is not logical as well?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not logical because we can point to large numbers of examples of order that appear absent any creator.
Its not logical because then all you've done is moved the problem to a different place -- now you've got a creator you can't explain because he/she/it is clearly too complex to arise naturally and must have been created.
Its not logical because "I can't explain it, therefore somebody made it" isn't reasoning, its speculation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:There's ample reason to support Intelligent Design scientifically.
I take issue with that. I believe that Intelligent Design is a theory which is consistent with available data. But to say something is supported scientifically means more than saying that it is consistent with the available data.
For a theory to be scientific, it must have been tested in experiments that could have disproved it. That can not be done with intelligent design. To teach ID as science would be to give people a fundamental misunderstanding of science.
So you're defining "science" in a way that can possibly exclude what really happened from consideration?
That troubles me. I think of science as a means of discovering the truth. Learning about reality. If rules of science are created that can rule something as being untouchable by science, even though it might really be the case, then those rules make science diverge from the quest to discover the truth. I don't think that was ever the intent of science.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Science is indeed a tool of making truth clearer.
The "scientific method," however, is what a previous poster stated: a methodical testing of a given theory by attempting to find ways to prove it false. The method rests itself on the fundamental idea that there cannot be a PROOF, but that one can only find evidence that supports a given theory.
However, I would argue that the search for "truth" belongs more to the field of philosophy than to the scientific method. :-)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
edit: this is in response to sL
I suggest some readings in the history and philosophy of science, then.
Science is a remarkably constricted field, for the simple philosophical reason that if it weren't, we couldn't say much of anything at all. If we allow people to say things are science which are untestable, then what's the point?
also edit: to elaborate on the above, one thing which will always be a possibility is that humans are actually somehow suspended in a perfect virtual world (perfect meaning undetectable from any experiment performed within it).
As there is no experiment that can falsify this in a scientific sense, a "theory" which states it is not science. One philosophical reason it is excluded from science is that adding it to science does not increase science's explanatory power at all, even if it is actually true!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: starLisa wrote:
quote:"There's ample reason to support Intelligent Design scientifically."
No, there isn't.
Also:
quote:"...Intelligent Design would still be a valid theory. The most likely theory, in fact."
Perhaps, but not a scientific one.
So science requires that a possibility be ruled out, because it doesn't fit the rules of scientific inquiry. <sigh>
Science is supposed to be a tool by means of which we attain knowledge. Not a procrustean bed that rules out certain ideas on the basis of a dogma.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Science thrives on "I don't know." Science is all about "I don't know."
It really doesn't.
"Once one has experienced the desperation with which clever and conciliatory men react to the demand for a change in the thought pattern, one can only be amazed that such revolutions in science have actually been possible at all." --Werner Heisenberg
"It's impossible that the Big Bang is wrong." --Joseph Silk
What you're talking about is an idealized concept of science. It has the same reality that a frictionless surface or a geometric plane has. Scientific establishments have a very bad track record when it comes to tolerating paradigm shifts. When continental drift was first proposed, it was rejected soundly. Albert Einstein, to his dying day, rejected quantum physics as nonsensical.
Solid scientists have lost their jobs and been virtually excommunicated from the scientific community for proposing ideas that conflict with the reigning paradigm. Halton Arp is a classic example. A respected astronomer, he noticed that many observations demonstrated problems with the Hubble Law and the conventional understanding of what the red shift is. For his crime, he was fired from his position and barred from using major telescopes. Students who attempted to check Arp's claims were also banned.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: On the other hand, it is Intelligent Design that claims to provide the pat answer. It is Intelligent Design proponents who say, "don't try to apply the methods of science (i.e. asking questions) to this 'theory.'
Not at all. That's a misrepresentation. A strawman argument. The science of genetics is just as valid even if it can't be extrapolated back to a single point. It was never dependent on any such thing. There is no example, anywhere, ever, of speciation. No such thing has ever been observed, either in the laboratory or in the wild. But that doesn't make genetics any less important.
To use the watch example again, if I find a watch laying in the street, postulating that it was made by someone, even though I know nothing about that someone, doesn't stop me from investigating the watch itself and learning from it.
Sure, there are fundamentalists who might say what you're claiming. But to tar the entire idea of intelligent design with such a thing borders on the dishonest.
If God had never interacted with people and if religions had never happened, I think scientists would all take intelligent design for granted.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: It is enough to be able to say that life, or the universe, could have come about from purposeful causes -- and if you accept this theory, you can relax all your pointless efforts to unravel nature, and go get jobs as productive members of society."
You know what, John? I completely agree with your reaction to anyone who says that. Truly I do. But since you didn't address it, can I ask your opinion of the view that intelligent design is a likelihood, and that it doesn't in the least exempt us from scientific inquiry in the fields of genetics, taxinomy, biology and so on?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
speciation Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
The thing that gets me fairly steamed is that I believe in intelligent design to some degree, but I just do not understand how it can be taught as science? Also how does scientific evolution and intelligent design differ in what they are saying? As far as I understand isnt intelligent design just saying God made things evolve into the way they are?
I think perhaps science teachers should not be saying wether evolution is God influenced or not thus avoiding the whole controversy to begin with.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And sL, the official line of the ID proponents who are making headway in school boards is that speciation does occur, just that its guided by God.
Promethius: the common classifications are Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, and Evolution.
YEC and OEC both involve literal creation events of all the species, or at least groups of them. It appears sL is advocating what would typically be called Old Earth Creationism.
Intelligent Design says that it is possible to find scientific evidence for God's (sorry, "a creator's") existence by seeing how species couldn't have gotten where they are without "help".
Theistic Evolution is roughly what you describe; the notion that evolution is how things happen, but that God is necessary and intrinsic and the cause, much in the same way he's the cause of gravity. This is not and does not attempt to be a scientific belief.
Evolution just means thinking evolution is how things happen; Theistic Evolution is a subset. You could also make other subsets, but its relatively pointless.
Science teachers should definitely stay out of whether or not God influences evolution; science has nothing to say about whether God does or not.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
quote:John Dayton once said, "It is better to be roughly right than precisely wrong." And that's true, but it runs counter to human nature, at least in our times. People want assurances and certainty.
This is wrong.
Being vaguely right doesn't get you anything.
Knowing what is definitively incorrect on the other hand, lets you immediately know what to abandon, and that you need to start looking somewhere else. This is the entire basis for falsificationism (i.e. how most scientists think science is supposed to work).
Second, people who have the gall to claim that there's support for Intelligent Design amaze me. Being a stalwart in the evolutionary camp, i find it utterly astonishing that hardline ID supporters are so unfathomably ignorant of the immense volume of unanswered criticism that one literally stumbles over while passing through the internet. The fact that they are unaware of these criticisms indicate exactly to what extent this "debate" is a social farce, and in absolutely no way a scientific exchange.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
StarLisa, it isn't that we're saying science precludes the possibility of an intelligent designer. Science does not require that there not be one. Science simply cannot address that which is unproveable.
For instance, Science may ask "How was the Earth formed?" If you answer, God formed it, you might be right, but that is also a form of saying "It was formed by the force that formed it". This is a perfect logical statement, but it is also a useless one.
There are scientific assertions about God, most of which have been proven mistaken. Back in Galileo's day, it was believed that God created the Earth as the center of the universe. It was clear that he had because everything we could see revolved around the Earth. The sun, the moon, and even all the stars. You could go out day or night and see their progression around the earth with your own eyes. It was believed by some that this was evidence of our supreme stature in the order of God's creations. He gave us center stage, so to speak.
It was once believe that the perfect orbits of the planets testified of God. Each was a perfect mathematical circle. Newton, or perhaps one of his contemporaries, I forget, even worked on mathematical proofs linking the distances of the orbits of the planets with perfect geometric objects, further pointing to a grand designer.
Well, over the years we've improved our measurements and found that no such relationships exist. The orbits are not mathematically perfect circles. They are elipses. One of our "planets" doesn't even fall in the same plane, really, as the rest of them.
Now, none of this is proof that God didn't design creation, but it is proof that those specific claims are not true. The fact is, every time someone has turned God's involvement in creation into a scienfically verifiable (or falsifiable) claim, it has come up short - been proven not to be the evidence it claimed - and God has been relegated further into the remaining unknown.
And there will always be "unknown", so science is never going to disprove God.
But when ID says it is a theory that some "intelligence" created the universe, it offers nothing that can be tested. It might be 100 percent true, but it isn't scientific. But it isn't scientific in the same way "The universe was formed by the force that formed it" is not scientific.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Pod! You posted! Long time no see, man ('round these parts, anyway).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Pod, I think you misunderstand John Dayton. He's not saying it's better to remain in plausible uncertaintly than to determine one thing is incorrect. He is saying it is better to dwell in a realm of partial answers than to latch onto one falsehood as truth.
my $.02
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
And yeah, "Hi". We've missed you. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
sL:
quote:So science requires that a possibility be ruled out, because it doesn't fit the rules of scientific inquiry. <sigh>
Science is supposed to be a tool by means of which we attain knowledge. Not a procrustean bed that rules out certain ideas on the basis of a dogma.
Are you being intentionally thick? This has been explained here three times and you stubbornly misinterpret it each time.
Science doesn't require that anything be ruled out. It requires that you subject hypotheses to tests that could rule them out. That is, in order to have a hypothesis A, you must be able to describe a test which has, as one of its possible results: "Not A." If the only possible tests cannot disprove A, then they aren't tests at all.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
The 6-4 vote was a victory for "intelligent design" advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It is more scientifically honest to declare "we don't know, yet." If something doesn't fit the rules of scientific inquiry than it remains unproven until tests can be devised. Some things may never be provable, may never be testable. Doesn't mean that there aren't truths to be found there.
But those truths should not be taught in a science class.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Hey Karl & Twink. Jaids linked me.
Yeah, i wasn't concerned with the original intent of the quote. But the point it's used to support is wrong. Science is about nothing ventured, nothing gained. If you don't take a stand that can be provably decided upon, you've made no progress.
Also, to attempt to take the middle ground in this debate, here's the compromise. It's the one the catholic church takes. The world around us tells us certain facts about the history of the universe. What lies beyond the beginning of the universe, and how it got there, we don't know (whether we can know is open to speculation). That means there could be a creator out there. What the history of our universe does tell us, is that there are certain things that are not true (or extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely to be true) about the universe. The universe is not a couple thousand years old. Literal creation did not take place. Does this exclude the possibility of a supreme creator? No. Does it mean that the bible is not true word for word? yes.
Science means that not all dreams can come true. (or in philosophy speak, science makes no positive claims about religion, it does make negative claims however.)
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I think that we should teach that the nature of an intelligent designer is, in itself, so complex that the universe's intelligent designer had to have an intelligent designer as well. And so did that one. And that one again. And so on. In fact, I think that every minute of every class should be spent saying, "and so that one had an intelligent designer, and so that one had an intelligent designer, and so..."
No more math, no more science, no more history; nothing. Just intelligent designers, all the way down (until, of course, you start bumping into the turtles...)
Oh, and StarLisa,
quote:If God had never interacted with people and if religions had never happened, I think scientists would all take intelligent design for granted.
Say what? To "take ID for granted" is to presume the existence of an intelligent designer, thus...religion.
Oh, and "God" never has interacted with people. I don't know where you get that idea from.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There is no example, anywhere, ever, of speciation. No such thing has ever been observed, either in the laboratory or in the wild.
Just in case you missed it from fugu's link, this is flat-out wrong. Speciation has been observed many times, both in the wild and in the lab.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: To use the watch example again, if I find a watch laying in the street, postulating that it was made by someone, even though I know nothing about that someone, doesn't stop me from investigating the watch itself and learning from it.
Well, yes, maybe in an ideal world where IDers are reasonable. But in practice it wouldn't work that way, because every time you actually learn something about an organism, it looks less designed. Have you considered, for example, that the human eye is upside down, making it way less efficient than it could be? Designed, posisbly, intelligent, nonsense.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:If a hypothesis is hold up under a large number of experiments which could disprove it, we name it a theory. If it holds up on a very large number of experiment which could disprove it we name it a law.
I wanted to take brief issue with this. I know it's the way many people, both lay and professional scientists, use the terms, but in using them that way they leave themselves open to the accusation that evolution is "just a theory," which is unfortunate.
A law describes a single, universal effect, like the law of gravity, and is often phrased (or can be phrased) in mathematical form. A theory explains how and why a set of actions and observations relate and connect. Theories do not become laws, though they use laws to support themselves.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There is something of a historical issue here. Scientists these days rarely feel dogmatically certain enough to call something a Law with capital L, so theories no longer become Laws. However, they do have considerable respect for the old guys, so anything that was declared a Law in the nineteenth century is still considered one. Hence Newton's (disproved, or anyway refined) Law of Gravity is actually less accurate than Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There is no example, anywhere, ever, of speciation. No such thing has ever been observed, either in the laboratory or in the wild.
Just in case you missed it from fugu's link, this is flat-out wrong. Speciation has been observed many times, both in the wild and in the lab.
Lisa never acknowledges links that prove her flat-out wrong, KoM. It's one of her more charming debating tactics.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:"What you're talking about is an idealized concept of science."
Um, yes. And I thought the topic was whether Intelligent Design should be taught as a scientific theory in a curriculum of science. Surely an "idealized concept" of one thing is relevant when one is trying to determine if another thing qualifies as an example of the first.
quote:"Scientific establishments have a very bad track record when it comes to tolerating paradigm shifts."
Establishments, period, have such a track record. And the current debate absolutely reflects the fact that certain pockets of society have lagged much more seriously than has the scientific establishment, in tolerating the paradigm shift that is evolutionary theory (not to mention contental drift, geological time, etc.).
Face it, Intelligent Design is not a vanguard of the next bright thing, it is an empty throwback to ancient ideas promulgated by diehards. Presenting it as a new paradigm shift that science is too narrow-minded and cowardly to tolerate, is like criticizing the medical establishment for their callous resistance to the benefits of "bleeding out humors" for treatment of fever, PMS, hysteria, and indigestion.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: On the other hand, it is Intelligent Design that claims to provide the pat answer. It is Intelligent Design proponents who say, "don't try to apply the methods of science (i.e. asking questions) to this 'theory.'
Not at all. That's a misrepresentation. A strawman argument.
Not one question that I have ever conceived of, that if studied would represent pursuit of a scientific inquiry into Intelligent Design, its definition, history, dynamics, causes, purposes, examples, proofs, or counterproofs, have I ever seen referred to, much less answered, in ID literature or statements. The ID movement solely comprises tired arguments (like the pocket watch analogy) which attempt only to cast doubt on accepted science, and do nothing to argue for a Designer -- and much more to the point, do nothing to establish anything like a scientific framework for evaluating the question.
[Your reference to genetics and speciation is specious. Everything in genetics (theoretical, experimental, and descriptive) supports and is supported by supposed mechanisms in both macro- and micro-evolution, and even so revolutionary a discovery as DNA merely introduced refinements to evolutionary theory rather overturning it.]
[Today we observe species. In the fossil record we observe species (some different, some similar). What mechanisms can have caused this to be? Everything we know about genetics (along with other provable phenomena) satisfies, without recourse to un-provable phenomena.]
Absent that, I think one is left only with what you apparently favor (reading between the lines): changing the definition of science to include, rather than exclude, the acceptance of theories (hypotheses, etc.) for which no test can be formulated.
quote:"But since you didn't address it, can I ask your opinion of the view that intelligent design is a likelihood, and that it doesn't in the least exempt us from scientific inquiry in the fields of genetics, taxinomy, biology and so on?"
I think that anyone who holds the view that intelligent design is a likelihood is either operating on shallow and probably ignorant premises of what science is and what science says; or they are operating on faith.
I personally believe that virtually all of those in the first category are actually in the second category, and for some reason are reluctant to trumpet their religious or philosophical convictions. I find this disturbing. I read the start of enochville's KoM thread, and he makes a lovely statement of his personal faith right up front. The ID movement appears reluctant to do so.
What are so-called Intelligent Design proponents afraid of? I thought there was a resurgence of power and respect for religion in this country. Why not come out and say, "I believe there's a living, intelligent force in the universe, that is responsible for creation and for life."
And once one testifies to that, under what compulsion does one then attempt to insert the statement into science books? Why not engineering books, or medical books? Why not cookbooks?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
It was once believe that the perfect orbits of the planets testified of God. Each was a perfect mathematical circle. Newton, or perhaps one of his contemporaries, I forget, even worked on mathematical proofs linking the distances of the orbits of the planets with perfect geometric objects, further pointing to a grand designer.
Kepler discovered that the orbits of the planets were ellipses 50 years before Newton was born. Newton was fully aware the planets were ellipses and worked out the mathematical proofs for why they had to be.
I'm going through a phase of Newton hero worship and couldn't let that pass, sorry.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
Sorry for my ignorance, but is the reason why ID is not plausible is due to the existence of speciation and evolution in general
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, its not plausible all on its lonesome, but those contribute as well. See my post in reply to yours, directly after yours, above.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
Thanks for being patient with me fugu, just a couple of points. I was just wondering if you could give me some examples of order in nature out of randomness.
I wish to discuss the point where you explain that since God is so complex that He must have been created and thus is paradoxical. I am coming from a biased point of view, so please bear with me, but, does that point not define God’s nature. If He truly is an inifite, omniscient, and omnipotent being, does it not make sense that He exists through His own will. If He truly is an infintely omniscient and omnipotent being, and due to His infinite complexity, requires a creator himself, is that not paradoxical as well, saying that this infintely omnipotent and omniscient being depends on an even higher being. This would be paradoxical to the fact that He is omniscient and omnipotent in the first place.
Although the existence of God does require a fair amount of faith, let’s say you did believe that God was what religion and Scripture describes Him as, is it not a fair speculation that the only being that could create an infinitely complex material universe must be an infinitely complex being, be it God, or a Creator in general.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pericles: I was just wondering if you could give me some examples of order in nature out of randomness.
quote: In one stunt that he has demonstrated in settings ranging from high school classrooms to television studios, the University of Toronto physicist loads clear plastic tubes with white table salt and black sand and starts them rotating. What transpires in the tubes usually knocks the socks off of any unsuspecting bystander. Instead of mixing into a drab gray sameness, the sand particles slowly separate into crisp black bands cutting across a long, narrow field of salt. As the spinning continues, some bands disappear and new ones arise.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
Wow. This is one of the most lucid discussions of the topic I have read in a long time. I wish you were all in my class this semester! I have had my students (first year college/non-majors) discuss (in an online forum) the topic as a group. I had them wait until they heard my lectures on the nature of scientific inquiry and evolution by natural selection. They were also responsible for outlining the ID position so that they had a solid foundation to address the question, "should teachers present ID in the science classroom." After going through the posts I was shocked to find that 87% of the posts were essentially "yes." Most of the reasons centered on the idea that teachers should present both sides of the argument or opposing theories and let the students decide for themselves.
Apparently I failed to acheive my goal of teaching them what science is and what can be accomlished with it. I would seem that I even blew it on educating them on what a theory is! My general education assessment forms will be poor, indeed.
When I asked the class about their responses and my apparent failure I often heard something like the following: "I understood what you were saying and will answer the exam questions the way you want, but you wanted to know what I thought and I think that ID makes more sense than evolution."
*sigh*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think that if God exists he's so complex he requires a creator; I think that if you argue the universe is so complex it scientifically requires a creator (the argument of Intelligent Design) then you must apply the same argument to the creator .
As for your application of logic to an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent being, I merely submit that if such a being were to exist, logic would be the last thing that would matter to it.
Some further points: the universe is not infinitely complex. We've got a pretty good idea as to its size, and already find it trivially easy to determine things which will never be calculated because the amount of calculation is beyond the scope of the size of the universe. The universe, while incredibly, wonderfully complex, is complex in a very finite way.
Also, there is of course the possibility that the universe has no creator. Just as you posit a God having no creator, the universe may have existed for all time (which still allows for a beginning, in a weird sense; time may be finite and unbounded; but there would still be no need for a creator). So no, it is not fair speculation that "the universe, therefore God", at least from a purely logical perspective. This is why you have faith .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I forgot my examples.
Here are some of my favorite:
Babies (the matter/energy that makes them up/powers them was previously very disorganized).
Plants (they get energy from, among other places, the sun, and make some of it less random, which they use, at the expense of making more of it random).
For some examples on your own, try taking an egg carton, open so the holes are exposed, and lobbing ping pong balls at it. Most will bounce away, but eventually you'll fill it up. That's a very ordered little bit of the universe right there.
Or go make some soap bubbles. Despite all the random stuff going on with them, we always get some sort of ordered structure.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
Thanks alot fugu. I’m kinda sorta seeing from your point of view. I have some more comments and questions but am too tired to continue. I’ll probably come up with something tomorrow for discussion. I just wanted to put out there before I turn in for the night that I dont’t believe evolution is contrary to the existence of God. I’ll explain why probably tomorrow. G’night!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The ironic thing about this whole intelligent design debate is that it seems to be up to religious groups to save science, or at least save scientific education, from excessive dogmatism. This is the reverse of how it normally goes.
Students need to learn that science is a method of evaluating different theories based on observations - not a set of dogma laid down by scientists. But the latter is the message when science refuses to even discuss the possibility of Intelligent Design as an alternate theory. If the scientific method itself becomes a set of rules that biases science against certain theories that fit the evidence in favor of other theories that fit the evidence no better, students will rightly conclude that science can't be trusted to give us accurate explanations of its data.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Then I await the day my "evolution is caused by an undetectable force from the purple flowers that grow on a planet two million light years away" theory is taught in your idea of a science classroom.
There's a notion called separability you might look into, Tres.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tres, what is taught in classrooms usually has very little to do with real science, this is true. (On the other hand, you do need a certain amount of "this is how it is" before you can start in on the real stuff. You wouldn't start students off with a comparison of alchemy and modern chemistry; it's just not very useful.)
But science does not need the IDers to save it from tiself; the reason being, it hasn't dogmatically rejected ID. Scientists looked very carefully at ID, weighed the data, and decided against it. Granted, this took place about a hundred years ago; then again, just how many other battles of a hundred years ago are being refought in the courts? I don't see anyone demanding we 'teach the controversy' on phlogiston theory. This is why scientists become a bit testy about the matter.
My favourite example of order out of chaos : Snowflakes.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's... hilarious. Is that honestly the best you can do?
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I wrote:
quote:"Everything in genetics (theoretical, experimental, and descriptive) supports and is supported by supposed mechanisms in both macro- and micro-evolution, and even so revolutionary a discovery as DNA merely introduced refinements to evolutionary theory rather overturning it...
...and this morning decided it was a nice example for illustrating the difference between ID-as-science and real-science-as-science.
To ultra-simplify, early evolutionists and biologists studied nature (the fossil record, mutations, inheritance, etc.) and determined that there must be a mechanism by which traits are passed from generation to generation.
So far so good. And knowing what we know about reproduction, it seemed clear that it was possible for such a mechanism to exist, somewhere in spore, egg, sperm, etc.
Evolutionary theory in particular also posited that this mechanism would probably have two features that, on the face of it (especially to someone inclined to disbelieve evolution) sound quite outlandish: all life would share the same mechanism; and the mechanism would not only convey species-specific traits (e.g., blue eyes, male-pattern baldness) but would convey the entire blueprint for the individual.
What could this bizarrely powerful mechanism be? How could it possibly encode that much information? Preposterous!
THEN dna was discovered.
Now, it is not my point that to predict something almost unimaginable, and for it to turn out to be so, is proof positive that the basis for one's prediction is sound.
My point is to ask: What sort of similar chain of reasoning, investigation, and discovery (i.e., science) could take place that would constitute useful and interesting elaboration of, support for, insight into, or explanation of ID?
First, one would have to stipulate a few more things about the theory. What is the nature of the Designer? How does it work? Where and when does it work? Etc. (The ID movement, as far as I can tell, has hazarded no claims in answer to these most basic questions.)
As a scientist, these questions would interest me. If, for example, we supposed that the Designer was at work from the dawn of time, and still operated today, the experiments we might devise to investigate that would be different from those devised to investigate the idea that the Designer only influenced our universe or existence once or twice, at key points such as the Big Bang or the creation of life.
The fact is, there is no scientific investigation or experiment that can shed light on these questions, nor prove or disprove any part of them. And ID proponents can always fall back on the claim that the particulars are unknowable and undetectable.*
They can't have it both ways. To be taught as science it ought to be accepted by scientists as a scientific theory, and in order to be accepted, it ought to be tractable to the methods of science. Neither is the case.
Unfortunately, for something actually to be taught as science, it apparently needs only to be accepted by school-board members, who need only to be dazzled by a few parlor tricks and a lot of very ugly nonsense about pocket watches, eyeballs, finches, DNA molecules, randomness, and other claptrap, all of it thoroughly and positively debunked many times over.
*I am open-minded. What if some evidence IS scientifically found that supports something in ID? A message from Yahweh embedded in pi. A previously unknown 'intelligent' atomic force. You name it. Well, I guess we'd have to reevaluate, wouldn't we? That is the nature of science. Sure, it would be a tough pill to swallow for avowed atheists and materialists; sure, the establishment would resist, as Lisa points out; but life would go on. And somehow this new ability to detect and measure the action of a 'deity' or 'deific force' would be assimilated into science.
But there is no such evidence today. Not one jot or tittle.**
(**Unless you just point at ALL known forces and phenomena (gravity, magnetism, osmosis, memory, radiation, Robin Williams) and say, There, that is the deific force at work. I'm okay with that, but it's pretty clear to me that would be a religious statement, not a scientific one.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Promethius: The thing that gets me fairly steamed is that I believe in intelligent design to some degree, but I just do not understand how it can be taught as science? Also how does scientific evolution and intelligent design differ in what they are saying? As far as I understand isnt intelligent design just saying God made things evolve into the way they are?
I think perhaps science teachers should not be saying wether evolution is God influenced or not thus avoiding the whole controversy to begin with.
The question is whether random mutations can ever result in such complexities as eyes, kittens or Charles Darwin.
Those who insist that it's all just happenstance have an ideological axe to grind every bit as much as the fundamentalists.
Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did, there is certainly no evidence for extrapolating it back to a single point. That's something that can only come from faith. Faith that everything happens without design and that everything is the result of unchanging processes. It's just as "non-scientific" as ID is being claimed to be, because it's utterly unfalsifiable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Scientists looked very carefully at ID, weighed the data, and decided against it.
This is just what was so unscientific about it, though - because they don't have data which justifies rejecting it. Rather, they are attempting to define science around it, and reject it without needing scientific data to do so.
As I've said in the past, the only thing testable about evolution is the fact that it is a process that occurs in the present. The way in which this process operated in the past and whether or not it is the origin of all species is totally untestable, as are all matters of history. They are not, strictly speaking, matters of science - yet no scientist I know of wants to teach evolution only as a process that goes on now without mentioning the implications it has on how life came about. That is because implications and analysis of science, in addition to what is strictly science, are also important to the scientific world. But to exclude completely certain theories analyzing the results of science simply because it sounds religious, while allowing equally untestable explanations of the data in classroom, is an instance of science assuming things rather than proving them.
Perhaps the whole matter could simply be resolved by getting rid of "Science" class and replacing it with "Natural Studies". A natural studies class could include studying science, but could also include interpretations of science that scientists do not consider to be "scientific". If it comes down to that choice, I would think that this is what school systems need to do, because it would be irresponsible of them to teach science in a vacuum, without helping them understand the way it relates to the important contraversies in our nation. And it would be irresponsible to teach science in a way that seems to reject, flat out, the students' religions - unless, of course, science can offer experimental proof for that. Students will end up not trusting science. This is why, if people will not allow things like ID to be taught in "Science" class, we should replace Science class with a class where the door is open to a broader range of topics and a more complete understanding of how science informs our society.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Chris B - that link wasn't exactly the best to give the whole story of the Kansas Board of Education vote. I should expect most Hatrackers are usually bright enough to go to the source and get what the actual wording of the standards are, not the media-interpreted version.
Facts about this:
1) this doesn't change the classroom. Teachers still have control over how science is taught in their own classroom as they always have and I have seen teachers in Kansas teach it both ways -- heavy on evolution, light on evolution. I've even seen them bring up ID -- and nothing was said. This really doesn't change anything inside the school. The ruling only affects how state assessment tests are worded.
2) This specifically says it does NOT push the intelligent design theory, it only allows for the questioning of the theory of evolution. As far as I know -- the basics of science, in general have to do with questioning everything.
So the IDers may be saying this is "a victory" and the evolutionist may be shaking their heads in dismay, but in reality, this isn't going to change much of the status quo for Kansas.
FG
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:"That's... hilarious. Is that honestly the best you can do?"
Hey, great counterargument! Can I borrow it sometime?
quote:"The question is whether random mutations can ever result in such complexities as eyes, kittens or Charles Darwin.
Those who insist that it's all just happenstance have an ideological axe to grind every bit as much as the fundamentalists.
Lisa, I have had the impression from other threads that you have a pretty incisive mind, but the above arguments deeply disappoint me.
Evolution does not say that eyes or kittens are the result of random mutations; nor is it anywhere taught that evolution is 'just happenstance.'
Some of your arguments up till now were provocative. Now you are just making wild, lazy claims that may sound good to a child, but which are actually nonsensical. Je suis désolé.
quote:Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did...
What part of evolution never happened? Perhaps biological populations do not reproduce and die in successive generations, selectively passing on mutations and heritable traits. No, there's no evidence of that. Perhaps branches of the tree of life did not die off, resulting in huge numbers of long-extinct species? Nope, no evidence of that. Perhaps it is impossible for evolution to have occurred, since it requires so many eons of time to have elapsed, for which there is no evidence? Perhaps kittens and earthworms and biologists share a common cellular 'blueprint'? Nope, no evidence of that.....
Gee, one wonders what evidence for ID would satisfy someone like you!
quote:"...can only come from faith. Faith that everything happens without design and that everything is the result of unchanging processes."
I don't deny there is an underlying faith to 'idealized science' -- but it is not a faith in 'absence of design,' nor is it a faith in 'unchanging processes.'
The faith in science is a faith that the physical universe is understandable to human intellect.
This is a knife-edge of faith, because at the same time we acknowledge that it is very, very unlikely ever to be actually so understood. And if you look at ALL of the universe (e.g., faith itself, inspiration, beauty, hate, imagination, deific concepts -- not just the physical universe), science pretends to illuminate only a small corner of existence.
But this faith is enough to keep us working, asking, questing.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I should be clear: the workings of the physical universe. The how. Not the why.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> Je suis desole.
Look, if you're going to quote Mark Knopfler, have the decency to complete the verse:
Je suis desole, mais je n'ai pas le choix Je suis desole, mais la vie me demande ea Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I don't think we need to wait for Bob, do we?
Je suis desole, mais je n'ai pas le choix I lost my shoe, just as I went by the cabbage
Je suis desole, mais la vie me demande ea I lost my (other) shoe, and now I demand bottled water
Edit: fixed attribution of our resident translator. Not sure whether more of an apology is due Chris, or Bob
[ November 09, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: The question is whether random mutations can ever result in such complexities as eyes, kittens or Charles Darwin.
Those who insist that it's all just happenstance have an ideological axe to grind every bit as much as the fundamentalists.
Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did, there is certainly no evidence for extrapolating it back to a single point. That's something that can only come from faith. Faith that everything happens without design and that everything is the result of unchanging processes. It's just as "non-scientific" as ID is being claimed to be, because it's utterly unfalsifiable.
This is yet another ignorant post. Evolution is not, and has never been about just "random mutation". Evolution is a directed process. It is not, however a goal directed process.
What's this mean? It means it's not totally random. It means you can't prop up your "the probability that x would evolve is vanishingly low" straw man. Evolution doesn't work like that, and people who think it does just indicates how unqualified they are to enter the scientific debate.
Evolution possesses random components, in that you don't know what mutations will take place from generation to generation. But, there are very non-random components that weed out a massive amount of noise/garbage mutations (that's the whole notion of fitness). Is it plausible that this system can generate complex individual and group behavior? Yes. People who tell you it can't are entirely unable to give any reasoning why evolution fails, or hold up any examples that evolution is inherently unable to explain.
That's why i love that they run around screaming at the top of their lungs about being stifled from expressing their scientific ideas. Their scientific idea takes 30 seconds to explain, and then the exchange of science abruptly ends. "There are things so complicated that evolution will never explain how it came to exist." Well how do they know that? "Well, we did some calculations! And the numbers we got are really really small." So? Could it be that the numbers that you're using are wrong? Where'd you get them? "We made them up!" Great... why are you bothering me again?
Also, let's head this off at the pass and dispense with the notion that humans (or any other creature) are well designed machines of flawless perfect flawlessness. Is it good design to have your aorta randomly pop and kill you? Do cataracts indicate that eyeballs were built in a clever or smart fashion? How about the need for corrective lenses? How about cancer and the damage that radiation (something the univer has plenty of) can kill living creatures? What about the fact that women have to push babies (and deform their skulls) through a small opening in their pelvis to give birth?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Pod, don't forget the blindspot in the human eye.
-Bok
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As far as I know -- the basics of science, in general have to do with questioning everything.
Isn't that the question here, though: Do the basics of science have to do with questioning everything or just with questioning certain things?
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Facts about this:
1) this doesn't change the classroom. Teachers still have control over how science is taught in their own classroom as they always have and I have seen teachers in Kansas teach it both ways -- heavy on evolution, light on evolution. I've even seen them bring up ID -- and nothing was said. This really doesn't change anything inside the school. The ruling only affects how state assessment tests are worded.
2) This specifically says it does NOT push the intelligent design theory, it only allows for the questioning of the theory of evolution. As far as I know -- the basics of science, in general have to do with questioning everything.
So the IDers may be saying this is "a victory" and the evolutionist may be shaking their heads in dismay, but in reality, this isn't going to change much of the status quo for Kansas.
FG
I disagree. The problem here is not evolution's sacred post in some fictitous scientific hall of fame. The problem is wasting time discussing that have no substantive scientific worth or merit. First, k-12 science classrooms are not the appropriate forum to attempt complex refutations of evolutionary theory (IDers can't cut it in the world of higher education, so they've resorted to attempting to manipulate children). Second, the approach being taken by Intelligent Design "theorists" is the problem. It is their very modus operandi that is the problem. They have no serious scientific beef, so they're trying to interfere using school boards and legislation. This isn't a problem of IDers stalwartly defending themselves and science from dogmatic scientists, this is a group of people who are attemping to screw with the public perception of evolution, undermine the credibility of scientists, and the very notion of how science is done. That's what scientists are upset with.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Tres wrote: As I've said in the past, the only thing testable about evolution is the fact that it is a process that occurs in the present. The way in which this process operated in the past and whether or not it is the origin of all species is totally untestable, as are all matters of history.
This claim in patently absurd. Take, for instance, the idea that an ancient meteor strike caused one of the mass extinctions on our planet. Or the idea that there even were mass extinctions in the planet's past, for that matter. Both are matters of history. Both ideas are testable. If there were mass extinctions, there should be evidence of plant and animal life, unfound in today's biospheres, buried in the ground. They have been found. If a meteor strike sufficiently large to cause an extinction level event were to have occurred in the past on earth, there should be evidence of it. What sort of evidence? Well, meteor strikes produce tektites among the ejecta from the meteor crater. If a meteor strike were the cause of an ELE, there should be tektites in the same geological layer as the evidence of the extinct species. Guess what? Such layers of tektites have been found. They have been found world-wide. They have been found world-wide in the same geologic layer, providing further evidence of a massive meteor strike at the hypothesized time. This is entirely a matter of history and is being and has been tested.
How might we test if evolution occurred in the past? Well, I point you to the relevant part of John's post above:
quote:What part of evolution never happened? Perhaps biological populations do not reproduce and die in successive generations, selectively passing on mutations and heritable traits. No, there's no evidence of that. Perhaps branches of the tree of life did not die off, resulting in huge numbers of long-extinct species? Nope, no evidence of that. Perhaps it is impossible for evolution to have occurred, since it requires so many eons of time to have elapsed, for which there is no evidence? Perhaps kittens and earthworms and biologists share a common cellular 'blueprint'? Nope, no evidence of that.....
Justifiable sarcasm aside, each of his points is a hypothesis about history, and each has been tested and found to be likely.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tres:
That's a false dichotomy (in your last post). "Questioning evolutionary theory" does not imply "suggesting that there is an intelligent designer," because an intelligent designer whose existence cannot be evidenced falls outside the realm of science. Science is interested in testable hypotheses. That's been said several times already in this thread, actually.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:As far as I know -- the basics of science, in general have to do with questioning everything.
Isn't that the question here, though: Do the basics of science have to do with questioning everything or just with questioning certain things?
Okay, this is a complicated question. The idea is that in an ideal world, people shouldn't believe things that are unmotivated. The practical fact of the matter is that nobody can explore everything, and so people attempt to grab common wisdom and use that as a ceteris parabus. Assuming the rest of the world is true according to the stuff people tell me, what happens when i start rearranging stuff in the small window of things that i know a lot about.
The problem is that IDers aren't fighting lazy uses of evolutionary ideas (ironically they've ignored these entirely), by people who aren't experts, they're trying to excise evolution wholesale from the scientific world. They're taking on the people who make it their job to know how evolution is supposed to work in the real world.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Both ideas are testable. If there were mass extinctions, there should be evidence of plant and animal life, unfound in today's biospheres, buried in the ground. They have been found. If a meteor strike sufficiently large to cause an extinction level event were to have occurred in the past on earth, there should be evidence of it. What sort of evidence? Well, meteor strikes produce tektites among the ejecta from the meteor crater. If a meteor strike were the cause of an ELE, there should be tektites in the same geological layer as the evidence of the extinct species. Guess what? Such layers of tektites have been found. They have been found world-wide. They have been found world-wide in the same geologic layer, providing further evidence of a massive meteor strike at the hypothesized time. This is entirely a matter of history and is being and has been tested.
Finding things that are consistent with a theory is not a scientific test. That would just be finding historical evidence, making the meteor crash, strictly speaking, a matter of history rather than a matter of science. In the same way, ID theorists could look for evidence of miracles or the truth of the Bible and so on to support their claims - but that would not be a scientific test either.
A scientific test is a reproduceable experiment where you see what happens in a given circumstance. Do X and Y will happen, every time. Drop a ball of a certain weight and it will fall at a certain speed. Place an animal under certain condititions and it will react in a certain way.
So, strictly speaking, past evolution is not science, because we cannot set up the conditions of the origin of life and watch it slowly evolve into man. This is not an experiment that can be done. Yet, we clearly want to discuss that issue in science class. That is why attempting to hold science education to an extremely strict definition of science is not a good idea. Instead we want to discuss not only science itself but also how to understand science in the context of everything else we know. The latter also is a proper concern of scientists.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Tres, you've just rejected all of anthropolgy and archeology.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Only that anthropology and archeology are a science, under the strict definition people are applying to Intelligent Design. Are you suggesting they are?
After all, it is easily conceivable that an archeologist could someday find very strong evidence for God. Does this make God scientifically testable?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Speaking of statistics. We are living in a very large very old universe, that is possibly even one of countless many others. In such an extremely large pool of possibilities, was life not bound to pop up somewhere by pure chance at least once? People say that life couldn't have been random. These people just can't comprehend how truly large and old this universe is. Life is too unlikely to happen, to have aliens, and too much of a possibility to allow for G-d.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Less flippantly, facts about how things used to be are necessary to narrow the field of what possible processes (or paths the universe has taken) occured to get us to this point. And as such are useful and important.
As for simulation, there is a lot of simulation work that takes place, that's the wonderful thing about evolution, since it applies to all living organisms, you can test evolutionary theory in things that breed really fast, like bacteria, flies, rodents and fish. And short of that, you can do computer simulations.
Anyway, evolutionary theory does use simulation.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Tres: ID makes no empircal claims. That's what makes it non-science.
And yes, it's possible for God to be scientifically testable. If God showed up on my door step and said "here i am!' and i said, cool, lets go show you off around the world, and write some papers on the cool and theory defying stuff you can do, and God went "Sure, let's go to it!" Then God is scientifically testable.
But ID doesn't make any claims as such, they never indicate what amazing theory defying stuff God is capable of, they never say what the implications of that are for theory, they never make any inferences from that stuff about the nature of the universe.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Speaking of statistics. We are living in a very large very old universe, that is possibly even one of countless many others. In such an extremely large pool of possibilities, was life not bound to pop up somewhere by pure chance at least once? People say that life couldn't have been random. These people just can't comprehend how truly large and old this universe is. Life is too unlikely to happen, to have aliens, and too much of a possibility to allow for G-d.
I'm not sure exactly what this post is trying to indicate. Nothing precludes a creator outsides space and time. But nothing indicates it either. So inferrences made about the universe based around the existence of such a creator are pure abject speculation and bear no relationship or connection to empirical reality.
Or more succinctly, God may or may not exist, but since there's no proof, theory based on the existence of God aren't science.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Not only is ID "theory" not testable, it also by definition cannot be supported with evidence. "ID theorists" have worded the "theory" to prevent the possibility of such support.
Which isn't surprising, as no such support exists.
The only argument "ID theorists" make is irreducible complexity, which is not a scientific argument -- not only is it untestable, it is also evidentially unsupportable. It relies entirely on the "theorist's" judgment of the complexity threshold beyond which a designer is implied.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's... hilarious. Is that honestly the best you can do?
Perhaps you would explain for the benefit of us dogma-blinded scientists what makes it so hilarious? I always like to be let in on jokes.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I would like to make a personal declaration. I object to efforts to 'teach the controversy' for three reasons.
I have propounded on two of these reasons in these forums at some length:
1. The essential dishonesty of the actors, who:
claim there is a controversy when there is none
apply arguments which I am sure at least some of them know to be flawed, but which have proven successful at swaying ill-educated minds
calculatedly avoid talking about God or Creationism, cloaking both their purpose and their faith.
2. The patent wrongness of attempting to stretch science into an appropriate forum for deific theorizing. Is it important for people to be educated in the knowledge that there are multiple and sometimes competing ideas extant in human culture about the origin and purpose of the universe? Of course. Should educated adults have an awareness that some people devoutly believe existence is guided by a non-physical intelligence or set of spiritual laws? Of course. Should students in a pluralistic society be offered the opportunity to adopt those views for themselves? Of course. Does any of the above have anything to do with science? No.
But...
... I have only tangentially alluded to, and never discussed, my third reason for opposition to ID.
3. It narrows the definition of a Designer (or God, or deity) -- something I would have thought religious people would object to. And furthermore, it narrows it to a definition that contradicts my idea of what God probably is, if God exists.
It is one thing to attempt to destroy science, and another to use science to establish a universal claim for only a particular sort of deity. This effort is a slap in the face to believers as well as to scientifically minded people.
If anyone is interested, I can say more on these themes.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Finding things that are consistent with a theory is not a scientific test.
This is probably a semantic arguement, but, clearly I disagree. Science is about creating a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis. Gathering evidence for or against it is one way of scientifically testing that hypothesis.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Pericles,
quote:If He truly is an inifite, omniscient, and omnipotent being, does it not make sense that He exists through His own will
No. Nothing ever experienced has ever followed that path. Nothing ever observed has been able to create itself "by its own will." There is no extrapolation to be had from any known experience to make one think that such a thing is possible. A good starting place would be to create something (anything!) purely from someone's will.
I will a red ball to appear before me...nothing.
So we've gone from "Everything that exists needs a creator" to "things can be created by will alone" to "things exist that create themselves through their own will." Man, I haven't been that stoned since college.
Treso,
quote:(1)Students need to learn that science is a method of evaluating different theories based on observations - not a set of dogma laid down by scientists. (2) But the latter is the message when science refuses to even discuss the possibility of Intelligent Design as an alternate theory
(1) Well, that's what they teach my kids in science classs, no "ID" required.
(2) I agree with Fugu. Why stop with just the Christian creation myth in science classes? Why not add the Mayan myth? Or the one true religion of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (blessed be his noodly appendages)?
On the other hand, would you apply the same criteria to religion, or else followers will rightly conclude that religion can't be trusted to give us accurate explanations of its data? Would you mind if I attended your church and gave a sermon on the non-existence of God?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:"That's... hilarious. Is that honestly the best you can do?"
Hey, great counterargument! Can I borrow it sometime?
I thought it was all the link deserved. The thing spends the first half giving various definitions of "species", which was a good sign that we were in for some weasling further on. It means we're going to be offered examples of "speciation" that are nothing of the sort, and then given "alternate definitions" of "speciation" that do fit. Sort of like shooting an arrow into a wall and then painting a bullseye around it.
The author notes the dearth of papers making claims of observed speciation. He explains this by saying, "Well, it's because everyone knows it's true!" <snicker> And he tests it... gawd... he tests it by asking some grad students and faculty about observed speciation, and interprets the "Um... well... sure, there must be literature on it" answers he got as supporting his thesis that this is why the literature doesn't exist.
"But everyone knows it's true" is not science.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:"The question is whether random mutations can ever result in such complexities as eyes, kittens or Charles Darwin.
Those who insist that it's all just happenstance have an ideological axe to grind every bit as much as the fundamentalists.
Lisa, I have had the impression from other threads that you have a pretty incisive mind, but the above arguments deeply disappoint me.
Gosh, John. I feel... terrible. Just awful. The last thing I ever wanted to do was to disappoint you.
Wait, no. That was someone else I cared about disappointing. Never mind.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Evolution does not say that eyes or kittens are the result of random mutations; nor is it anywhere taught that evolution is 'just happenstance.'
'Scuze? Evolution means random mutations, natural selection of successful mutations, and speciation deriving from those naturally selected successful mutations.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Some of your arguments up till now were provocative. Now you are just making wild, lazy claims that may sound good to a child, but which are actually nonsensical. Je suis désolé.
Eineni mevina Tzarfatit. Slach li she'ein li musag ma she-katavta.
Though I can figure it out. "I am... desolate"? "Devastated"? Well, John, I don't think that the claims I posted are wild or nonsensical. Lazy, perhaps, but in a good way.
If you have specific issues with what I wrote, perhaps you can point to them, rather than tossing sweeping generalities about what a sad job I'm doing of expressing myself. Who knows? Maybe the act of formulating your criticisms will help you to understand what I was saying.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did...
What part of evolution never happened? Perhaps biological populations do not reproduce and die in successive generations, selectively passing on mutations and heritable traits. No, there's no evidence of that.
Do you have evidence that Felis catus is descended from another species? If so, how did that happen? Do you have evidence that Felis catus and Felis tigris have a common ancestor? I mean, other than the fact that they're similar.
Genetics is genetics. Variations within species are common. Find me an example of such variations crossing the line into other species.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Perhaps branches of the tree of life did not die off, resulting in huge numbers of long-extinct species? Nope, no evidence of that.
So you're saying that the extinction of the dodo proves... what, exactly? Yes, species have died off. What you haven't shown is new species coming into existence.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Perhaps it is impossible for evolution to have occurred, since it requires so many eons of time to have elapsed, for which there is no evidence? Perhaps kittens and earthworms and biologists share a common cellular 'blueprint'? Nope, no evidence of that.....
Similarity doesn't prove common ancestry. That's the point you keep missing, John. It's consistent with it, but it's not evidence of it. It's more suggestive of a common designer, in fact. Variations on a theme.
And even the most extreme theories about the age of the Earth, let alone of the Universe, aren't sufficient to account for the development of life as we know it by means of random mutations and natural selection. Even if such a mechanism had ever been observed. Which it hasn't.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: Gee, one wonders what evidence for ID would satisfy someone like you!
Evidence for ID? Hard evidence? There is none, John. Not that I'm aware of, anyway. Which puts it on par with Darwinian evolution.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:"...can only come from faith. Faith that everything happens without design and that everything is the result of unchanging processes."
I don't deny there is an underlying faith to 'idealized science' -- but it is not a faith in 'absence of design,' nor is it a faith in 'unchanging processes.'
John, look at the hysterical reactions to scientists who dared suggest that a non-religious intelligent design thesis was legitimate. There is an absolute imperative to find explanations that exclude God. There's also ample reason for the existence of that imperative. But there's no logic to it in terms of the science.
We see various species. We understand genetics. And we try to extrapolate outwards from there, but we've gone far beyond anything that's been proven, or that's even provable. Theories beyond that point are all speculation. Life emerging spontaneously from primordial soup is the stuff of science fiction. Not of science. Not of good science.
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: The faith in science is a faith that the physical universe is understandable to human intellect.
That's what it should be. But it's not. When a proposition is not falsifiable, the appropriate thing to do is not say, "It's out of bounds". It's to say, "At this point, we can't determine the truth or falsity of the proposition". Because even in that case, there can be evidence that leans towards or away from the proposition. And that's of value. Scientific value. It doesn't help us in terms of certainty, but it does speak to likelihood.
I just scratched the side of my nose with my fingernail. That's unfalsifiable. It's an event that just happened, and it's real, but it's not falsifiable. So nothing that happens from here on in can be seen as a result of my having done so. Don't you see how nutty that is?
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: This is a knife-edge of faith, because at the same time we acknowledge that it is very, very unlikely ever to be actually so understood. And if you look at ALL of the universe (e.g., faith itself, inspiration, beauty, hate, imagination, deific concepts -- not just the physical universe), science pretends to illuminate only a small corner of existence.
But this faith is enough to keep us working, asking, questing.
Very poetic. And I think we both have the same goal here. But I think you've taken the lazy way out by excluding a set of possibilities for reasons that are not supportable.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
(2) I agree with Fugu. Why stop with just the Christian creation myth in science classes? Why not add the Mayan myth? Or the one true religion of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (blessed be his noodly appendages)?[/QB][/QUOTE]
I agree. I think all religious views should be excluded from the classroom. Not least of all the Christian one (which is really the Jewish one that Christians have co-opted).
So what? The issue is that a quasi-religious dogma is currently being taught in the schools. That idea is that genetics can be extrapolated back into the past, and that a process of natural selection of successful mutations can result in speciation. The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Why is that any more acceptable? You can teach genetics without extending it beyond what can rationally and scientifically be said about it.
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: On the other hand, would you apply the same criteria to religion, or else followers will rightly conclude that religion can't be trusted to give us accurate explanations of its data? Would you mind if I attended your church and gave a sermon on the non-existence of God?
Thanks for acknowledging that you see the classroom as a sort of Church of the Non-Existence of God.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
starLisa, why and how do you pick and choose who to respond to?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:So you're saying that the extinction of the dodo proves... what, exactly? Yes, species have died off. What you haven't shown is new species coming into existence.
Have you ever been to a museum? seen early human fossils that kind of look like us but not? seen dinosaur fossils that never saw a human walk this Earth? What exactly is proof for you?
quote:The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Yes. Yes, that's what Darwin wanted to do. He created the theory out of thin air to destroy God. and every single person who believes it also wants to destroy God. The billions of people who accept evolution as a scientific truth are out to destroy God.
Right.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Can people not accept the possibility that G-d created evolution?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I am no more out to "destroy God" than I am out to destroy my kids' imaginary playmates. I just think that they'd be much better served if they didn't bring their imaginary playmates to school with them.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
And StarLisa, I just want to check on this:
It makes sense to say that evolution works from this point forward, but it does not make sense to say that it worked in the past?
Or is it the case that you will only allow for small-to-moderate changes within a given species, and not allow for the creation of any new species, either now or in the future (based on the available evidence and your interpretation of it, of course)?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did
Piffle. Everyone knows that the polar bear is descended from the mink. Well, a mink-like ancestor, anyway.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Noemon,
I think that StarLisa actually needs to see it happening, right before her eyes. Like in "The Hulk," or "Fantastic Four."
But, you know, like, for real.
The same way that she needs to see God appear, right before her eyes, to know that He's really, truly, real.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Noemon,
I think that StarLisa actually needs to see it happening, right before her eyes. Like in "The Hulk," or "Fantastic Four."
But, you know, like, for real.
The same way that she needs to see God appear, right before her eyes, to know that He's really, truly, real.
It appears as though you have just supported StarLisa's point on the parallels between faith in God and faith in Evolution.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So you're defining "science" in a way that can possibly exclude what really happened from consideration?
That troubles me. I think of science as a means of discovering the truth. Learning about reality. If rules of science are created that can rule something as being untouchable by science, even though it might really be the case, then those rules make science diverge from the quest to discover the truth. I don't think that was ever the intent of science.
quote:So science requires that a possibility be ruled out, because it doesn't fit the rules of scientific inquiry.
The scientific method is a means of uncovering the truth but it isn't the only means. Science does not require that we rule out possibilites that don't fit the rules of scientific inquiry. Science is simply incapable of drawing conclusions about possibilities that don't fit the rules of scientific inquiry. Those types of questions exist outside the realm of science. Some of the most important questions we face as human beings fall outside the realm of science.
What is love? What is ethical? What is beautiful. Is there a God? Do human's have inalienable rights? Was the Universe designed by (an) intelligent being(s)?
All of these questions are important, but they are questions science can't touch.
Your error SL is in assuming that when scientists claim that a theory is not scientific, they are claiming it is wrong. This is simply not true. A theory which is not scientific is one that has not (or can not) been tested by the scientific method. This says nothing about whether or not it is true. In fact, in the case of Intelligent design, scientist are simply claiming that validity of this theory can not be tested within the realm of science.
For anyone familiar with Gödel's theorem, such a conclusion should not be surprising.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If I understand her correctly, sL is also claiming that by such a definition of "scientific theory," evolutionary theory is unscientific.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Yes. Yes, that's what Darwin wanted to do. He created the theory out of thin air to destroy God. and every single person who believes it also wants to destroy God. The billions of people who accept evolution as a scientific truth are out to destroy God.
Right.
Um, the idea of the theory of evolution (as is the case with all theories) is to eliminate as much of the unknown as possible, in effect eliminating (the idea of) God from the equation, or as Lisa stated, "make God appear to be unnecessary."
Do you disagree with that? Because it seems that you're equating "make God appear to be unnecessary" with "destroy God," which is quite simply not the case.
And I think therein lies much of the problem. People are so quick to try to turn this into a debate over which is correct while assuming that only one is, when in fact, the issue really is about which field of study these different things be taught under.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
sL added "or even childish," which I think makes Teshi's statement entirely justified.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Cute, BQT. The only problem is that there is a lot of very good evidence for evolution. What I was actually trying to do is show that to compare the level of "faith" required to sustain belief in evolution pales before the level of faith required to believe in God, creationism, or ID (those last two being, of course, the same thing)
And I am quite spefically avoiding the whole "religious" argument of "how do we really know anything?" and "isn't it all just faith, anyhow?" since I find those quite disingenous.
--Steve
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jaiden: starLisa, why and how do you pick and choose who to respond to?
Very often I respond to the first person to say something. If other people say the same thing, I assume that my initial response covers it.
Why? Did you ask me something that I didn't answer?
One of the annoying things about these boards is that you have to scan through everything to find anything that's directed at you. Also, some people refer to me here as sL, rather than Lisa, and I don't always see that, because it's not what I'm used to.
Oh, also, if it's like in the morning before I leave for work and it's obvious to me that I'm not going to have time to finish a decent response without being late, I might skip it momentarily. And sometimes, I forget about it.
This isn't Go Ask Lisa, after all.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:"Questioning evolutionary theory" does not imply "suggesting that there is an intelligent designer," because an intelligent designer whose existence cannot be evidenced falls outside the realm of science. Science is interested in testable hypotheses. That's been said several times already in this thread, actually.
That has been said, but it has also been refuted by me, or so I think. As I mentioned, evolution as an historical account of the origin of species is not testable, and since science is interested in that, science cannot be only interested in testable hypotheses. Science is concerned not only with what can be tested scientifically, but also all the possible inmplications and explanations of that which can be tested scientifically.
quote:Gathering evidence for or against it is one way of scientifically testing that hypothesis.
If this were true then God's existence is definitely testable, because we can gather evidence for or against it, including Biblical accounts of history, historical proof (or lack thereof), various phenomena, etc. But I think science requires a much stronger and more specific type of testing than that. It requires testing that is in accordance with the scientific method.
quote:Tres: ID makes no empircal claims.
It claims that an intelligent designer exists and that we will see his handywork in the design of the universe - a design which would otherwise be impossible, according to them. This is empirical. It's just an empirical claim that is difficult to distinguish from the empirical claims made by competing theories.
quote:Why stop with just the Christian creation myth in science classes? Why not add the Mayan myth? Or the one true religion of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (blessed be his noodly appendages)?
The same reason we teach kids American History but not Zimbabwean History - there's an infinite number of possible topics to cover in school, and we only have time to cover the ones they will need to know about. There are lots of Christians in America who believe in God, so that is very relevant to students learning this. If there were many Americans who believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster then that would be relevant to, and we should consider discussing it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:sL added "or even childish," which I think makes Teshi's statement entirely justified.
I see your point, but I can't entirely agree. I do think that much of the purpose of scientific discovery is to remove God from places where He need not be and the continued belief in God for those situations would indeed be quite childish. So to an extent I do agree with that statement of Lisa's.
And I still think that using science to replace God as an answer to certain questions is not the same thing as trying to destroy God. Like many people have shown here, the idea of God and science can coexist.
Anyway, that wasn't really the main reason why I posted in the first place. What bothered me is that now both sides have resorted to snide, sarcastic comments. I found this discussion much more enlightening when at least one side tried to remain dignified with its responses.
Posted by Jaiden (Member # 2099) on :
starLisa,
No, I haven't posted anything on this thread beyond that. I'm not an active poster (but an active reader).
I just noticed that quite a few people were posting alternative views but you were only addressing some of those people. I was just curious how you decided which to address. I understand that some say the same thing, but I find some say very different or unique things. I also know it isn't "Go Ask Lisa"- I was just glancing at things and it seems you concentrate on one post/poster at a time. I was just curious how you selected.
So if people write starLisa clearly at the beginning of a post are you more likely to respond?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:So you're saying that the extinction of the dodo proves... what, exactly? Yes, species have died off. What you haven't shown is new species coming into existence.
Have you ever been to a museum? seen early human fossils that kind of look like us but not? seen dinosaur fossils that never saw a human walk this Earth? What exactly is proof for you?
Evidently more than it is for you. What's your basis for saying that we didn't live at the same time as homo neanderthalis and homo habilis?
My sister looks a bit like Sarah Michelle Gellar. But if they're related at all, it's quite distant. I don't take resemblance as proof that our milkman and the Gellars' milkman were the same guy.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Yes. Yes, that's what Darwin wanted to do. He created the theory out of thin air to destroy God. and every single person who believes it also wants to destroy God. The billions of people who accept evolution as a scientific truth are out to destroy God.
Right.
<yawn>
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:The purpose of this fairy tale is, and always has been, to make God appear to be unnecessary, and even childish.
Yes. Yes, that's what Darwin wanted to do. He created the theory out of thin air to destroy God. and every single person who believes it also wants to destroy God. The billions of people who accept evolution as a scientific truth are out to destroy God.
Right.
<yawn>
Unfortunately that does little to prove your point, or to add credibility to anything else you've stated. Ignoring it probably would have been the better response.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: And StarLisa, I just want to check on this:
It makes sense to say that evolution works from this point forward, but it does not make sense to say that it worked in the past?
Almost. I don't think it works from this point forward. There's no evidence that it does, or that it ever has. I was making the point that even if it were shown to right now, that wouldn't prove that it could be extrapolated to a single point.
It's moot, though, because there's no evidence of it ever having worked.
Again: lest the mistake be made again, Evolution and Genetics are not the same thing. The former depends on the latter. Not the other way around.
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Or is it the case that you will only allow for small-to-moderate changes within a given species,
"Allow"? I didn't realize it was up to me. I mean, I've been told that I live in a Lisa-centric universe, but I didn't realize that my perogatives extended to that point.
The thing is, there have never been changes other than within a species.
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: and not allow for the creation of any new species, either now or in the future (based on the available evidence and your interpretation of it, of course)?
There is no example of a new species being created. Not in all the years that scientists have been trying to find it, and not in all the generations of fruitflies. It's something that was imagined, and it can no more be labeled as provably untrue than can intelligent design or all-out "In the beginning..." But it certainly has no special standing among unproven hypotheses.
Now... I'll grant you, it is a little different. If someone were to find an example of speciation tomorrow, I'd have to acknowledge it, and I would. It's possible. But at the same time, if God were to boom out of the sky and announce His presence, you'd kind of have to acknowledge it as well. I don't see either of those happening any time soon, do you?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
Even if evolution ever happened, and there's no evidence that it did
Piffle. Everyone knows that the polar bear is descended from the mink. Well, a mink-like ancestor, anyway.
"Everyone knows", hmm? How, pray tell? Clearly, the design of the polar bear is similar to that of the mink, and less similar to that of bears. But then, it's more similar to you than it is to a petunia. None of that says anything about "descent". Confusing similarity and descent is as fallacious as confusing causation and correlation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Noemon,
I think that StarLisa actually needs to see it happening, right before her eyes. Like in "The Hulk," or "Fantastic Four."
But, you know, like, for real.
<blink> The Hulk isn't real?
Actually, given the umpteen thousand generations of fruitflies that have been studied and irradiated and stubbornly insist on remaining fruitflies, and given the fact that not a report exists of any such thing having been observed, I think that gamma radiation resulting in "Madder Hulk get, stronger Hulk get!" isn't all that much more far-fetched.
It is kind of interesting how you've gone over to just making fun. Did you get tired of actually having to present facts? Are you frustrated that you're stuck defending a theory that you lack proof for? Or were you going to just leave it to Lucy and Linus's brother to deal with real issues?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Um, the idea of the theory of evolution (as is the case with all theories) is to eliminate as much of the unknown as possible, in effect eliminating (the idea of) God from the equation, or as Lisa stated, "make God appear to be unnecessary."
Do you disagree with that? Because it seems that you're equating "make God appear to be unnecessary" with "destroy God," which is quite simply not the case.
But it's a very effective rhetorical technique. You know, putting words in your opponent's mouth and all. <grin>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Cute, BQT. The only problem is that there is a lot of very good evidence for evolution.
Um... still waiting on that, actually. There's evidence for genetics. There's evidence that there are fossils that appear to be of species that have died out (though many of them could be variations within current species). There is no evidence that a new species can come into being from an old one. If you believe otherwise, give a source. The last time someone tried to do that (fugu, I believe), the source got hybridization confused with speciation.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
...and the evidence for intelligent design? Or of an intelligent designer? Or any part of that point-of-view at all?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jaiden: starLisa,
No, I haven't posted anything on this thread beyond that. I'm not an active poster (but an active reader).
I just noticed that quite a few people were posting alternative views but you were only addressing some of those people. I was just curious how you decided which to address. I understand that some say the same thing, but I find some say very different or unique things. I also know it isn't "Go Ask Lisa"- I was just glancing at things and it seems you concentrate on one post/poster at a time. I was just curious how you selected.
So if people write starLisa clearly at the beginning of a post are you more likely to respond?
I guess. Also, if I do ignore a post and someone calls my attention to it, I'm more than happy to go and look. I'm not trying to ignore anyone.
But yeah, I guess I do have a thread-based way of thinking. Like if I post something (whether a response or not) and the person I was addressing responds, I'm likely to respond to that person again first. Sort of like I would if we were all standing around. Just without my legs hurting. <grin>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Can people not accept the possibility that G-d created evolution?
I can accept it. I can accept the possibility that God created unicorns. I've just never seen either. Nor evidence of either.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
BTW, StarLisa, hybridization is one acceptable form of evolution. Now, we are hoping for natural hybridization (and there are examples of that given), and not just imposed (man-made) hybridization.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Steve, hybridization is the opposite of evolution. You're starting with more than one species and trying to create a single mixed species. Evolution supposes that all species had a common ancestor.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, and Steve, Jaiden, etc... the only reason for the "star" in "starLisa" is that since Lisa is almost never available for me when I register for anything, given how common a name it is, I needed to make it different. Actually, I got my own domain way back when specifically so that I could get "lisa" as a username. That domain is starways dot net. Hence: starLisa.
But you can call me Lisa. <grin>
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
[Note: partially sarcastic post following. Those who don’t like that, please just skip it.]
Here is my SID (Simplified Intelligent Design*) version: “Step 1: Take a bunch of energy. (Not too much, for you don’t want an oversized Big Bang). Use a multidimensional space (as opposed to one of no dimensions). Step 2: Wait. Given enough patience, matter will eventually coagulate, life will appear, and at some (space-time) point some intelligent biological structures will start debating upon the Creation of the Universe.”
suminonA.
*Disclaimer: Supporters of the I.D. theory do not endorse and are not affiliated in any way with this version.
PS: Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Can religious people accept that too?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lisa,
Completely off topic(my apologies) but you're "here". How's the back? Need anything? Just checking.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Can people not accept the possibility that G-d created evolution?
That's the compromise i mentioned. It could be that God created the universe. That's a possibility, it's also a possibility that God doesn't exist, and there is no divine creator, but this has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory. Evolution is a fact about how the universe works. The universe could not be the way it was if evolution wasn't correct.
I am open to the possibility that God created evolution along with the universe (yay agnosticism). I am not open to the possibility that evolutionary theory is wrong GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Neither I, nor nature is trying to do anything (that's the beauty of it). But you were talking about processes that led to speciation, and I was pointing one out. Sorry if it wasn't exactly the process you were looking for.
But since we're discussing whether ID should be taught in science class (as opposed to philosophy class), can you provide examples useful evidence for ID, as I asked you to? Evidence other than:
1) We're here 2) Why we're here is just too complicated for us to figure out 3) Therefore something must have put us here.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt: [qb]
quote:"That's... hilarious. Is that honestly the best you can do?"
Hey, great counterargument! Can I borrow it sometime?
I thought it was all the link deserved. The thing spends the first half giving various definitions of "species", which was a good sign that we were in for some weasling further on. It means we're going to be offered examples of "speciation" that are nothing of the sort, and then given "alternate definitions" of "speciation" that do fit. Sort of like shooting an arrow into a wall and then painting a bullseye around it.
The author notes the dearth of papers making claims of observed speciation. He explains this by saying, "Well, it's because everyone knows it's true!" <snicker> And he tests it... gawd... he tests it by asking some grad students and faculty about observed speciation, and interprets the "Um... well... sure, there must be literature on it" answers he got as supporting his thesis that this is why the literature doesn't exist.
"But everyone knows it's true" is not science.
This makes me really mad. Your word on this subject is worthless. You're not willing to engage in actual discussion of the scientific underpinnings of evolutionary theory. If you dislike the article, how about you tell me what a good definition of speciation is? Or if you don't believe that speciation can exist, why not? What inherent flaw is there in the idea of speciation that makes it unworth considering?
I dismiss ID, but i've told you exactly why. I've listened to everything IDers have to say. IDers always have a very shallow notion of evolution, and an unwillingness to listen to anybody but themselves, and you're doing a good job of continuing the trend.
Finally, you realize that a full half of that article is examples of speciation, citing papers in which the speciation was reported, right?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If I understand her correctly, sL is also claiming that by such a definition of "scientific theory," evolutionary theory is unscientific.
The sL has a very poor understanding of modern biology. The entire field of genetics exists because of experiments designed to test key tenets of evolutionary theory. There have been thousands upon thousands of experiments done which could have proved evolutionary theory incorrect. For example, if the genetic code was different for different species, this would have disproven evolutionary theory.
If you are familiar with modern biology, you know that new data are constantly being employed to modify the theory of evolution. This is the way science works.
This is not the way ID works. ID is not science.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Evolution is a fact about how the universe works. The universe could not be the way it was if evolution wasn't correct...I am not open to the possibility that evolutionary theory is wrong GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE.
I think it's safe to say that our knowledge of the universe is very limited. As a result, theories are constantly being revised as new information is found. So given what we know about the universe, I think scientists are open to the possibility that current theories may be wrong, or at the very least not entirely correct (which some might say is the same thing).
I don't think many scientists would go so far as to say that evolutionary theory is a fact about how the universe works.
Posted by etphonehome (Member # 999) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: And StarLisa, I just want to check on this:
It makes sense to say that evolution works from this point forward, but it does not make sense to say that it worked in the past?
Almost. I don't think it works from this point forward. There's no evidence that it does, or that it ever has. I was making the point that even if it were shown to right now, that wouldn't prove that it could be extrapolated to a single point.
It's moot, though, because there's no evidence of it ever having worked.
I believe you're confusing evidence and proof. There is plenty of evidence that evolution has happened, notably in the form of fossils. Fossils from different time periods come from different sets of organisms, unique to that time period.
For example, there are no human fossils from millions of years ago, but there are plenty of dinosaur fossils. The absence of human fossils does not prove that humans did not coexist with dinosaurs. Nor does it prove that humans evolved from previous organisms as opposed to being created by a superior entity at a later time. However, it does provide evidence to corroborate the theory of evolution. To state that no such evidence exists is nothing more than ignorance.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:What's your basis for saying that we didn't live at the same time as homo neanderthalis and homo habilis?
Where's your proof that we did? My proof is a lack thereof- until we discover human remains that are just as old I am quite justified in believing that humans didn't exist as we know them back then.
Also, I'm not talking about Neanderthals, because there is evidence that Humans and Neaderthals may have co-existed.
quote:My sister looks a bit like Sarah Michelle Gellar. But if they're related at all, it's quite distant. I don't take resemblance as proof that our milkman and the Gellars' milkman were the same guy.
I'm confused. You're saying that although two humans look similar they are not necessarily related, right? You're suggesting that although humans and their ancestors or co-sentient beings look similar they are not related. I'm not going to take issue with your metaphor because I know what you mean to be getting at.
But what if all evidence suggested that they were related. What if the milkman turned out to be the same guy? You have no proof, but you have an awful lot of evidence.
Is it safe to say that all dogs are related? If I breed two different dogs and get a third new dog, is is safe to say that although my new dog doesn't look anything like his grandparents or parents even, he's not related?
If I take my dogs North and they end up with big feet and more fur are they a different dog or the same dog?
quote:There's evidence that there are fossils that appear to be of species that have died out (though many of them could be variations within current species).
By variations, do you mean like one fossil looks like Sarah Michelle Gellar and the other looks like the African guy from down the street. These aren't just brown hair/blonde hair variations, these are much more than that...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lisa,
Completely off topic(my apologies) but you're "here". How's the back? Need anything? Just checking.
<sigh> Thanks. I've been a lot better. I should not have come to work today. I have an appointment with the orthopod on Friday. Wish me luck.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Neither I, nor nature is trying to do anything (that's the beauty of it). But you were talking about processes that led to speciation, and I was pointing one out. Sorry if it wasn't exactly the process you were looking for.
But since we're discussing whether ID should be taught in science class (as opposed to philosophy class), can you provide examples useful evidence for ID, as I asked you to? Evidence other than:
1) We're here 2) Why we're here is just too complicated for us to figure out 3) Therefore something must have put us here.
How is evolution useful? Classifying kingdom, order, phylum, species, etc. is useful, but the assumption that it relates to actual descent is baseless and doesn't add anything to our knowledge base. It can't be used for anything. It's an extraneous and unnecessary hypothesis.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Whatever... I call this the explanation for a lazy person. That, and the cover for the religious right fearful of having their religion proved wrong and having their worldview crash around them. The real reason they want this schools is to try and get more young folk into their churches. It's political, not science.
Religion used to say that the Earth was flat, and that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Well... they got that science wrong too and killed a few scientist along the way to try and keep people dumb.
Religion makes a mistake when it tries to claim is knows everything about the Universe.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Done.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
sL:
quote:If you have specific issues with what I wrote, perhaps you can point to them, ...
I think I'll stick to my belief that you are perfectly capable of rereading my post(s) and finding the spots where I point to specific issues I have with your claims and arguments. There are quite a few. Go ahead, look. See? Now that wasn't too hard.
quote:...what a sad job I'm doing of expressing myself. Who knows? Maybe the act of formulating your criticisms will help you to understand what I was saying.
I didn't criticize your clarity, only your meaning. Which, um, means I *did* understand what you are saying. Or perhaps I didn't, and only thought I did. Hmm.
quote:Evidence for ID? Hard evidence?
Yes, hard evidence. Of which there is tomes and tomes in support of evolution. Just you saying the evidence doesn't exist, doesn't make it go away.
Maybe we have a basic disconnect on the meaning of the word evidence, I don't know.
If you just scratched your own nose, are the red mark on the side of your nose and the trace of tissue under your nail evidence of same? (Yes.) Hard evidence? (Yes.) Conclusive evidence? (Not necessarily.) If it had been caught on tape, would it be conclusive evidence? Well, eventually one gets into the technical realms of 'rules of evidence' such as exist (differently) in both science and jurisprudence....
Whatever. Semantics are only of so much utility in this debate. The fact is, science accepts certain types of evidence (e.g., experimental evidence must be reproducible) in a peer review paradigm, and the massive and overwhelming body of evidence built up in support of evolution fits the requirements of the discipline, is internally consistent, forms the basis for further predictions that can then be tested, and so forth.
When you say there is no evidence for evolution, you are either applying a different definition for evidence, a different definition for evolution, or both -- or you are just wrong. In the former three cases, it would behoove you to be precise about how YOU think science should conduct its business so as to produce, or not produce, evidence that would fit your view of reality.
Then we will teach all scientists in the world to evaluate evidence in this new way, and all the textbooks will include only facts, theories, and suppositions that you agree with.
quote:"look at the hysterical reactions to scientists who dared suggest..."
Which scientists? Behe? Dembski? Wells? Perhaps they are daring. They certainly seem to be. But just because someone dares to flout the status quo doesn't make them right.
What hysterical reactions? Now it is 'hysterical' to reject ridiculous and flawed creationist arguments dressed in new clothes?
quote:... that a non-religious intelligent design thesis was legitimate.
Oh, now it's non-religious. Does non-religious equate to scientific?
quote:There is an absolute imperative to find explanations that exclude God.
You are really seriously astray here. (NB: here I am pointing out a specific issue with something you wrote. Just so you don't miss it.)
Please think about this. I am in the lab. I hypothesize, say, that when a marble and a cannonball are dropped at the same instant from the same height, that the cannonball will reach the ground first. I have a theory in mind: heavy things fall faster.
The experiment falsifies my hypothesis. Now I have to cast about for a possible explanation, and possible tests that would progress me towards it. I know! One possible explanation is that a deity made them fall together, thus obviating (for that one test) the Law of Heavy Things. Or perhaps this deity obviates that law every time something falls. Or perhaps there is a different law, one I don't understand, and perhaps can never understand; we could call it the Divine Law of Falling. Whenever something falls, it obeys a Divine Rule.
Where does this leave us? We quit, and publish the new Law, and people all over the world reproduce the experiment, and by golly, he's right! My cannonball and marble obeyed the Divine Law too! And then there are no astronomers, no explorers, no airplanes, no motors, no spacecraft, no bridges, no nothing. No science.
Or we set aside the God explanation temporarily (since in science it's just a useless copout to stop with an explanation that just says 'it is what it is, dunno how, the force in charge can apparently do whatever it likes.'), and go on to develop the real equations that describe gravity, etc.
And today further research is proceeding on understanding gravity at an even more detailed level.
'God' could be invoked anywhere along the line, from Archimedes to Hawking -- but why? There's no imperative to reject it, it just isn't germane.
If it makes you feel any better, just imagine that every sentence of every textbook on every subject ever published has a little superscript number next to it, leading to a universal footnote that reads "This observation/conclusion/theory could be the result of action by a non-religious all-powerful being." I personally have no problem with that, other than that it is ridiculous within a scientific milieu. As I said, to a scientist, such a footnote can only mean one of two things: Give up now; or, Carry on as before.
quote:"When a proposition is not falsifiable, the appropriate thing to do is not say, "It's out of bounds". It's to say, "At this point, we can't determine the truth or falsity of the proposition". Because even in that case, there can be evidence that leans towards or away from the proposition. And that's of value. Scientific value. It doesn't help us in terms of certainty, but it does speak to likelihood."
I'm trying to see what is wrong with what you have written here, but it's really a very good summation.
I think when evolution was first suggested, long before Darwin, despite a loud clamor that it was 'out of bounds', the prevailing view was eventually "At this point, we can't determine the truth or falsity of the proposition". Then over time, as you suggest, evidence was built up that leaned toward the proposition. Great heaps of evidence. Much of actually proving the many falsifiable conjectures that are the underpinning of evolutionary theory. So much so, so overwhelmingly so, that the 'likelihood' (that evolution has occurred, is occurring, and will continue to occur) leaves an uncertainty that is vanishingly small, inhabiting only that space of semantics, ontology, and semiotics where we indulge questions like 'are we really in the Matrix?' or 'How do we know God didn't create everything, including fossils, last Thursday?'
Unfortunately I am not familiar with a single idea, let alone evidentiary scrap, that supports a 'lean' in the direction of the 'likelihood' of ID being true.
quote:Do you have evidence that Felis catus is descended from another species?
Well, let's see. This is not my field, so I'll improvise. The fossil record, at some point in the past, contains no catlike creatures. (At some point prior to that, it contains no mammal-like creatures.) Today, both cats and tigers exist. Generatons of mammals descend through time via sexual reproduction, in a direct line from the combination of alleles from the male and female parent. (No cat has ever been seen to simply appear out of nowhere; they are generally born from the womb.)
That to me is just about sufficient evidence that speciation has occurred. What are the alternatives? That the fossil record is incomplete, that cats and tigers really existed since the dawn of time? That the fossil record is irrelevant? That an Intelligent Designer caused cats and tigers to come about... when? how?
quote:If so, how did that happen? Do you have evidence that Felis catus and Felis tigris have a common ancestor?
Evolutionary Theory provides manifold, extremely likely explanations for how that occurred. It is really not such a bizarre mystery as you seem to believe. Why is it so hard to grasp? I don't think it is a special gift of intelligence that permits me to see quite clearly how this might have occurred, entirely within well-understood, everyday phenomena of reproduction, competition in the environment, death, passage of time, climate, continental drift, etc.
It's fine to claim that it isn't proven; but to claim that it can't have occurred, or that there is no credible explanation for it having occurred, or that there is no evidence of it having occurred, is pure gibberish.
quote:Genetics is genetics. Variations within species are common. Find me an example of such variations crossing the line into other species.
The article you ridiculed contained (to me) a surprisingly large number of citations (considering it is a question that very few have really thought worthy of validation) indicating a wide variety of circumstances and mechanisms by which speciation has been seen to occur, or where one or more underlying attribute of speciation (e.g., inviable hybrids, assortative mating) was seen to occur, sometimes in as few as 2 or 3 generations.
It is entirely accepted that such proven mechanisms, operating over vastly longer periods of time, should have produced varieties (as you acknowledge) and then species (however defined). And that is without getting into the subtleties of macroevolution and some of the differing schools of thought among biologists -- all of whom, by the way, agree that both evolution and speciation has occurred, and differ in the details.
quote:What you haven't shown is new species coming into existence.
'Scuze? I'm not sure there is a species alive today more complicated than algae or lichen that is found in the oldest fossil records. I'm not sure where we all came from, but we undoubtedly came into existence.
If you want to attribute that to the Deific Species Principle, fine. I'll keep on studying science.
edit: typo
[ November 09, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pod: This makes me really mad.
Then you should probably take a break from this topic. Why punish yourself?
quote:Originally posted by Pod: Your word on this subject is worthless.
Again, then why are you wasting your time replying to me?
quote:Originally posted by Pod: You're not willing to engage in actual discussion of the scientific underpinnings of evolutionary theory.
It's really inappropriate for you to tell me what I'm willing and unwilling to do. You realize that, don't you? And that's aside from the fact that you're wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Pod: If you dislike the article, how about you tell me what a good definition of speciation is?
A new species coming into being from an old. A cat giving birth to a not-cat that breeds true. Anything even remotely similar to what is claimed to have resulted in life on Earth. A fruitfly getting so irradiated that it turns into a new species.
quote:Originally posted by Pod: Or if you don't believe that speciation can exist, why not? What inherent flaw is there in the idea of speciation that makes it unworth considering?
None. It's just not scientific. It's never been observed to happen. There's no possible way to prove that it's never happened. Therefore, it fails the test of falsifiability.
Actually, though, there is a flaw. It's that mutations are almost exclusively detrimental, if not fatal. With apologies to Professor Xavier, there are human beings who have six fingers. It's a mutation, and it can even be hereditary. But it's never going to result in a different species. It's just a trait within our species.
quote:Originally posted by Pod: I dismiss ID, but i've told you exactly why. I've listened to everything IDers have to say. IDers always have a very shallow notion of evolution, and an unwillingness to listen to anybody but themselves, and you're doing a good job of continuing the trend.
Shallow by definition, actually. Because if it doesn't swallow evolution, hook, line and sinker, it has to be shallow.
quote:Originally posted by Pod: Finally, you realize that a full half of that article is examples of speciation, citing papers in which the speciation was reported, right?
No, I don't realize anything of the sort.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The sL
"The sL"? It's a title now?
Hi Rabbit. My name is Lisa. Lovely to meet you.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Religion used to say that the Earth was flat
This is largely a myth. The fact that there was a belief, I mean, not the actual belief itself!
quote:How is evolution useful?
It answers how. It explains why we as humans exist the way we do. It explains the reason the world fits together the way it does. It explains why the fossils we dig up are different from us. It explains why humans and animals have different geographical characteristics.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Lisa,
Wait...let me get my "5 rules of theological debate"...hold on...
I've been mentioning my Third Rule of Religious Debate, and I figured that maybe it's actually time to outline them all. Now remember, these are the rules by which people supporting the theological side of the argument attempt to make their case (as I perceive it).
RULE 1: Presume the existence of God. More specifically, presume the existence of your particular God. Don't say things like "I believe that God does this...", simply say, "God does this..." After all, everybody knows that God exists. Atheists are just wrong, and deep down inside they realize that. Yes, it's OK to pity them (just not yet--see RULE 5).
RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."
RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."
Some other good responses under RULE 3 include "But is there really any difference between the earth and the concept of the earth?" and "If I have no way of knowing if there are monsters under my bed (short of looking) but if I genuinly believe they are there, the fear of them is no different than if they really are there."
One of the other advantages of invoking RULE 3 is that you are no longer constrained to actually have to make sense in what you say or write. By discrediting logic and reason, you are no longer bound by them yourself. If you can keep this up, many times your opponent will just walk away, shaking his head, thereby handing you the "win."
RULE 4: As things start to go downhill, you may have to use the old reliable notion that "God exists because people believe that He exists." There are deep theological problems with this approach, especially if other religions have more believers in their God than yours (except you know, of course, that they're totally wrong, anyhow). But still, it keeps you away from RULE 5.
RULE 5: If all else fails, you may just have to reveal your opponent for what he really is. An idiot. A Godless, liberal, democrat, communist, baby-eating, tree-hugging idiot.
To which I guess I should add #6: You know that thing we were discussing that was so important. It's not really that important after all. Why are you so hung up on it? It's like you're obsessing, or something.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pod: Evolution is a fact about how the universe works. The universe could not be the way it was if evolution wasn't correct.
But that's not true. Nor will you even attempt to substantiate it, because you know you can't.
The universe could be exactly the way it is without evolution. In fact... it is.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The entire field of genetics exists because of experiments designed to test key tenets of evolutionary theory.
Penicillin exists because an orange got moldy. What's your point? Genetics does not depend upon evolution. It deals with observable facts, which evolution does not.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."
Or, in this case, "Intelligent Design."
How many atheists here support the ID theory, BTW? Any? None? Just checking.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:But it's never going to result in a different species. It's just a trait within our species.
Ah. Yes! It is until the sixth finger becomes useful to the natural selection process, for whatever reason. Then it becomes a dominant trait and people who have five fingers start to be the weirdos and then the species has changed.
Yes, it's unlikely but that's all there is to it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Religion makes a mistake when it tries to claim is knows everything about the Universe.
You seem to be using ID and religion as interchangeable terms. You do realize there is a difference, right?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:Religion used to say that the Earth was flat
This is largely a myth. The fact that there was a belief, I mean, not the actual belief itself!
Right. Judaism, for example, held that the earth is round. We even have sources, centuries old, which give the age of the universe as about 15 billion years. That's not the only view, but it certainly existed.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:How is evolution useful?
It answers how. It explains why we as humans exist the way we do. It explains the reason the world fits together the way it does. It explains why the fossils we dig up are different from us. It explains why humans and animals have different geographical characteristics.
But an invisible unicorn would explain it as well. You need more than something that explains things. Otherwise there's no difference between your theory and the unicorn. Or God.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Ah. Yes! It is until the sixth finger becomes useful to the natural selection process, for whatever reason. Then it becomes a dominant trait and people who have five fingers start to be the weirdos and then the species has changed.
Yes, it's unlikely but that's all there is to it.
I'm clearly not an expert on these matters, but I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:How is evolution useful? Classifying kingdom, order, phylum, species, etc. is useful, but the assumption that it relates to actual descent is baseless and doesn't add anything to our knowledge base. It can't be used for anything. It's an extraneous and unnecessary hypothesis.
Experiments based on the theory of evolution lead to the entire field of genetics and are an integral part of every aspect of modern biology. Because of the theory of evolution we have a better understanding of how diseases spread and of how new diseases like HIV and the bird flue develop. Because of evolutionary theory we have a better understanding of how to use animal models to study human disease. Because of the theory of evolution we have identified the underlying chemical mechanisms in many genetic diseases. Because of the theory of evolution, we can create bacteria and yeast that make human insulin and other life saving medicines. Because of the theory of evolution we have a better understanding of how ecosystems work and how to preserve endangered species. Evolutionary theory is the most usefully theory that has ever been proposed in the life sciences. Any one who does research in the lifes sciences uses the theory to understand the processes of life.
Lisa, Your statement could not be more wrong. The evolutionary theory persists because it is so powerful in the experiments in suggests.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Lisa,
Wait...let me get my "5 rules of theological debate"...hold on...
Interestingly enough, those rules would seem to indicate that most of the defenders of evolution in this topic view evolution as a sort of religion.
I certainly never said any of the things in your "rules". And there's got to be some correlary of Godwin's Law that applies to a situation where you stop dealing with issues and start playing personalities. As you've just done.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Religion makes a mistake when it tries to claim is knows everything about the Universe.
You seem to be using ID and religion as interchangeable terms. You do realize there is a difference, right?
Camus, you miss the point. The whole thrust of their argument is that there is no difference. Religion is a wolf, and ID is the sheep's clothing it's using to get close enough to gobble up our children. Muahahahaha!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Ah. Yes! It is until the sixth finger becomes useful to the natural selection process, for whatever reason. Then it becomes a dominant trait and people who have five fingers start to be the weirdos and then the species has changed.
Yes, it's unlikely but that's all there is to it.
I'm clearly not an expert on these matters, but I'm pretty sure this is completely wrong.
You're right.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:A cat giving birth to a not-cat that breeds true.
Wrong. Thank you for playing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:How is evolution useful? Classifying kingdom, order, phylum, species, etc. is useful, but the assumption that it relates to actual descent is baseless and doesn't add anything to our knowledge base. It can't be used for anything. It's an extraneous and unnecessary hypothesis.
Experiments based on the theory of evolution lead to the entire field of genetics and are an integral part of every aspect of modern biology.
Rabbit, you're making the mistake of confusing genetics and evolution. Modern biology certain depends on the former. But neither one depends on evolution.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by John Van Pelt:
quote:A cat giving birth to a not-cat that breeds true.
Wrong. Thank you for playing.
Isn't that "Thanks for playing"?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding.
Who here is enjoying the irony implicit in Steve writing this when I'm the one who has been insisting on observed cases of new species coming into being?
Hands?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:But an invisible unicorn would explain it as well.
It does?
Also: Do you have evidence for your invisible unicorn?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
starLisa... um explain how viruses and other germs can EVOLVE to beat our drugs? Or should we chalk that up to God to?
Look at it this way... evolution is a series of microchanges. When we look at fossils we are looking at a snapshot, not the whole movie. Go around a baby, and then don't see them for a half a year. You didn't see how the baby grew and changed... is that God? No, it's seeing a snapshot of the child in development.
Same thing with the Universe and the lifeforms that inhabit it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:um explain how viruses and other germs can EVOLVE to beat our drugs
That's the same type of example that Teshi used.
All types of evolution are not examples of speciation.
Posted by etphonehome (Member # 999) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Ah. Yes! It is until the sixth finger becomes useful to the natural selection process, for whatever reason. Then it becomes a dominant trait and people who have five fingers start to be the weirdos and then the species has changed.
Yes, it's unlikely but that's all there is to it.
Yes, it is unlikely, and that is the very reason why it takes so long! Humans have never observed evolution on a macroscopic scale because nobody had ever thought of it until less than 200 years ago. In the grand scheme of things, that is no time at all. Even if a particular animal species has a one in a million chance of acquiring a beneficial mutation in a given year (and I doubt the odds are even that good), there's only (approximately) a 1 in 5000 chance that we would see such a mutation in the entire time we've considered evolution as a possibility.
The laws of probability insist that even the most unlikely events become likely when given a long enough time period. Since we're talking about billions of years here, the fact that we've never seen evolution occur on a large scale hardly serves to disprove the theory.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It would be more ironic if you hadn't dismissed a rather large document trying to catalogue the different examples of speciation with not much more than a handwave and a statement saying "Those don't count, because they are defined differently than my grade school idea of speciation, which can only be described by the old chicken-or-the-egg paradox".
In other words, you've defined speciation so narrow as to be incomplete. And you rely on using examples (particularly your Linnaen classification stuff, which has some fairly large issues that genetics has shown (species that aren't, genetically, separate, or vice versa).
Just because you are forceful, doesn't make you right.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I gave you a list of observed cases. You told me they weren't (without actually giving any evidence, of course).
There's no such thing as a major event of speciation -- fish don't suddenly change into amphibians. Its always gradual.
For a nice example of a scientific result predicted by and supportive of evolution, which demonstrates this gradual sort of change, go read up on ring species.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Um, Lisa, I did provide examples (and not just the beat-up set of examples from Talkorigins) of new species coming into being, thus satisfying the need to use observation and logic in my presentation. I'm fine, thank you very much.
I do notice a unique lack of logic and observation in any attempts you might have made in presenting or supporting ID. Wait...have you actually presented anything in support of ID, other than you don't think evolution is real, and something about "irreducible complexity" or one of its deviations?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
starLisa, You are wrong. Modern genetics is not evolutionary theory, but modern genetics exists because of experiments designed based on evolutionary theory. DNA was discovered because of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is a key factor which guides what scientists look for when they study living systems and as such I stand by my original statements.
I do life sciences research so I speak from experience when I say that evolutionary theory is a key factor for generating most of the important new hypotheses and theories being studied in molecular biology today. If you don't think evolutionary theory is useful, its because you don't do life sciences research.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Who here is enjoying the irony implicit in Lisa's call for a show of "hands" when we all know that hands, themselves, evolved?
Stubs?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yes, it is unlikely, and that is the very reason why it takes so long! Humans have never observed evolution on a macroscopic scale because nobody had ever thought of it until less than 200 years ago. In the grand scheme of things, that is no time at all. Even if a particular animal species has a one in a million chance of acquiring a beneficial mutation in a given year (and I doubt the odds are even that good), there's only (approximately) a 1 in 5000 chance that we would see such a mutation in the entire time we've considered evolution as a possibility.
This is true only if you consider complex organisms (like mammals, insects or trees). If you consider very simple organisms like bacteria, fungi, or even viruses which reproduce very rapidly and mutate quite quickly, then our chance of observing a new species in a short period of time become very good. In fact we see this kind of evolution of bacteria, fungi and viruses regularly both in controlled laboratory settings and in the natural world (aka avian flue).
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:
quote:
quote:A cat giving birth to a not-cat that breeds true.
Wrong. Thank you for playing.
Isn't that "Thanks for playing"?
Pretty fine distinction, but yes, on examination, I believe you are right. Thanks.
As to the substance, I take it as a given that you acknowledge the fact that if your definition of speciation is incorrect, that your critique of an article about speciation will be inadequate, as will be virtually any other remark that you make on the subject, except by accident.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:"How is evolution useful? Classifying kingdom, order, phylum, species, etc. is useful, but the assumption that it relates to actual descent is baseless and doesn't add anything to our knowledge base. It can't be used for anything. It's an extraneous and unnecessary hypothesis."
Of all the wrong things you've said in this thread, Lisa, this is the most potentially destructive.
Evolution is not just a hypothesis, like 'who broke the vase? it was the cat.' It is a description of THE underlying causes, history, process, and direction of all life, and it is taking place TODAY, everywhere, all the time.
'Physics' is what we call the underlying model for properties and interactions of matter. 'Evolution' is what we call the underlying model for properties and interactions of living things. Genetics, medicine, anatomy, veterinary medicine, botany, agriculture, paleontology, etc., and even some softer life sciences such as psychology, sociology, economics, and archaeology, are deeply informed by the accepted models of evolutionary theory, and to a greater or lesser degree influenced by advances or development in evolution.
At root, an awareness of evolution's workings
informs a deeply moral awareness of the interconnectedness of all life, genetically and environmentally
humbles mankind in the immensity of geologic time
illuminates the fact that change is constant and everpresent, and that attempts to celebrate any living state as a final static attainment are vain and misguided (thus also opening the eons of the future to the imagination)
explains how so many exquisitely adapted creatures inhabit our world -- and guides inquiries into the unknown with greater precision
I believe a basic understanding of evolution is one of a handful of essential qualifications of modern, enlightened homo sapiens; and people who lack it are crippled to the extent they make conscious decisions in their lives that affect their own environment or that of other living things.
I realize vast numbers of Americans make pitiably few such decisions in a lifetime, living out lives by default or in blind obedience to priest or boob tube. Certainly to them, the utility of evolution is a tough sell.
But if you are interested in the survival of humanity or the health of our globe, evolution is not just useful, it is critical to making good and moral decisions.
I don't expect to convince you. You seem to have gotten it into your head that evolutionary ideas are not only useless, but nonexistent. And once something is in your head, it apparently doesn't budge.
Just one last thought: you acknowledge that classifying orders, phyla, clades, etc., has utility. Even aside from the fact that today's classification schemes are deeply informed by evolutionary thought -- are, in fact, essentially efforts to encode a map of descent -- consider this: if all life on earth could be unerringly classified as of this moment in time, that map would differ markedly from equivalent classifications generated 2000 years ago, 20,000 years ago, 200,000 years, etc. And from one generated 10,000 years from now.
So if it has utility -- which classification is right (i.e., has the most utility)? And if the answer is 'the current one', wouldn't it be likewise useful to understand the dynamics that will transform the current scheme into the future scheme?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I always like what JVP says. He just needs to learn to make fun of people more. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:This isn't Go Ask Lisa, after all.
It is as long as you continue to run wild around here, making useless and wholly inaccurate statements about anything that happens to catch your fancy, then ignoring any refutations of said statements.
Those who read your posts will continue to call you on these things until you: provide a source (beyond your own grey matter), stop making outlandish claims that defy logic and science (i.e. Polar Bears are descended from minks), or stop posting in the 'serious' threads.
I don't have high hopes for either the second or third options, but I have faith in the community.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:I always like what JVP says. He just needs to learn to make fun of people more.
Pfffft. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I always like what JVP says. He just needs to learn to make fun of people more. [Grumble]
Quote of the day. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
On a happier note, Dover, PA elections on Tuesday resulted in the replacement of all 8 pro-ID school board members with 8 school board members who were vocally and openly against the introduction of ID into the science classrooms.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
That is encouraging, Karl.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Oops. I mean...
Haha, Karl, what's with the haircut? Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I still go back to my earlier argument from an earlier thread.
ID answers the question of "Why".
Evolution answers the question of "How".
These are not mutually exclusive questions.
However problems have occured in the past where over zeaulous Athiest Evangelists have tried to make Evolution answer "Why". In retaliation, over zealous religious leaders have created ID to explain "How".
To people in the scientific community, including those of strong religious persuasion, "God made it so" may be the answer to "Why" but never is an acceptable answer for "How".
I have been in debates by scientific minded people arguing how Christ turned water into wine. We didn't doubt that he did just by willing it so. We argued over did he change the molecular structure of the water to that of wine, or whether he made the water go away and in that same moment made wine appear. Scripture seems to favor the molecular transformation theory.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:A new species coming into being from an old. A cat giving birth to a not-cat that breeds true. Anything even remotely similar to what is claimed to have resulted in life on Earth. A fruitfly getting so irradiated that it turns into a new species.
I'm pretty sure you meant 'has offspring belonging to a new species', for that last. But anyway, surely you can't really believe that this is what evolution claims happens? In fact, if any such thing was observed, it would be clear evidence of ID, since such an event is so unlikely that it would indeed require intelligent intervention.
Let's consider fruit flies. I trust you will concede that fruit flies and dragon flies are separate species? Anyway, I'll go with that for now. Now, let me suppose that the following chain of events takes place :
1) A biologist has a population of fruit flies; they are all interfertile.
2) He irradiates them for a higher mutation rate. After a while he find that one lineage is no longer interfertile with the rest of his population, but still capable of breeding with itself. Being a biologist, he calls that a speciation event, but since he wants to convince you, he doesn't stop there. Instead he separates out his new species.
3) Next he breeds the fruit flies for resemblance to dragonflies. I think you'll agree that there is a continuum between fruit flies and dragonflies, and that with careful breeding you can take small steps from the one to the other? Size, tubularity of the carapace - dragonflies have four wings, but that's no problem; irradiate a population of fruit flies not quite enough to kill them, and you'll see many offspring with three, four, and two-and-a-half wings. Some of them will be able to fly, if you have enough.
4) He ends up with one population of dragonflies, and one of fruit flies. They cannot interbreed; they are clearly separate species; yet they are descended from a single population.
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?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: How many atheists here support the ID theory, BTW? Any? None?
Um....*shuffles feet* While I don't think ID can be properly dignified with the term "theory" at this stage, I'm certainly willing to admit the possibility that little green aliens from Vega could have swung by, seeded our planet with the basic building blocks of life, and occasionally dropped off the odd monolith to spur our development along appropriate lines. As I understand it, this is perfectly consistent with "ID."
But, of course, "ID" in that scenario is really just a subset of evolutionary theory, and doesn't replace the theory of evolution at all.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"However problems have occured in the past where over zeaulous Athiest Evangelists have tried to make Evolution answer "Why". In retaliation, over zealous religious leaders have created ID to explain "How".
Or, alternatively, there have been cases of overly zealous christians who have been trying since the inception of evolution to discredit it by any means necessary, and in retaliation, atheist scientists have retaliated by saying that evolution makes god unnecessary.
I think, if one looks carefully at history, this is a more accurate timeline.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, to be fair, before Darwin, there really wasn't any naturalistic explanation for where species came from. So in that sense, evolution does make gods unnecessary.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Possibly, but the first people to say that were the people attacking evolution, not Darwin or his collegues.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Paul, I agree with your history, to a point. The Creationists had become a bit of a minor fringe group from the mid 50's to the mid 80's, only popping up in popularity when a very charismatic leader would champion their cause for a bit.
Only recently has their been a larger groundswell of support for ID. Much of that, from what I understand from talks to people here, were the result of atheistic science teachers, professors, and others making the jump that KoM made--Darwin makes God unnecessary.
However, while I highly disagree with that jump, I also disagree with the reactionary attack on Evolution that ID proposes. Since they can not attack it on good scientific principles, they attack scientific principles such as the definition of Theory etc.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To people in the scientific community, including those of strong religious persuasion, "God made it so" may be the answer to "Why" but never is an acceptable answer for "How".
The trouble is, what if that IS the correct answer? What if the "How" IS that God made it so? If such an answer were the truth, and yet simultaneously unacceptable to science, then science would be pointing away for the truth rather than towards it.
The real problem underlying all of this is something much bigger and more widespread. There are a set of assumptions that underlies common thought in our society and bias us against religion. We place more trust in scientific thinking than we should. Science is very limited in what it can accurately say and very limited in what subjects it can deal with. Yet our society takes science as a means to create a complete worldview. If something can not be scientifically proven, it is not trusted. This can be seen all the time on Hatrack, when people demand scientific evidence to answer questions that science isn't really capable of answering. We ask "Where's proof" and in America "proof" has come to mean scientific proof. This collecion of assumptions, this line of thinking, makes science into the end-all and be-all of understanding the universe - a role science does not belong in.
Once we take these assumption, it is inevitable that we will conclude God doesn't exist - not because we have evidence that God doesn't exist, but rather because science is limited in a way that would prevent science from seeing Him no matter what is really true. And thus if we look to science to give us answers, those answers will never include God, whether they should or not.
The role of religion in this belief system is second-fiddle, completely separate from the scientific beliefs which we use to guide real life. There would be a wall between them - a wall that does not belong. After all, there is one single truth, not two separate truths with two separate answers. That one truth should guide our actions, so we should be integrating scientific thought and religious thought into our decision making. This should not be confused with the separation of church and state, which is about mixing religious and government institutions, rather than integrating different types of belief.
I think conservatives have recognized this inherent bias in our collective thought, and this ID battle is only a tiny part of a much larger war to eliminate the bias against religious thought. I think they are in the right on this - religious beliefs and scientific beliefs must be interconnected if we expect to have an accurate view of truth. We cannot afford to let the biases of any single method of ascertaining truth limit the degree to which we can fully understand that truth. Over time, I think our society will change fundamentally to reflect this need. The danger is that there are two ways this problem can be dealt with - one is the integration of science and religion, while the other is war between science in religion. If it comes to the latter, science risks being run over and flat our rejected in many parts of the country or world - a result that would be horrible for the advancement of knowledge. After all, if science makes itself into something that can't be integrated with religion, then the religious will end up viewing it as something that must also be inconsistent with the Truth.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh. Please can we be allowed to keep our bias against alchemical thought? That's based on religion too, you know.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
There's also natural philosophy, which does not typically require God to explain itself (though it is often used to help explain the concept of God). Philosophy works rather well to try and explain the rest of the world not necessarilly covered by science.
So, teach science in school. Teach philosophy in school. Even teach comparative religions in school. But you can't teach one religion as being the right religion in school. Not in the secular/public school system. Just as you can't teach the creation myth of one particular religion as, somehow, being more correct than the rest.
If you want to teach your kids all about Christianity, or Judaeism, or Islam, then teach it at church or temple or mosque.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or private school.
<-- private school science teacher
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
And integration vs war? Screw that. For almost 200 years, the whole separation of church and state worked fairly well, until a bunch of right-wing ultra-conservative fundamentalists tried to change the status quo. Personally, I like keeping things separate. I don't need religion in the public school, no more than you need the imposition of rational thought in your church.
And StarLisa, something tells me you're not "reformed," yourself. You're pushing some pretty fundamentalist concepts there yourself.
For the most part, I think people are fine with the separation that our founding fathers gave us; and it's been working out pretty well. Heck--Jimmy Carter was a Baptist, and he didn't push his religion down the country's throat the way that Bush does!
For some reason, you guys have placed yourself at the forefront of some extreme groups that think religious war is the only way.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Rivka,
It all depends on the particular private school.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Naturally! The year I taught in a non-religious private school, I certainly didn't bring up some of the things I do where I teach now.
My point was simply that religion can be taught places other than houses of worship, and (religious) private schools are one of 'em.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Yeah. And public schools, based on the Constitution of the United States, are not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Absolutely.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The trouble is, what if that IS the correct answer? What if the "How" IS that God made it so? If such an answer were the truth, and yet simultaneously unacceptable to science, then science would be pointing away for the truth rather than towards it.
What you're saying amounts to little more than simple skepticism.
If we really are in the Matrix, science is likewise pointing away from the truth about our world. That doesn't mean that "We're In The Matrix" should be taught as an alternative to any scientific theory. Nor that it should ever be accepted as science. It's just not the kind of claim that could be verified scientifically, even though it is the kind of claim that could conceivably be true.
Naturally, the same goes for ID.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
fugu13
You said one thing that was actually good. You pointed to the speciation web site. where in section 5.0 it shows an example of a plant which seperated into a species that could propagate among itself but not with the original parent group.
It was good for several reasons:
1. Now I have to either revise my way of thinking in one way or another
2. I will have to study what was written and understand it.
This is one of the few times when someone in an evolution vs. creation arguement actually said something that made me pause and think. By being challenged like this, I will be forced to learn and understand more. That is why I regard it as good.
For various reasons, I didn't end up agreeing with his conclusions that it proved random evolution as an ultimate mechanism. But the important thing was that it made me think. Actually, most of denbeste's writings are worth reading, particularly the article on logic.
They are both good reads. Those of you on the evolutionary-atheist side should seriously take a look at it. I doubt anyone here can match him in writing, I certainly don't hold a candle to him. But it can help.
-ron
[ November 10, 2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: ballantrae ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
And if you want to see religion taught alongside science in schools, you will need to provide a verifiable epistemology for religion. If that's not possible, I don't see how you can call religious teachings "education." To teach such a subject would be to instill beliefs in your students without giving them good reason to adopt those beliefs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Would you please stop calling it random evolution? Mutation is random, evolution is not.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Would you please stop calling it random evolution?
No.
-ron
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
He does have a point. Random evolution is a discredited scientific hypothesis.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: He does have a point.
I know. I just felt he needed me to hand him a can of LightenUp (tm) That Refreshing Soft Drink!
quote:Random evolution is a discredited scientific hypothesis.
I'm listening, please explain further if you have the time.
-ron
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I don't right now, really, but briefly, evolutionary theory claims not randomness, but that certain laws govern how evolution works. Randomness evolution is discredited because there is a lot of evidence that supports the concept that certain laws govern how species change over time.
Randomness means there are no laws goverorning how species change. But this isn't true. Mutations are random. But which mutations survive are not random. Harmful mutations decrease in prevalence over time, helpful ones increase.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Absolutely.
quote:Originally posted by ssywyk: Yeah. And public schools, based on the Constitution of the United States, are not.
Pardon me for intruding, but I have to ask where in the Constitution can I find this?
I looked through the document as it currently stands, and I couldn't find anything that said public schools are not allowed to teach Wahabiist Islam within them. I couldn't even find anything that precluded the doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster from being taught.
I am sure that someone here knows where the relevent passage is, and I would regard it as a kindness if they would point it out to me. To facilitate this request, I have posted below a link to the US Constitution.
Just to make things easier, I also have a link to the Bill of Rights. But since the only thing I found there regarding religion was that Congress won't make any law regarding it's establishment, I quickly discounted it. Seeing as how Congress is not the Kansas State Legislature.
[snark] Or maybe when the framers wrote the word "Congress" they meant "The Kansas State Legislature". Which of course, makes me wonder why they didn't just say so, then again, that could be because Kansas didn't exist at the time. But who am I to argue what everyone else agrees is true? [/snark]
Bill Of Rights Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Surely things that are binding on Congress are equally binding on state legislatures? And teaching some particular religion in school is definitely an establishment.
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Randomness means there are no laws goverorning how species change. But this isn't true. Mutations are random. But which mutations survive are not random. Harmful mutations decrease in prevalence over time, helpful ones increase.
Thank you.
-ron
Posted by ballantrae (Member # 6731) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Surely things that are binding on Congress are equally binding on state legislatures? And teaching some particular religion in school is definitely an establishment.
Nowadays, that certainly seems to be the accepted view of the courts. However, my point was that at the time it was written, that wasn't the accepted view of those who wrote it.
After doing a google search (I have to be honest about my ignorance) I found an article that indicated that Madison intended it to apply across the board, but then changed it specifically because a number of states had established churches it was modified.
The Warren court however, simply decided to wave that all away and redefine it as applying also to the State Legislatures. You can find the article I'm referring to here:
It's a bit boring until you get to the good parts. The important thing to keep in mind is that the Warren court pretty much decided to wave a magic wand and say "So mote it be". Using the excuse that the writer had to rewrite the original law to exclude State Legislatures. But that because Madison would have preferred to have it over the States as well, it should therefore be considered as that.
That was not a very honest or responsible thing for the court to do.
Now maybe you are right, and maybe no State Legislature should be allowed to create any law regarding the establishment of a religion. In that case, the Constitution should have been amended to reflect that view.
I know that this is difficult to accept when a decision is made in favor of something you hold (and no sarcasm is meant here), but that does not make the decision correct, and it does not mean that the Constitution supports what you say it does.
Let me explain why even you should be concerned: When the court can simply decide to reinterpret the Constitution to say whatever they like, then sooner or later, a court which believes things that you do not like, or that you are opposed to, will simply do the same. This is why it is so important to have justices which rule strictly in accordance with the document and not in accordance with whatever fancy they may hold.
-ron
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Please can we be allowed to keep our bias against alchemical thought? That's based on religion too, you know.
No. If you have evidence that something is wrong, you don't need a bias against it. The trouble is, science is naturally biased against a number of beliefs not because of any evidence against those beliefs, but rather because of the rules it has set up for itself. This is not to say those rules are bad, but only that they can become problematic if science is expected to answer questions that those rules prevent it from answering without bias.
quote:For almost 200 years, the whole separation of church and state worked fairly well, until a bunch of right-wing ultra-conservative fundamentalists tried to change the status quo.
This is true, but I'm not talking about the separation of church and state, two institutions that are dangerous when mixed. I'm talking about the separation of scientific beliefs and religious beliefs into two distinct realms of truth. And while it has worked effectively in many ways since its roots began in the scientific revolution, it has also ultimately led to a number of problems - with the "tyranny of relativism" created on one side, religious fundamentalism on the other.
quote:So, teach science in school. Teach philosophy in school. Even teach comparative religions in school. But you can't teach one religion as being the right religion in school. Not in the secular/public school system. Just as you can't teach the creation myth of one particular religion as, somehow, being more correct than the rest.
I don't think anyone has proposed teaching that ID or any particular religion is correct.
And philosophy is not a subject normally taught as a class in schools. Instead, it is integrated into other classes. Normally, philosophical issues related to science are taught in science class. What folks are doing when they demand that only experimentally falsifiable claims are discussed in science class is removing all the philosophy from science class - in effect, preventing students from being taught science-related philosophical issues at all. That is why this is an unrealistic demand. You cannot expect a science class to restrict itself only to what is strictly experimentally testable. If we are to really educate our students, we must ALSO teach them the philosophical issues that are related to that which is experimentally testable, including the debate surrounding intelligent design. There is no other class where students will hear this, unless they take religion as an elective in high school, which only a few do, and which may not really compare religious beliefs with the conclusions that student is learning in science class.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote: The trouble is, science is naturally biased against a number of beliefs not because of any evidence against those beliefs, but rather because of the rules it has set up for itself. This is not to say those rules are bad, but only that they can become problematic if science is expected to answer questions that those rules prevent it from answering without bias.
I'm sorry, but I can't for the life of me parse this sentence. Could you clarify, or provide some examples of this supposed phenomenon?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Just wanted to back up the above statement that public schools are not established by the Constitution, but by the individual states. Inasmuch as those states receive federal funding, however, they have to follow federal guidelines.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: And StarLisa, something tells me you're not "reformed," yourself. You're pushing some pretty fundamentalist concepts there yourself.
Funny boy. You obviously haven't seen the fights I've gotten into on this forum defending the complete separation between government and religion. Do a search, maybe.
And I most certainly am reformed. I grew up non-observant, and during college I reformed. Now I'm observant.
"Plastic Man, Plastic Man The one, the original, elastic man He used to be a crook but he reformed and then He reformed and reformed and reformed again!"
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm sorry, but I can't for the life of me parse this sentence. Could you clarify, or provide some examples of this supposed phenomenon?
Sorry... the "rules" of science require it to have objective, physical, experimental evidence to support any conclusion, among other things. That means that science will be blind to or at least biased against anything without that sort of evidence.
Consider souls for instance. I'm not going to assume they exist (although I do believe they do), but imagine for the sake of argument that they do exist and influence the world around us. Because souls are not physical things, science would be unable to "see" them. Science can only "see" that which it can experiment upon physically. It would not be able to create any theory with a soul in it, even if that really were how the world worked. This would not be true because science had any evidence against souls. Rather, it would be true simply because the rules of science don't allow it to make observations about souls. In this way, science would be biased against any theory that involved souls. If asked to create a complete model of the universe, science would inevitably create a model that excludes souls, no matter if souls exist or not.
The same is true for God, and a whole variety of other entities that conflict with the rules of the scientific method. Thus, science gives us a skewed view of the world - and so we must limit how we use it accordingly.
Think of it as similar to the blind spot you have when you are driving. The way a car is designed and operated creates a blind spot, where you can't see if there are any cars next to you in that certain spot. There could be a car there as far as you know, but the nature of your car's design simply makes it impossible to see that other car even if they are there. And thus, any beliefs you make about the state of the road you are driving on would fail to take into account the things in your blind spot that you can't see.
In this way your vision in a car is limited in way similar to how the vision of science is limited. The solution for the car is to remember that limitation, and to use your mirrors to get a more complete picture of the road around your car. With science, the "mirrors" are other methods of knowing about the world - including through philosophy, religion, history, or even sometimes art. These other fields help science to get a much more complete picture of the "road" around science, and thus need to be integrated into science issues insofar as they can help generate that more complete picture.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
StarLisa, I refuted this on the other thread but since you missed it the first time, I reiterate.
A polar bear is a BEAR! It's Ursus maritimus .
It can interbreed with the regular garden variety brown bear Ursus Arctos and produce fertile offspring.
Some brown bears appear to be more closely related to the Polar Bear than others also classified as brown bears.
There is one other species of north American bear, Ursus Americanus the Black Bear. In fact the Polar Bear, is more closely related to the Brown bear, than the Brown bear is related to the Black Bear. But they are all BEARS!!!
I see no reason to believe anything about evolution that is said by someone who can't even bother get minimal biological facts correct. For crying out loud. Even the creationists say they are all bears! http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp
[ November 10, 2005, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false
StarLisa, if you claim Polar Bears aren't bears again, you are in clear violation of the Terms of Service and I will report you.
AJ
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Lisa,
But how is introducing ID into secular classrooms not breaking down the wall between government and religion?
Treso,
quote:Consider souls for instance. I'm not going to assume they exist (although I do believe they do), but imagine for the sake of argument that they do exist and influence the world around us. Because souls are not physical things, science would be unable to "see" them. Science can only "see" that which it can experiment upon physically.
You sow the seeds of your own downfall there, buddy.
"...but imagine for the sake of argument that they do exist and influence the world around us"
Well, if they actually influenced the world around us, then we could actually see or otherwise sense that influence. If you can see it or sense it, then you can measure it.
But souls (as independent entities from, allegedly, the people they inhabit) don't influence the world around us. After thousands and thousands of years, there's no real evidence of this influence. In fact, when you compare it to the evidence we have for evolution, I think it would be safe to say that there are no such thing as souls. Lisa, 'you want to take this one up?
But besides, if all a "soul" can do to influence the world around us is, let's say, give us a cold chill as it passes through us on the way to Dunkin' Donuts, then what's the point?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Well, if they actually influenced the world around us, then we could actually see or otherwise sense that influence. If you can see it or sense it, then you can measure it.
Well, that's not really true. Now I'm not trying to promote the existence of souls, because I don't really believe they exist, at least the way they are described above, but your logic for why they can't possibly exist doesn't quite work.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Well, I guess if you want to define "influence" as meaning "effect something without said effect being detectable," at which point I will just redefine jet engines as being equal to a nice cheddar cheese sandwich.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Tres--sorry I've been too busy to keep up.
"God Made it so" says why it was made so (and perhaps by the who). The How would be by what method God made it. That is why it is unacceptable by science, not because we mention God, but because we are answering the wrong question.
Is the question of Why more important that How? If you are asking about life in general and the deeper meanings of it, yes. If you are asking because you want to grow a better wheat crop in order to feed more people, then the How is very important in deed. (Though if God is against you growing the better Wheat, no amount of knowledge about evolution will help.)
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Hmm...actually, "God made it so" doesn't really answer "why." It just pushes the question back one level. Why did God make it so? Sort of the same illogic that says "Everything needs a creator, and God is that creator," without discussing God's need (or lack thereof) for His "own" creator.
Non-answers masquerading as answers. Non-information pretending to be "Truth."
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Well, I guess if you want to define "influence" as meaning "effect something without said effect being detectable," at which point I will just redefine jet engines as being equal to a nice cheddar cheese sandwich.
I was not concerned about your definition of "influence," rather, it was the logic that you used to show that souls don't exist. There's quite a difference between "having absolutely no reason to believe they exist" and "they can't exist because we haven't seen evidence."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, on the souls, it's entirely possible for things to exist and have material effects without being subject to scientific investigation.
Logical analysis of some A needs instances of Not A or else there is nothing to compare against. Scientific analysis rests on being able to know something about the state of the thing being analyzed and the assumption that this thing acts deterministically. I see no reason why any of this would have to be true in the case of souls.
For example, if souls exist, one of their primary effects would be things with souls having some form of nondeterministic free will. Barring the ability to completely duplicate all the deterministic components to someone's behavior, there is no way to scientifically test whether or not humans have free will.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Albert,
What I said was:
quote:But souls (as independent entities from, allegedly, the people they inhabit) don't influence the world around us. After thousands and thousands of years, there's no real evidence of this influence. In fact, when you compare it to the evidence we have for evolution, I think it would be safe to say that there are no such thing as souls. Lisa, 'you want to take this one up?
All I said was that, based on the criteria for evidence as proof of the validity of a theory (as presented by Lisa); if she rejects evolutionary theory based on a supposed lack of evidenc, then she must also reject the separate-soul-existence-theory based on a more extreme lack of evidence.
MrSquick:
"Souls having some form of nondeterministic free will" is not an "effect." It would be an effect if they actually went and did something with it. My thinking about cheese is not an effect. My stealing your cheese is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
ssywak, But it would have an effect. To wit, whether or not you stole my cheese.
Free will, if it exists, definitely has an effect on the real world. With it, there is an element of genuine nondeterministic choice in behavior. Thus, it alters not just what happens, but the nature of what happens and could happen.
To return to the cheese example, say that the presence of some stimulus X completely determines whether you steal my cheese. Thus, the presence or absense of X has a very real effect on the world, specifically whether my cheese is there when I go to make my famous club sandwich later on today.
Free will has a similar but more profound effect on the world. Assuming determinism, you are either going to steal my cheese or not. There is only one possible outcome. Free will makes alternatives possible, thus affecting the state of the world.
[ November 10, 2005, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
My stealing your cheese is the measurable effect. My thinking about it is not.
Free will is not detectable directly, only through actions it causes. Free will, alone, has no effect on the world. Actions caused by free will do.
If you want to debate the meaning, definition, and possible existence of free will, we can always dig up an old thread either here or over at P-Web.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Albert,
What I said was:
quote:But souls (as independent entities from, allegedly, the people they inhabit) don't influence the world around us. After thousands and thousands of years, there's no real evidence of this influence. In fact, when you compare it to the evidence we have for evolution, I think it would be safe to say that there are no such thing as souls. Lisa, 'you want to take this one up?
All I said was that, based on the criteria for evidence as proof of the validity of a theory (as presented by Lisa); if she rejects evolutionary theory based on a supposed lack of evidenc, then she must also reject the separate-soul-existence-theory based on a more extreme lack of evidence.
Are you adressing me? Fair enough, I suppose I can understand why you might associate my name with Albert.
Anyway, your point about the evidence regarding evolution and the soul makes sense. However, I was referring to Tres' reference to the soul, and I thought he made a valid point about certain concepts being outside the realm of science, such as a soul, because of it's seemingly undetectable nature, but that in itself does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't think having souls is a necessary condition for humans having free will. I don't believe in souls, but I do believe in free will.
quote:The same is true for God, and a whole variety of other entities that conflict with the rules of the scientific method. Thus, science gives us a skewed view of the world - and so we must limit how we use it accordingly.
Science only gives us a "skewed view of the world" if any of those entities actually exist. If they don't, there isn't a problem.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Well, if they actually influenced the world around us, then we could actually see or otherwise sense that influence. If you can see it or sense it, then you can measure it.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, a house haunted by a nonphysical spirit that caused whispers to be heard within that house. Science would be able to detect the whispers, but it would not be able to correctly explain that the spirit is what is causing it. Rather, science would have to attempt to come up with some sort of physical explanation for it.
This is a classic response in horror films. The rationalizing character says "Oh, that's just the wind blowing through the trees." And then it turns out to be a spirit after all.
In such cases, science is forced by its own nature to come to a objectively testable theory no matter how much non-scientific evidence might point to a theory that science cannot test. That's why it is biased.
Of course, it's not haunted houses that we really care about here - it's similar issues. God is one of them, as a being that is terribly difficult to test in any purely scientific way. In my mind, even more important than that is experiences - something else that is nonphysical and difficult to test by science. Science attempts to explain what it is to experience things in physical terms - which I think is a very incomplete model of experience. The experience of smelling warm apple pie is not accurately conveyed by explaining how certain particles stimulate the nose. In a strictly scientific world, it is difficult to find a place for nonphysical experiences like that - yet it is experiences, not material things, that makes life meaningful. In that way, this is an important issue.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's like saying that in the stimulus X example I gave, stimulus X has no effect. If we have free will, it is a major causal factor in human behavior. It causes what happens. I won't argue that this is a direct effect, but I don't know of a definition of effect that would consider a causal factor as not having an effect.
To return to the stimulus X, deterministic example, say X is a conditioning procedure linking cheese which nausea, conducted some time in your past. This will influence your valuing of the cheese such that you're not going to steal it. It doesn't affect the potential theft directly, but it determines whther or not you steal the cheese. Would you say that X therefore has no effect here?
It doubt it. X is what influences the world in that example. Likewise, free will influences the world by making it so that behavior Y isn't the only possible one in a given situation. Whereas without it, the determinstic factors would have you with no variation, stealing my cheese, with free will you might steal my cheese or not steal it or wear it on your head and do a swiss dance before putting it back where you found it.
In symbolic logic, !FW -> S, while FW -> S OR !S OR WCAAHADASD OR ... onto infinity. It changes the outcome (potentially). Changing the outcome is how we define influence.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Sure. Just name me some things that are undetectable that really do exist and we'll be good.
Not "concepts," but real things that really exist.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Science attempts to explain what it is to experience things in physical terms - which I think is a very incomplete model of experience...In a strictly scientific world, it is difficult to find a place for nonphysical experiences like that - yet it is experiences, not material things, that makes life meaningful. In that way, this is an important issue.
I definitely agree that certain non-scientific things are very important to us. However, the distinction described above is why the two fields should always remain separate, which is exactly why ID should not be taught in a science class. Admitting it's not science does not diminish the importance of its field.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
twinky, It's possible that we have a semantic disagreement. I'm using soul as convenient shorthand for "something outside the determinstic world", not necessarily in the Christian theologic sense.
Without some sort of nondeterministic input into a system (in this case the human psyche) I don't see how it could be nondeterministic itself (i.e. have free will). That's why I was saying that souls are necessary for free will.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
sswyak,
quote:Sure. Just name me some things that are undetectable that really do exist and we'll be good.
Not "concepts," but real things that really exist.
My soul.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Ah. I believe randomness to be an inherent property of consciousness. I think that if you could put the same person in the exact same situation multiple times you would not necessarily get the same result.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Sure. Just name me some things that are undetectable that really do exist and we'll be good.
Not "concepts," but real things that really exist.
Let's back up a bit. I never said that there are things that truly exist that we can't detect. Rather, there are many things that are likely or possible to exist that we can't yet prove because we can't measure them or don't know how to measure them. Additional dimensions and a few exotic anti-particles are both things that may very well exist even though we can't yet measure it.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Sorry, MrSquick, I said real things that really exist. What you call "your soul" is just a strong sense of self-awareness coupled with chemically encoded memories.
But I'm willing to give the "soul" a "maybe," just so that we can continue.
What else? Besides "God," of course, because we're looking for other eamples that support the concept of an undetectable existence (and, to be honest, since most people couple the concept of "soul" as being closely related if not a direct off-shoot of the concept of God, it's really "begging the question.")
But please continue. What else?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Black holes are like that, no? We can only detect their effects -- massive gravitational fields. Or has that changed?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Why not? Also, randomness doesn't imply free will, just nondeterminism. Free needs an element of intentionality to the nondeterminism.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Ah. I believe randomness to be an inherent property of consciousness. I think that if you could put the same person in the exact same situation multiple times you would not necessarily get the same result.
That's an interesting concept that I've tried to think about and understand better. Is there a source that has more information on that idea?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Sorry, MrSquick, I said real things that really exist. What you call "your soul" is just a strong sense of self-awareness coupled with chemically encoded memories.
No it's not. It's the nondeterminstic aspect of my totality that is not strictly bound by temporal causality, such that I do actually have free will and the ability to create something generally new. That is, speaking of it as a definition.
Whether or not this soul acutally exists is made pretty much impossible to determine by the aforementioned propery that it is undetectible. I choose to believe that it does. You choose otherwise, which is fine, but you don't get to use a false definition to say it doesn't exist.
quote:What else?
Your soul.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But please continue. What else?
It wasn't long ago that neutrinos were undetectable to us. Ten years ago someone might say that we can't detect neutrinos so they must not exist, but that would seem foolish now that we've developed the capability to detect them. So in other words, "not being able to measure something's effect" means exactly what it's stating, that we have no means for detecting it right now, or that we don't know how to detect it. But that does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Why not?
Say I have two compounds, X and Y, that can undergo two simultaneous parallel chemical reactions to produce only one of two products, A and B. This happens all the time in chemistry. If I have a bulk mixture of X and Y with known conditions (pressure, temperature), I can predict with great precision the outcome: the final mixture will contain approximately 30% A and 70% B. The reaction X + Y -> B is favoured.
Now, if I have one molecule of X and one molecule of Y, I can say that I'm more likely to get one molecule of B as a result, but I can't say for certain that I won't get one molecule of A instead, or that they will react at all.
Similarly, if you put me in exactly the same situation 100 times, and I could make one of two choices, your experiment could tell you how likely I am to make one choice over the other, but not which choice I will make in a given instance.
quote:Also, randomness doesn't imply free will, just nondeterminism. Free needs an element of intentionality to the nondeterminism.
We're talking about decisions here, which are by definition intentional. But in any case I didn't say "free will."
quote:That's an interesting concept that I've tried to think about and understand better. Is there a source that has more information on that idea?
Not that I'm aware of, sadly. I'm sure someone else has thought of it before, but I haven't found any writing on the subject since the notion occurred to me.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of things that exist, and that have a measurable impact on the material world, that we did not have the ability to perceive or measure a couple of hundred years ago. I don't see any reason to think that our technology has progressed to a point where we're capable of detecting and measuring all that there is to detect and measure.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Say I have two compounds, X and Y, that can undergo two simultaneous parallel chemical reactions to produce only one of two products, A and B. This happens all the time in chemistry. If I have a bulk mixture of X and Y with known conditions (pressure, temperature), I can predict with great precision the outcome: the final mixture will contain approximately 30% A and 70% B. The reaction X + Y -> B is favoured.
Now, if I have one molecule of X and one molecule of Y, I can say that I'm more likely to get one molecule of B as a result, but I can't say for certain that I won't get one molecule of A instead, or that they will react at all.
As far as I understand it, that's not due to some ineffable randomness, but rather to differences in the environment, even if those differences are very small. To me, what you're saying is that if you drop many balls down the center of an evenly spaced peg board, they'll make a normal curve, but if you drop one ball down, you can't be sure what it will do, thus it must be random. But that's not true. The path of the ball is completely determined by it and the board's physical state. Likewise, the two molecules' reaction is determined by their state and the state of the environment. Really small does not = random.
Likewise, postulating a closed deterministic system, I can't see where this randomness comes from. It has to be caused by something or else you're violating the closed deterministic nature of the system.
If we're assuming that the universe is not acutally completely determinsitic (which my limited understanding of physics leads me to believe is an active aspect of many theories of how things work) then I could see how you could think that consciousness has an element of randomness to it. However, I don't see how this randomness would be different from the randomness that would affect any of the other deterministic processes in the universe or how would it affect the actual nature of consciousness. It would just be saying that the results of consciousness are still completely determined by it's inputs and the state of the seat of the consciousness, but that these inputs or state could change for no determinsitc reason.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Black holes are like that, no? We can only detect their effects -- massive gravitational fields. Or has that changed?
That's a semantic quibble, no? In reality, practically everything we detect is detected first by its effects. The apple on my desk is detected by the way it reflects light. The pie in the oven is detected by the scent of baking pie. The bats in the attic are detected by the sqeaky/scratchy sounds coming from there.
Or more to the point, the planet Pluto was first detected by its gravitational effects.
That's usually how we discover something in the real world. We notice the effect, then we learn about what is causing it.
Now, you could argue that a "soul" is something like this too. After all, something makes you tick. Something made that whispery sound in the old house.
The problem with things like God, and Soul, etc, is that when they are used in these settings, they become less than what people mean. If we don't know what is making the whisper despite years of searching, you can say well, it's a "soul". But all you have done is take an emotionally charged word and neutered it (i.e. "soul" = "producer of house whispers and nothing more".) or worse, you have labeled the phenomenon and then expect the phenomenon to validate all the other emotional baggage you previously attached to the word.
"God" in the ID sense is like that. ID proponents want to take all the phenomena that science can't explain at this time and label it "God" (of course, using the code-word "intelligent designer".) At best, they are reducing "God" to mean "All that stuff science hasn't figured out yet and nothing more". Or the dishonest among them want to sell the idea of labeling the unknown "God" expecting people to then believe that all that unknown stuff is evidence of God, and by association all the other things they believe about God.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Squicky, you can say that a "soul" exists, but it is undetectable. However, if it is undetectable, how can you possibly know anything about it at all?
In other words, I am thinking of something. It's a squirnk. I know it exists (at least in my head) because I'm thinking of it right now. What can you tell me about a squirnk other than the fact that it exists (though as far as you know only in my head.) What value is the knowledge of its existence alone? How can you get any other knowledge about it other than the simple fact that something exists that at least one person calls a "squirnk" seeing as it is basically undetectable by you?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's why it's an analogy, Squicky. It isn't perfect, but it gets the point across. In the case of chemistry, it's a question of reaction kinetics; in the case of my binary choice, I think it's a question of the random element in consciousness. However, keep in mind that I don't buy your postulate of a closed deterministic system. I also think it's kinda funny that you're suddenly saying that everything requires a cause.
Why should it need to come from anywhere? From my viewpoint, it's a property of a conscious, self-aware mind. We may, however, be using different meanings for (and attaching different connontations to) the word "random."
Karl, that's a good point about black holes.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
On the subject of intelligent design, here's a good summary of what has been happening (both in Kansas and elsewhere) recently.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What else?
The experience of pain. Science can study the causes of pain, the neurons that fire when we are in pain, and the actions we tend to do when we are in pain, but it cannot detect the experience of pain itself - that thing we feel when we are in pain. Science could not tell the difference between a human being that actually experiences pain and one that simply acts exactly like those who experience pain (right down to the same pain-related neurons firing). Experiences exist only in our minds, not in the objective physical world, and thus cannot be studied directly by science.
quote:Squicky, you can say that a "soul" exists, but it is undetectable. However, if it is undetectable, how can you possibly know anything about it at all?
I think the soul would be undetectable through scientific methods alone, but detectable through other methods of gaining knowledge, such as introspection and logic.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: StarLisa, I refuted this on the other thread but since you missed it the first time, I reiterate.
A polar bear is a BEAR! It's Ursus maritimus .
I did miss it. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm not sure why I got that so wrong. I'd love to chalk it up to slippage, but it's more likely just a brain hiccup. Sorry, you're right and I'm wrong. Not about evolution, of course <grin> but about this.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Karl, There's no purely scientific reason to believe that a soul exists. It isn't objectively detectable. It may be subjectively detectable, but given the tremendous unreliability inherent in subjective assessment I wouldn't go trusting to that either.
From my perspective, the existence of a soul is not the point. If the soul was undetectable and had no effect on reality, I would see no reason to give it a thought. Rather, it's the different views of the world offered by considering it to exist of not. As I've said, I don't believe that free will nor true creativity could exist without something akin to the soul. The effects of this postulated soul are what I'm concerned about. I choose to believe (or, if there is no free will, am compelled by my past reinforment/punishment contingencies) in a view of the world that includes these things. (You could say I have faith in the soul.)
Science is a wonderful tool that doesn't deserve the ignorant mangling that starLisa and Tres have been subjecting it to here. But people often fail to understand it's purpose. Science does not give us truth; it's not trying to encompass reality. All it really does, when you get down to it, is give us a method for testing how much confidence we should put in projective hypotheses (i.e ones that take the form of if you do X in situation Y, Z will be the result). Once you're there, you've reached the end of what science alone can tell you. Even so called sceintific theories are not actually a part of science. Rather, they are philosophical ideas that have received support from scientific testing.
I'm a student of personality psychology. Science is a very powerful part of this field, but restricting psychology to just science would neuter it. Science is used to set bounds by saying "This is what happens." or, more importantly, "This does not happen.", but it is the job of the theorist to, while respecting these bounds, go far beyond them in creating theories (or, as I like to think of them, mythologies) about the psyche. The scientifically testible aspects of these theores are used to drive future research questions. They also serve another purpose in that, like all functional mythologies, they present stories that are used to look at and parse the gray areas of the world that are not currently and possibly will never be nailed down by scientific analysis.
There are tons of different ways to choose what mythologies you want to believe in, among them the implications of that mythology, but the things is that this is a choice. There is nothing impelling you towards one over another as is the case in the face of scientifically tested stuff.
I choose to believe in the soul. Some people choose to believe in athiesm. Others choose religion. Some people believe in the ID mythology. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these choices (assuming that the ID is that ID exists and not that it is science).
As people are not perfect, these choices are rarely purely in the realm of the undetermined grays areas which are either outside of science's scope or at least current reach. Nor do they generally restrict what they try to do or justify based on these mythologies to these gray areas. To me, this whole stupid ID issue is because of this. But, to me, despite these imperfection, it is important to acknowledge the fundamental role that accepting undeterminable mythologies plays in human existence.
---
Yeah, that's got to be much longer than people were expecting or are going to read.
[ November 10, 2005, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Lisa,
But how is introducing ID into secular classrooms not breaking down the wall between government and religion?
Because for all you know, we were designed by some alien race. I know, I know, that's just as conjectural as God as far as you're concerned. But the fact is, there are serious problems with the idea that life as it exists today could ever have come about the way that evolution claims.
You insist on labeling the intelligence behind intelligent design as "God". I don't buy that. I mean, yes, I think it is, but I don't think it has to be.
Have you read Calculating God, by Robert J. Sawyer? You ought to.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
[aside]
I don't use the word "soul," myself. I prefer "mind." There's some sort of self-aware process that experiences stimuli, interprets it through comparison to stored memories, learns from experiences to create new memories and new connections between old memories, and passes directions to my physical body. It's always there without having a physical presence, like a computer desktop, and when I die it will fade as the electrical impulses from my brain cease. The existence of such a mind/body interface is nearly indisputable but it cannot be measured or seen.
I remain agnostic as to the possibilities, but the concept of a deterministic universe seems silly to me. Events transpire. We react according to our perception of previous experiences and our evaluation of current and future experiences. We have free will, and to deny it is to avoid the responsibility for it. There is no destiny, no unavoidable future, and time travel on anything other than a quantum scale is unlikely in the extreme.
[/aside]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is what it all boils down to:
ID and Creationism at its heart are moral systems, or the preludes from which moral systems are based.
Evolution and Science in general are amoral systems.
People, on the religious right and on atheistic left and others, have tried to implant a morality upon Science that it neither has nor can successfully operate under.
Some have called science moral or immoral. Both are wrong.
Weather is an amoral system as well. That has never stopped people from attributing a morality to it. From the ancient Greeks who saw lightning as Zeus's instrument to modern bigots who see Katrina as just punishment for the poor in New Orleans, something as powerful and omnipresent as the weather demanded a morality.
So those who wade into the depths of science everyday try to learn morality from it, and those who fear the changes science may bring point out the immorality of it.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Lisa,
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...
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dan,
What morality do you think that I, as an atheistic scientist (well, engineer, but still...) have tried to place on "Science."
That the universe is, as a whole, cold and uncaring? That it is, essentially, amoral (not Immoral, but Amoral)?
I thought that was simply starting from a neutral center? Or is starting from a neutral center, itself, a bias?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:We react according to our perception of previous experiences and our evaluation of current and future experiences.
Yes, but do we have control over those reactions? The brain responds to those perceptions, but can we control how it does that? If memories, genetics, and environment determine how we perceive things, the way we evaluate things, and ultimately the way we decide things, is that considered free will?
There would have to be some type of randomness or outside source to prevent our decisions from being predictable.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think the soul would be undetectable through scientific methods alone, but detectable through other methods of gaining knowledge, such as introspection and logic.
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The brain responds to those perceptions, but can we control how it does that? If memories, genetics, and environment determine how we perceive things, the way we evaluate things, and ultimately the way we decide things, is that considered free will?
Sure. We have free will to act within our parameters. Just because I can't fly under my own power doesn't mean I don't have free will because my options are limited. We also have the ability to change those parameters. I perceive and act on events differently now than I did ten years ago and twenty years ago. If I realize that I keep making bad decisions I can choose to provide myself more options through education or budgeting or better communication or whatever.
There would have to be some type of randomness or outside source to prevent our decisions from being predictable.
Many people's reactions are predictable. The more you know about someone, the easier it is to predict what they will do in a given situation. Doesn't mean they don't have free will. But where did I say there was no randomness? The world provides that aplenty.
[ November 10, 2005, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:But the fact is, there are serious problems with the idea that life as it exists today could ever have come about the way that evolution claims.
Lisa,
The facts are that the theory of Evolution has been repeatedly found to provide a good explanation of life as it exists today, and the major objections to it have been dealt with successfully over a long period of time. ID proponents have put forward a series of things that they think are "irreducibly complex" in an attempt to show that there are problems with Evolutionary theory -- some stuff just doesn't work in the intermediate stages and thus couldn't have evolved into a final working form from pieces or parts that didn't work (i.e., didn't confer evolutionary advantages on the critters who had them).
Sadly for ID (or at least the "irreducibly complex" part of it), the history on these irreducibly complex things has been in favor of evolutionary explanations...eventually. So far, for the things that have been proposed as too complex to have been produced by evolutionary means, the ones that have been out there as "challenges" long enough to be subject to serious research have all fallen on the side of being produced by gradualism. Not just evolution, but the pure form of evolutionary theory. Slow, incremental changes from ancestral forms.
So, I'm not really sure what you mean by "serious problems" but evolutionary theory has stood the test of time and numerous challenges (including several versions of "intelligent design" over the years). The reason scientists stick with Evolutionary theory is that it works. Everywhere it CAN be tested, it comes up with the right answer and the opposing "theories" are shown to be either unnecessarily complex or just plain wrong.
ALL: The problem for ID is not that it inserts "God" into things that don't require GOD as an explanatory variable. It is that it inserts anything extraneous. ID theory proposes that because there are things that seem to be unreachable by gradual steps through intermediates, that there MUST be some external force. The way science works, the problem isn't that there might be something really complex out there that's impossible for Evolution to explain. The problem is that we don't just throw out a good working theory because something like that is put forward. You don't just get to say "hey look, you can't explain this...HA!" and walk away triumphant. Science is slow to change. Especially it is slow to abandon a theory that has proven successful for a long time. And in past challenges. You have to give Evolutionary biologists time to look at the puzzle and, perhaps, solve it. So far, when time for that kind of work has been available...the ID requirement for a deux ex machina argument has been found to be unnecessarily complicated.
I really urge people who find ID intellectually appealling to read "Finding Darwin's God" before talking more about how wonderful the theory is. Truth is, Darwin dealt with this same theory back when he first wrote his "Origin of Species." It's an old theory, revived periodically by people who don't know enough about current Evolutionary biology (typically). The current version of it has proven no more successful than previous instances of it. Given time (sometimes mere weeks), Evolutionary biologists have found just what the ID theorists say is not (or should not be) there. Gradual progression from ancestral forms to modern forms of precisely the hyper-complex things that "couldn't possibly" have evolved.
I happen to believe that God used natural means to create. I also happen to believe that Evolution is proof of the divine because of its simplicity and elegance, not because of counter examples that appear too complex. But I also believe that we can study God's world effectively without having to FIND God's finger in the mix. I think trying to do so is a mistake that puts God in successively smaller boxes and, ultimately, concedes victory to the very thing people appear to be fighting against -- a science that says God is irrelevant to all explanations.
It seems like a losing strategy based on the history of this issue.
And, it seems like this argument was solved to most learned people's satisfaction many decades ago, and it is only in ignorance that the idea (at least the ID-version of it) keeps getting brought up periodically. The spread of ID is often mostly wishful thinking -- people who think that "SCIENCE" is some monolithic thing so that an expert in organic chemistry (like the guy who's the current modern "father" of ID) is the same as an expert in evolutionary biology. When in fact, lack of specialized knowledge is mostly a cause for caution for responsible scientists venturing away from their field of expertise.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
starLisa, would oyu care to reply to my post on the previous page? You appear to have missed it, so for your convenience I give it again here :
quote:A new species coming into being from an old. A cat giving birth to a not-cat that breeds true. Anything even remotely similar to what is claimed to have resulted in life on Earth. A fruitfly getting so irradiated that it turns into a new species.
I'm pretty sure you meant 'has offspring belonging to a new species', for that last. But anyway, surely you can't really believe that this is what evolution claims happens? In fact, if any such thing was observed, it would be clear evidence of ID, since such an event is so unlikely that it would indeed require intelligent intervention.
Let's consider fruit flies. I trust you will concede that fruit flies and dragon flies are separate species? Anyway, I'll go with that for now. Now, let me suppose that the following chain of events takes place :
1) A biologist has a population of fruit flies; they are all interfertile.
2) He irradiates them for a higher mutation rate. After a while he find that one lineage is no longer interfertile with the rest of his population, but still capable of breeding with itself. Being a biologist, he calls that a speciation event, but since he wants to convince you, he doesn't stop there. Instead he separates out his new species.
3) Next he breeds the fruit flies for resemblance to dragonflies. I think you'll agree that there is a continuum between fruit flies and dragonflies, and that with careful breeding you can take small steps from the one to the other? Size, tubularity of the carapace - dragonflies have four wings, but that's no problem; irradiate a population of fruit flies not quite enough to kill them, and you'll see many offspring with three, four, and two-and-a-half wings. Some of them will be able to fly, if you have enough.
4) He ends up with one population of dragonflies, and one of fruit flies. They cannot interbreed; they are clearly separate species; yet they are descended from a single population.
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?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As I said, read up on ring species, sL.
Those're species that live in a habitat that's in a ring shape. If you were to start at the "middle" of the ring, you could proceed in either direction, and as you moved along, all the members of the population "near" where you were looking at could interbreed. But at some point, you'd come around to where the other side was also coming around, and where the two ends meet, no interbreeding happens.
One of the key things to keep in mind is that in evolution, species almost never breed into a single species in a single generation. Instead, one species will become separated into two populations, then one will slowly diverge, always being able to interbreed with members of the same population. Over time, members in that population wil stop being able to interbreed with members of the other population, which may not be changing very much, or in a different direction.
This has been part of evolutionary theory from the start; read up on Darwin's finches.
That you think speciation must occur so instantaneously reflects a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, btw, I'm not surprised you don't think the caricature you've looked at is true.
I should note, though, that the link I gave on speciation points to exactly the sort of thing you're talking about: a plant having offspring which cannot have fertile offspring with the parent, but can with other plants possessing the same variation. So you're disproven already. I don't think you read that link very closely.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I believe frined starLisa also requires that the new species look significantly different, hence my dragonflies in the example above.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That would be exceptionally bizarre. I wonder what possible basis she could have for that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, it's not an uncommon strawman on Creationist sites. Ken Ham is always saying "Whoever saw a cat give birth to a dog?"
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
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...
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
*unsquicks debate, surveys, then leaves*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
"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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The physical world itself is just a bunch of atoms arranged - which in of itself holds no value.
Anne Kate's made this argument, too. But I disagree rather emphatically.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Lisa,
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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?)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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"?
Of course it is. If you don't take a strong hand with heresy... why, anything can happen!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
More to the discussion at hand:
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres,
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.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
All quotes copyright starLisa (c) 2005.
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
yeah if you are imagining something then brain neurons are firing...
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
nu-huh, because he can imagine that he is imagining something without neurons firing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*head asplodes*
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
So, no one is concerned about my above post? Just randomly yanking links off the web, I found this interesting (if a little dubious) site:
"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...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
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...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think it is a belief, and I think the fact that people try to combine it as one is part of the problem.
Maybe even the problem.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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. Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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? Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
As frightening as you may find this, Tres, I also really dig Kuhn's book...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Actually David, that doesn't surprise me one bit. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yes, Squick hit the nail on the head.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Actually, now that I think about it, it’s more than that. It’s that it tries to combine two things that are just not combinable. Theism is NOT a scientific theory. Evolution is. To combine them in one term grates on me as much as the idea of teaching ID in science class.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: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?
Well, you've brought us full circle, Tres. No one is forbidding the discussion of alternate theories. They're complaining against the official stamp of approval on a non-scientific dogma intended to be presented in a science class with the sole purpose of preventing the real science from receiving proper consideration.
In short, ID is not science. There are many real scientists who believe in some form of ID, but even they know when the issue isn't about real science anymore.
If you want to worship the devil and call yourself a Christian, you can certainly do so, but that doesn't make you one. If you want to be a Republican, but are anti-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-welfare, pro-environment, pro-high taxes, and all the other non-Republican cliches, at what point is the word meaningless? If you want to promote astrology, ghost-whispering, and palm reading and call yourself a scientist can you really expect anyone to take you seriously as one?
quote:I suppose everyone is free to do science for themselves. But if not everyone is taken seriously, that doesn't really matter much.
This is silly. Why should everyone be taken seriously? If someone puts forth a theory that the earth is flat and it is shown that it is round, how much longer do we need to take them seriously if they refuse to even look at the evidence at hand?
I'm not saying that you can't be a real scientist and also believe in ID. You can be a real scientist and believe it ID or God or space aliens or whatever else you wanna believe. But when the dogma contaminates your science, you stop being a scientist and become a politician.
When an ID scientist puts forth a scientific arguement in favor of ID and his peers point out flaws in the experiment or illogical conclusions, or a complete lack of evidence in support of the conclusions, and the response isn't better experiments or refined procedures but instead a jump on the conspiracy bandwagon, well, how seriously are we supposed to take him as a scientist?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The main reason the term is in use is so as to provide a reasonable alternative to creationism and intelligent design that emphasized the lack of conflict with religion.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Lisa,
quote: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.
First off: no, you may not call me Dick. May I refer to you as female genetalia? No? Good. I hate doing that. Well, either way, I am not a Dick. Hoewever, This guy I knew used to always called me Rich. I told him to wait a few years, because I wasn't Rich yet. And since he still can't call me Rich, you can't call me Dick.
And sorry about your back pain. I know that pain. I had a herniated disk L4-L5. I had to have a microdiscectomy, and the pain still isn't completely gone. In fact, my right foot still has some numbness to it even a few years later. If anyone remembers me from Endercon, I WAS THE GUY IN A FREAKIN' WHEELCHAIR!
If you're here, posting, I'll assume the pain ain't so bad. Besides, maybe you could talk to Tresopax, and he could convince you that the pain really isn't "real" pain, but only imagined (that's a swipe at Treso, not you, in case you were wondering).
[ November 11, 2005, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Actually, Tres would say the qualia of the pain can only be experienced by Lisa, and that though she cannot prove it exists, it really does....
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
If science is mostly only open to the popular views, how do you explain all the major changes in science over the years?
I see this as evidence that science is self-correcting. It shows that if your science is good, it will eventually be recognized and built upon. Scientific progress isn't made by a movement. It is made by people doing science. Sure there is resistence to new ideas, especially where they seem to confict with what we think we know. It is a strength of science that not every anomaly, fad, or out-of-the-box idea is immediately added to the textbooks.
Getting ID into school textbooks isn't going to make it science. If there is any scientific value to it anywhere, it will be found by doing the science, not whining because the unsupported idea isn't adopted by the community at large and given time equal to that given much better supported theories.
[edit: I should take the "much better" out of that last sentence since it implies there is some scientific support for ID. (and no, weaknesses in established scientific theories do not constitute support of ID). ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If you're here, posting, I'll assume the pain ain't so bad. Besides, maybe you caould talk to Tresopax, and he could convince you that the pain really isn't "real" pain, but only imagined (that's a swipe at TRreso, not you, in case you were wondering).
I'm the one who WAS saying pain in your head is still very much "real" pain.
quote:No one is forbidding the discussion of alternate theories. They're complaining against the official stamp of approval on a non-scientific dogma intended to be presented in a science class with the sole purpose of preventing the real science from receiving proper consideration.
Labeling alternative theories as "non-scientific dogma" and not "real science" is a major means of forbidding the discussion of those theories in science.
If it truly is non-scientific, scientists still ought to be able to discuss why they think it is non-scientific, in the same way that scientists who think a theory has been disproven should be able to discuss what evidence there is to disprove it.
quote:Getting ID into school textbooks isn't going to make it science. If there is any scientific value to it anywhere, it will be found by doing the science, not whining because the unsupported idea isn't adopted by the community at large and given time equal to that given much better supported theories.
But the whining seems to be going both ways... is it any more effective to try and protest that ID is getting too much time, when the majority in a given state supports giving it that much time? If the science is bad, won't it just be rejected eventually, in the same way you suggested good science will rise to the top eventually?
Posted by Aerto (Member # 8810) on :
Be sure to read the letter linked to under Sternberg's picture.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:If it truly is non-scientific, scientists still ought to be able to discuss why they think it is non-scientific, in the same way that scientists who think a theory has been disproven should be able to discuss what evidence there is to disprove it.
It is and has. The problem is that failing the overwhelming reception of this grand idea in the scientific community, the political wing of this movement has taken their case to the scientifically illiterate who apparently lack even the basic training required to understand why this idea is not scientific. It has been repeatedly shown why it is not a scientific idea in this very thread and several times on this forum. When those posts are read only enough to make semantic quibbles, and question what "reality" is and other philosophical navel gazing rather than to understand what those posts are actually trying to say. Well, eventually people stop trying to explain, cut their losses and go about something more productive (like science).
quote:when the majority in a given state supports giving it that much time?
So majority opinion, informed or not, is what we want to decide our curriculum?
quote:If the science is bad, won't it just be rejected eventually, in the same way you suggested good science will rise to the top eventually?
EXACTLY. That's it. The science is bad and has been rejected. Now we're dealing with the fallout of all the Johnny-come-latelies who don't understand the issue but feel that somehow their religion has been slighted.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It is and has.
If it is and has been explained then that explanation should be offered in the classroom too.
quote:It has been repeatedly shown why it is not a scientific idea in this very thread and several times on this forum.
Not enough to convince me, and I'm hardly scientifically illiterate. I'm not scientist by any means, but I've studied enough science formally to know the ins and outs of the scientific method, and I've studied the philosophy of science in particular, which deals precisely with the question of what is or is not science. And I have, in fact, read all those posts completely. So don't try to write off the disagreement with that position as just scientific illiteracy. I also care very little for attempting to stick religion into public schools, so don't try to write it off as that either.
quote:So majority opinion, informed or not, is what we want to decide our curriculum?
Well, I'd rather leave it to the teacher to decide - but neither side seems to like that option. So, if the government has to make a decision for the teacher, then I'd say that ruling should be up to the majority - since we are a democracy.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Well, I'd rather leave it to the teacher to decide - but neither side seems to like that option. So, if the government has to make a decision for the teacher, then I'd say that ruling should be up to the majority - since we are a democracy.
For the record, no one has tried to make "no mention of ID" part of the curriculum. It is the IDers who have tried to force teachers to neuter any presentation of Evolution in the science class.
quote:Labeling alternative theories as "non-scientific dogma" and not "real science" is a major means of forbidding the discussion of those theories in science.
Can you express for me a scientific theory that I have labeled such? Can you express a scientific theory that anyone in the discussion has dismissed out of hand? Can you explain why it is real science and how it fits the scientific method?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:If it truly is non-scientific, scientists still ought to be able to discuss why they think it is non-scientific, in the same way that scientists who think a theory has been disproven should be able to discuss what evidence there is to disprove it.
Hello? Are you listening? That's exactly what we are doing! It's exactly what "scientists" are doing!
And, since we've done it, and since we've disproved the claim that ID might have even the slightest bit of scientific validity, it is therefore totally appropriate to keep it out of public schools.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
We don't teach Lamark's theoris of inheritance of acquired characteristics except as a footnote on a long-dead theory that didn't explain the facts that are explained by Evolution.
Since ID was discredited at about the same time, would it be okay if we just include a sentence on it right after dispensing with Lamarkianism?
Seriously, this idea is not new. It isn't novel. It has no more explanatory power now than it did in Darwin's time. It IS, HAS, and ALWAYS WILL be the wrong scientific theory of how life works.
People in the scientific community get so riled up about it because they KNOW it's been discredited and yet it keeps coming up and keeps getting credence from a gullible and uninformed public.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(Sorry, Karl just said this; and much better than I just did!)
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Tres:
quote:"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."
This line of reasoning has some squishy little flaws in it that I would like to try to clear up (without getting into the philosophical/ontological/semiotic arena of how we really know what we know).
There are two ways of looking at this question of 'believing evolution is a fact,' and they are closely related.
First, just to get it out of the way: we don't really know how this survey was done, what the context was, exactly what question was asked, etc. Pollsters know they can get substantially any set of responses on any issue that they want to. In this context, it's possible at least some of the respondents thought they were merely asserting 'what they thought was true' in the everyday sense of the question; in other words, 'I believe the theory is accurate.'
If you look at what we do know about the poll (that respondents were apparently given the choice between 'theory' and 'fact') and put it into the context of what I say above, it becomes clearer that the choice is at least somewhat spurious. Everybody should agree it is a theory, but if I accept the theory as substantially true, does that convert it to 'fact'? But if I am in the camp that accepts the theory as substantially true, what other answer do I provide to the survey?
Thus opening myself up to, "Haha, he said 'fact.' Doesn't he know it's 'just a theory'?"
I make the above distinctions because even if the difference between fact and theory were as crisp as you seem to think, the survey result does not necessarily imply that all those 46% respondents actually teach evolution as 'fact.'
But second, let's address that difference between fact and theory. There are several points to be made here.
When a theory (or, as you correctly note, a 'model') becomes supported by some critical mass of opinion/knowledge (much of it 'factual' in nature, according the stricter standard of 'experimental observations'), then at some point it becomes an accepted theory. (I'll come back to the idea of 'accepted theory.')
In reality, evolution is accepted as fact by science (substantially all scientists, particularly biologists). Furthermore (as a matter of historical interest) the true importance of Darwin's Origin is that it pulled together for the first time enough evidence to convince scientists of evolution -- prior to Darwin, evolution was truly 'just a theory.'
As Karl pointed out earlier in this thread, no research, discovery, or experiment in almost 150 years has disproven the general outline of Darwinian evolution. Many dramatic new ideas have been encountered (micro- vs. macroevolution, punctuated equilibrium, new discoveries in geology and paleontology, the entire field of modern genetics, etc.), and these have resulted in an elaborately adapted structure of evolutionary theory -- not in its destruction.
The everyday language (among scientists) tends to refer to 'evolutionary theory,' not 'theory of evolution.' Think of it as 'gravitational theory.' Nobody doubts that gravity exists -- but there are myriad theories on how it functions. Similarly, evolutionary theory is the body of work that attempts to explain the myriad mechanisms that interact to result in what we acknowledge to be evolution.
Back to the idea of 'accepted theory.' This is a very important notion in science. One has to be able to progress from knowns to knowns. At what point does something become 'known fact,' from a practical perspective? To illustrate, consider the story of Goldilocks (with me playing the role of the heroine).
I came home from a weekend away (I live alone) and immediately had that prickly feeling that someone had been in my place. Absolutely no evidence. But human nature being what it is, my next thought, automatically, was 'who could it have been?'
Let's pause here. What is wrong with what I just wrote? Here's a hint: what if I knew that my apartment was absolutely secure and impenetrable? The thought 'who could it have been?' would be odd in this scenario. I have proposed a first theory, 'someone has been in my place,' and how I approach investigation of this theory depends on whether I consider it even possible for someone to have gained access.
In actuality, my apartment is not Fort Knox. In fact, my teen daughter has a key. So I very quickly conceived a series of possible explanations in my mind, ranging upward in probability from ghosts, to aliens, to the police, to neighbors, to my daughter. So now I have a second theory, dependent on the first: 'my daughter was here (and boy is she in trouble).'
And as I progressed into my apartment I looked for pieces of evidence that would support the first theory (things moved or changed from the way I left them, etc.); and evaluated them against the second theory.
It wasn't long before I had enough evidence to 'prove' both theories (TV set tuned to channel my daughter likes, ITunes open to music my daughter likes, chewing gum in wastebasket, etc.), sufficient to make what was in effect a statement of fact, 'my daughter was here.'
So that's a little like evolution. Do we consider it possible for evolution to have occurred? Or do we rule it out entirely? As long as we do not rule it out entirely ("my apartment is Fort Knox") we are free to 'accept it as fact' (i.e. a working hypothesis), at least sufficient to pursue investigations into nature like "why is this plant dying out?" ("Why is that gum in my trash?")
Investigations into nature can be done ever more efficiently and smartly if (a) an underlying model is assumed, and (b) it is true. You wouldn't prepare for a desert trek by stocking up on scuba gear.
And when such investigations reveal elegant adaptations, genetic markers, relationships among species and environments, etc., and these fall in line (even at excruciatingly detailed levels of analysis) with everything else that has been supposed, they not only provide proof of the specific answer ("My daughter was here"), but further validate the underlying hypothesis (evolution) that guided the inquiry in the first place ("someone was here").
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
My husband made a good point about ID on his blog:
quote:This leads me to my real point. As you might know, the recent Election Day yielded victories and defeats for ID proponents. Clearly, considerable resources were spent opposing ID efforts. Given the state of many public schools in general, and the state of science education in particular, is this fight really the best use of our resources? Sure, now students won't be lectured on pseudoscience, but does that matter when they are not learning the fundamentals of physical and life science anyway?
That so many people make the fight against the teaching of ID theory a priority in education lobbying is telling. It says to me that people are more concerned with advancing secularism than with insuring that children get the best education possible. It's not that these goals are incompatible, of course. The fact of the matter is that the pursuit of one policy goal is going to carry opportunity costs.
Mrs.M, that knife cuts both ways. The time and money involved by both sides would be saved if there weren't a concerted effort to undermine the effectiveness of science education in the name of fighting perceived secularism. It must be remembered, as I pointed out above, that no one went to any school board to weed out mention of creationism. The impetus for this whole debate has been the ID agenda to ensure science can't be taught without a nod to mysticism first.
Why is it more telling that people invest time in the fight against the ID agenda than it is that there is an agenda to fight? Why is it that those concerned with students being lectured on pseudoscience are somehow sqandering resources and those who are proffering the pseudoscience are not? As to the quality of education, fighting the pseudoscience at least has the benefit of correcting one problem. Caving into it would just let the system go that much farther astray. But at least we'd save a few dollars, I guess. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:For the record, no one has tried to make "no mention of ID" part of the curriculum. It is the IDers who have tried to force teachers to neuter any presentation of Evolution in the science class.
Hmmm... I hadn't realized this. I was under the impression that opponents of ID also supported trying to keep ID out of the curriculum altogether. I agree that forcing teachers to teach ID is not good and that these laws that hope to do so are misguided, but I do think teachers should choose to teach it.
quote:Can you express for me a scientific theory that I have labeled such? Can you express a scientific theory that anyone in the discussion has dismissed out of hand? Can you explain why it is real science and how it fits the scientific method?
Well, as I said, ID is not a scientific theory exactly because (like the evolutionary origin of species) it is not completely testable. It is a historical theory rather than a scientific one. But like the larger model of evolution as an explanation for life, ID is a model that helps us explain scientific theories - and it seems that you are dismissing it out of hand. It fits in with science because it attempts to solve supposed problems with the more popular theory of evolution and give an explanation for what could be causing those problems. In this way, it is just like the traditional theory of evolution, which is not a scientific theory, but helps us understand how things may have come to be the way they are using scientific theories as a foundation.
quote:Seriously, this idea is not new. It isn't novel. It has no more explanatory power now than it did in Darwin's time. It IS, HAS, and ALWAYS WILL be the wrong scientific theory of how life works.
How can it be both unfalsifiable and scientifically proven wrong? These things are mutually exclusive.
quote:And as I progressed into my apartment I looked for pieces of evidence that would support the first theory (things moved or changed from the way I left them, etc.); and evaluated them against the second theory.
It wasn't long before I had enough evidence to 'prove' both theories (TV set tuned to channel my daughter likes, ITunes open to music my daughter likes, chewing gum in wastebasket, etc.), sufficient to make what was in effect a statement of fact, 'my daughter was here.
That isn't true though - none of that evidence could have made your theory into a fact. A fact is something that is known to be true. A theory is something that fits all the facts known now, but might not fit future facts. It may be that you became very confident in your theory that this was your daughter and casually began thinking of your theory as a fact, but that does not make it a fact.
Similarly, scientists may be confident enough in their theories that they start calling them facts - but they are, strictly speaking, wrong to do so. At no point can a scientific theory become a fact, because scientific theories have only been known to hold true up to this point, and could always turn out to be wrong with every new experiement. This is especially important when the scientific theory is contraversial, as evolution is for potentially contradicting equally accepted religious theories.
So, while evolution may be an 'accepted theory' as you say - scientists would be wrong to call it (or any other scientific theory) a fact, even if every single scientist in the world were to think it is so. If they all did, it would only serve to prove that scientists aren't necessarily accurate with their language about facts and theories.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Karl, Andrew clarified his position in response to a poster on his blog. He also elaborated on his position somewhat:
quote:Thanks for your comment. You're absolutely right on your first point; what I said about ID opponents can be said of its proponents. I should have said that in the post.
I also agree that there are some deals we wouldn't want to strike. I see it as a matter of weighing the costs and benefits of alternatives. Just because there are some costs we can't bear, it doesn't mean that we should always refuse to bear any cost. My hypothetical modest proposal carries a modest cost that I think we can bear.
Now, I would take issue with your statement that my hypothetical "presupposes that the unknown detrimental effects of teaching falsehoods to children are outweighed by reducing the cost to community of schooling them." The hypothetical isn't meant to posit the teaching of any falsehoods, strictly speaking, even from the point of view of the hardcore secular opponent of ID.
I should have been more specific about the "alleged problems" with evolutionary theory. ID proponents point to gaps in the fossil record as signs of weak evidentiary support for evolutionary theory. So the teacher would say that gaps in the fossil record are a basis for questioning evolutionary theory; as long as she doesn't say that scientists actually doubt the theory on this basis, she's not teaching any "falsehood."
Moreover, presenting the "central ideas of ID theory", such as irreducible complexity, doesn't amount to holding them out as factual. It would be like teaching the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System in an astronomy class to give a little historical flavor. In "explaining the theory", the teacher would not actually be claiming that the sun circles the Earth.
Now that I've clarified the term of the deal, I'd have to stand by my decision to take it.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Syswak, sorry for the delay. @#$@# work.
I do not say that all aethistic scientists (engineers, users of the scientific methodology) put a morality into science in general or evolution in particular.
Some people have.
Elitists, racists, and others have done so trying to prove that their race/group/nation is best because of its evolutionary supperiority. Economic and Social Darwinism are moral theories that are dangerous if not just useless.
Anti-Environmentalists who argue "We rule this world by right of might, so killing off some lesser species is not only correct, its naturally beautiful."
I have heard moral arguments based on bad science, or misinterpreted science for a long time.
Then again I knew a sad man who based his moral foundations on "The Pancake Principle." ("That is, you always ruin the first pancake you cook in the batch. Since I was first born, my parents ruined me.")
Most importantly of all, I have heard of, but luckilly never had, science teachers attack student of faith, calling their faith stupid, and the believers stupid, because faith is not scientific. They equate Science and logic AND ALL THE PRACTISIONERS THERE OF -- with high value and goodness. They equate faith and religion AND ALL THE PRACTISIONERS THERE OF -- with low value, no worth, and evil. To seek a higher power is to admit weakness, guile, or stupidity.
This attitude angers and frightens people of faith as much as the thought of ID as Science angers and frightens science users.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Moreover, presenting the "central ideas of ID theory", such as irreducible complexity, doesn't amount to holding them out as factual. It would be like teaching the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System in an astronomy class to give a little historical flavor. In "explaining the theory", the teacher would not actually be claiming that the sun circles the Earth.
Now that I've clarified the term of the deal, I'd have to stand by my decision to take it.
I like it.
I stated earlier that I'd be in favor of adding ID to the same segment as when they cover Lamarkianism. And it could be handled in the same manner -- as a discredited theory.
quote:How can it be both unfalsifiable and scientifically proven wrong? These things are mutually exclusive.
Well, there are portions of it that CAN be tested -- like the irreducible complexity of some feature supposedly unable to be achieved through evolutionary means.
And...as I've said repeatedly in this thread...whenever there has been time for testing such things, the irreducibly complex things have been found to be reducible and not so complex after all.
And, so far, the proponents of ID have not behaved like "real scientists" and acknowledged that the examples they proposed didn't work out. Oops.
There are other aspects of ID that are untestable and always will be -- like the central tenet that if we were ever to find something in a biological system that IS irreducibly complex that it would show without question that a creator must've made it.
If we are allowing exogenous sources for the creator, it would seem to me that we must also allow exogenous sources of raw genetic material. If so, then it is obviously possible that evolutionary forces on some far distant world created a bit of DNA that somehow got transported to Earth and pulled into the Earth's genome.
that would not require an intelligent creator. It would only require the intergalactic equivalent of a rat jumping ship on some long-ago earthly visit.
At best ID should be called "exogenous source" theory. But that's not very glamorous and it doesn't serve the secret purpose of shoehorning God into science classes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If it is and has been explained then that explanation should be offered in the classroom too.
And should we also explain why, let's say, phlogiston is wrong? Ether theory? The gravitational-collapse theory of where the Sun gets its heat?
On the subject of theistic evolution, I don't the phrase is intended to cover the kind of beliefs that dkw outlined; rather, it is intended to cover people who believe that their god actively guides (not just passively sets in motion) evolution. Presumably this involves a little nudge here and there to a cosmic ray, to make it produce just the right mutation. In other words, it's ID except for the 'agnostic about the identity of the designer' but.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, KoM, you're mistaken. Theistic evolution is a term coined to include those who believe God is somehow responsible for evolution, quite possibly even for the constancy of its working, but only in the same way they believe God makes everything in the universe happen.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, I suggest that my definition makes a lot more sense, for precisely the reasons dkw outlined.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The term is also bad for theology. Example: 600 years ago religious people believed the sun revolved around the earth. So did atheists. Everybody did, so far as I know. For some religious folks the idea was deeply entangled with their religious belief, and when our understanding of science improved, they were unable to untangle it. Hence the Galileo fiasco. I prefer to keep the descriptions of the world we learn from science – the provisional, this is the best model we have now, but it is constantly being improved knowledge – distinct from my beliefs about ultimate meaning and purpose.
As far as God subtly “nudging” evolution, I liked an analogy from Finding Darwin’s God – which is more impressive, a pool player who lines up a single shot and clears the table, or one who drops each ball in the pocket by hand? I believe that God created the universe and everything in it, time and space included. I don’t need to believe that there are gaps in evolutionary theory to leave space for God.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And should we also explain why, let's say, phlogiston is wrong? Ether theory? The gravitational-collapse theory of where the Sun gets its heat?
If they are contraversial then yes, definitely.
Chances are very high that at some point in their lives, if not at many points, they are going to be confronted with the debate over evolution. They might someday post on a Hatack thread on it, and if they aren't informed on the issue, they might have nothing to say if someone attacks him as "ignorant". They might even have to vote in consideration of the issues surrounding it, as the people in Kansas have. Hence, if we want them to be informed, we should be teaching this. Similarly, if they had a need to know about phlogiston, we should be teaching that too.
It should be noted that I was taught a whole number of disputed, rejected, or unpopular theories in science class. We spent a great deal of time on the geocentric model of the universe. And for most of my education, until college, I was taught that electrons are little spheres that revolve in concentric circles around an atom. For that matter, it even seems that you were taught phlogiston theory at some point - I know it came up in my college science classes at least one time. I have seen no reluctance in the education system to mention or even teach disputed theories in class if it were believed that such theories would help me become better informed in some way.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
If it's concluding, how come we now have a thread of over 300 comments on the subject?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
If greater than half the people in the US believed in Ether theory, you'd HAVE to address it in the classroom.
But I'm with Andrew in that too much energy is being spent on this debate and not enough on the glaring fact that huge numbers of science teachers are not teaching science (in particular, natural selection) at all...
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The facts in science are experimental observations. The theories are the models used to explain them.
This is a very contentious minority opinion in the philosophy of science: radical empiricism, as opposed to scientific realism which is the more common approach.
Basically, the realist agrees that theories are models used to explain experiments, but then claims that the entities appearing in the models should be recognized as facts.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Destineer, I think the distinction is a subtle one that not everyone in this discussion (let alone the broader "discussion" outside Hatrack) is going to understand or appreciate.
From a practical standpoint, IMO, scientific realism is a relaxed version of empiricism in that it makes room for something to be regarded as a "fact" even if the method of establishing that fact is NOT true experimentation (i.e., an actual controlled study could not be done).
An example might be something like the early stages of the universe. we don't necessarily have to assert the BIG BANG (which is a theory) as fact, but there is general agreement that the universe began in an infinitely more compact form than how it exists today. Whether that was a tight ball of matter or a densely packed grouping of matter spread across some appreciable distance is sort of up for debate... But that all signs point to expansion from a tiny space originally seems pretty much established.
A radical empiricist might not agree, but people who have to work in the field of cosmology are at least willing to grant this as a "given" starting point and use it in developing theories of other things.
Maybe what we have to point out is that sometimes scientists work from a set of assumptions and draw conclusions based on those assumptions. The conclusions have implications for theories of how things work. So, they then go look to see if things actually work the way their theory says they must. If they do, then its more likely that their theory is true, and that means that it's more likely that the original assumptions are true.
None of it is ever really proved by direct experimentation.
And I know of no field in which radical empiricism as defined above could possibly be a fruitful approach to scientific exploration. It's a great way to run an engineering project (where you SHOULD be sure first) but it doesn't make sense at the leading edge of scientific discovery.
IMHO.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This is a very contentious minority opinion in the philosophy of science: radical empiricism, as opposed to scientific realism which is the more common approach.
I care much less about what position is popular among philosophers than I do about what position is more logically valid. I tend to think the philosophical community bends over backwards too far to try and overjustify science, and I suspect this is because science has proven to be so successful over the past 300 years. It is no stretch to say that science has advanced knowledge far more than philosophy during that time period. 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.
It may be easier for me to accept this than some because I don't believe there is a great need for certainty in our beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, we know very little for sure, have always known very little for sure, and hence have no problem basing our decisions on uncertain, unproven beliefs. I see no reason why scientific research would be any less "fruitful" if scientists viewed theoretical entities as unproven assumptions rather than certain facts. It makes no difference in terms of what research is done and what conclusions can be drawn from the research. It only makes a difference insofar as how much we should be certain of our conclusions, and how open we are to the possibility that our models are mistaken.
It's simply recognizing the uncertainty that logically has to exist whether we admit it or not. Recognizing that will in no way damage research, except opening up the possibility of accepting alternate models - something I think science really should always be willing to do.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I see no reason why scientific research would be any less "fruitful" if scientists viewed theoretical entities as unproven assumptions rather than certain facts.
Isn't that exactly what most scientists do?
I thought we were debating what ignorant laymen do when they try to apply their own biased misunderstandings of science to things like high-school curricula.
Seriously, I know of no theory that is so dominant that it is viewed by all practitioners expert in that particular area as immutable fact. Not one. And certainly NOT Evolution.
Again, what ignorant people on the fringes of expertise in that area do with it is their own stupid fault.
Using poor treatment of ID by the field of Evolutionary Biology is, IMHO, not a valid counter example. Seriously, the issue has been dealt with to everyone's satisfaction already, repeatedly, and frankly, you can't blame people for getting just a little tired of it and wanting people who lack expertise in the area to simply shut up about it.
There comes a time when you just have to put your foot down in order to change the debate from something that's a complete waste of time and energy, and I'd say spending more than 100 years having to revisit the same debate because people just don't understand the field they think they have the right to comment on, and control education in is PLENTY.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There comes a time when you just have to put your foot down in order to change the debate from something that's a complete waste of time and energy, and I'd say spending more than 100 years having to revisit the same debate because people just don't understand the field they think they have the right to comment on, and control education in is PLENTY.
But why is this such a big waste of time? Isn't teaching scientific method important? Isn't discussing the difference between scientific theories and non-scientific theories important? Aren't the remaining challengers facing evolutionary theory important? Isn't the relationship between major religions and science important? A discussion of ID in school classrooms teaches all of these topics, in addition to the ID question itself.
When I was in science classes, plenty of time was wasted. We had school mandated science projects that mainly involved killing plants, making a poster, and spending weeks doing presentations on them. We spent large amounts of classtime watching videos that most students paid little attention to. We studied plenty of details that any non-scientist will probably never hear about again the rest of their life. We filled out lab packets that often took a lot of time and taught nothing. There was no shortage of wasting time. However, challenging students to question and compare prominent scientific and/or religious beliefs does not fit in that category. The ability to integrate beliefs across disciplines, question the theories written in their textbooks, and interpret scientific data for themselves is one of the MOST useful things we can spend time teaching them.
You claim that "ignorant laymen" don't understand the difference between science and religious theories. If so, why do you think this is? I'd wager it is because they were not taught it. If you don't teach students how to judge scientific beliefs for themselves, and if you don't teach them how to integrate the things science says with the things their religion may say, you should not be surprised when they fail to understand how to do so as adults. If you never mention ID in schools, and never discuss how it might refute or be refuted by other ideas from evolution theory, then you should not be surprised when they fail to see what scientists consider to be so obviously wrong with it. If you are religious and you have never heard about ID before, but then some politician starts talking about it, how hard is going to be to convince you to buy it? I'd bet not very hard at all. If you believe something is demonstrably wrong and you wish people to understand why it is wrong, the solution is not to avoid wasting time discussing it - the solution is to discuss it.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso; Lisa;
What would you say to ID being lumped in with Phlogiston, Geocentric universe, Paluxy dinousaur, etc., etc., as yet another failed and discredited theory, and we let it go at that? Would that be OK with you guys?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:But why is this such a big waste of time? Isn't teaching scientific method important? Isn't discussing the difference between scientific theories and non-scientific theories important? Aren't the remaining challengers facing evolutionary theory important? Isn't the relationship between major religions and science important? A discussion of ID in school classrooms teaches all of these topics, in addition to the ID question itself.
I'm on record at least twice on this page saying I'd be in favor of teaching it as a counter-example -- a theory that is no longer considered tenable. And why.
Since that hasn't been proposed by the people who want ID in the classroom, generally, but rather they want it taught as if it had some explanatory value in and of itself, I'm against it.
If we could include ID theory in biology class as you suggest in your last paragraph, I would be inclined to donate money to help ensure that it happened.
Are you seriously saying that this is what the debate in Kansas and Pennsylvania was about -- the decision to put ID into biology class as a way to instruct people on how to be skeptical of ignorance in scientific discussions? If so, this is the first I've heard of it -- other than, of course the 2 times I've already said as much on this page, and the post by Mrs M.
If we could guarantee that ID would be treated the way Lamarkianism is treated, and as it so rightly should be, then let's go! Enough time has been wasted debating it.
But first show me the school board or ballot documents from KS and PA that outline this as the plan.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Lisa, are you still there? I am finding this discussion moderately interesting, it would be a pity to end it here.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KoM, it's Saturday and Lisa is an orthodox Jew. Maybe she'll back on later tonight.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
No she's not, Bob. She specifically told me she was reformed. Unless she was misrepresenting herself to me.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
To quote:
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by ssywak: And StarLisa, something tells me you're not "reformed," yourself. You're pushing some pretty fundamentalist concepts there yourself. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny boy. You obviously haven't seen the fights I've gotten into on this forum defending the complete separation between government and religion. Do a search, maybe.
And I most certainly am reformed. I grew up non-observant, and during college I reformed. Now I'm observant.
...now why would she misrepresent herself like that? She doesn't say "Orthodox," she says "Observant" and "Reformed." She also bridled at the "fundamentalist" label. Me thinks the lady doth protesteth too much.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think she was word-playing with you.
And being evasive.
At any rate, she does observe the prohibition against any sort of work on the Sabbath.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
She is Orthodox. She's using "reformed" not as a denominational description but according to its "I was wrong but now I am on the right track" definition.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, of course. *Slaps forehead* Duh.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
But she was being evasive.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe she was protesting your use of language. She's said more than once that she doesn't recognize the validity of different sects of Judaism, the only distinction is whether you're observant or not.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Sorry, dkw, but having been "born" a Jew, I'd say that her POV is a lot of nonsense. It sounds like what someone from an extreme sect would say.
IMHO
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm on record at least twice on this page saying I'd be in favor of teaching it as a counter-example -- a theory that is no longer considered tenable.
Except it IS still considered tenable by many - and science has yet to provide evidence proving it wrong. In fact, if it is as unscientific as many here have claimed, it would be impossible to find evidence against it. And even that is very much in question, because the limits and boundries of science are a question of logic open to any thinking person, not a question where people should defer to whatever the majority of scientists claim.
When you start teaching only one side of an existing contraversy, you have crossed the line from teaching into indoctrinating. That is not how schools should teach. And seriously, if you do attempt to indoctrinate students, you are simply asking for a protest from parents, especially when it could easily be taken as declaring their religion false.
Furthermore, why would it even be necessary to teach it in that way? If ID is indeed as obviously untenable as you claim it is, this should be clear to students even when taught neutrally and fairly. What exactly is it that we are afraid of, that we would want to keep the opposite side of the argument from those students? Teaching it as a contraversy with arguments to be weighed for each side should make both sides happy - because both sides believe their side will be proven correct, if the evidence is fairly laid out on the table.
quote:Are you seriously saying that this is what the debate in Kansas and Pennsylvania was about -- the decision to put ID into biology class as a way to instruct people on how to be skeptical of ignorance in scientific discussions?
No. Supporters of ID think they are right, and thus think that students will realize how right they are if allowed to see that possibility.
But if you think ID is clearly wrong, then it doesn't matter why they are trying to put the discussion in schools. If it is so clearly wrong then discussing it will only show that it is wrong. That is, unless teachers are being told to lie to students, and I haven't heard any proposals requiring that. Telling them that Evolution is a theory and that some scientists disagree with it for X, Y, and Z reasons is no lie. If X, Y, and Z are horrible reasons, then why should we be afraid people will be convinced by it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Except it IS still considered tenable by many - and science has yet to provide evidence proving it wrong.
Tres, you aren't listening. That's not like you.
The number of "people" who think it is tenable doesn't matter. The number of biologists working at an expert level in the field who think it is tenable -- that's the number we might want to even consider. People coming at from outside that area of expertise (chemists, for example) simply don't have the knowledge in the field to render a judgement. That they do so, and screw up, whether in small numbers or large, matters very little, except that they are noisy and get attention.
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.
I don't buy into the false logic that because the rest of ID hasn't been "proven" false, it MUST therefore be taken to be viable.
And, finally, you are being inconsistent. Your n-1 post stated that we could teach ID as a failed theory. Now you want it taken as a viable theory.
If you are going to argue both sides of the issue, you don't need the rest of us here.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And, finally, you are being inconsistent. Your n-1 post stated that we could teach ID as a failed theory. Now you want it taken as a viable theory.
No, I said we should teach ID, period. I said nothing about teaching it specifically as a viable or as a failed theory. There is no need to slant the truth in either way. If you believe it is obviously failed, then you should be confident that discussing the facts will end up teaching students how obviously failed it is. And if you believe it is clearly viable, then you should be confident that discussing the facts will end up showing students just how viable it is.
quote:The number of "people" who think it is tenable doesn't matter. The number of biologists working at an expert level in the field who think it is tenable -- that's the number we might want to even consider.
But who is an expert and who is not? There are most definitely practicing biologists who support ID. Ask supporters of ID and they will tell you that these proponents of ID understand the issue better than all those who think it is refuted. They will suggest most biologists have been indoctrinated in a way that biases them against the theory. Opponents of ID, on the other hand, will try to label them as "extreme" and reject their expertise simply on the grounds that no real scientist would support ID. They will suggest that ID supporters are merely being influenced by religion. Either could be right - after all, most great ideas originated with a minority of one expert. Ultimately, in a democracy, the regular people will have to decide who is to be trusted as an expert and who should not be. Even if every single one of the people that you consider experts rejects a theory, it is still false to say the issue is decided if a vast number of average Joes doesn't believe in the expertise of those people.
Frankly, I'm fine with teaching that most scientists reject ID. This is true, and an important fact. But that is different from teaching that ID is agreed to be untenable. The latter fails to allow for the possibility that certain scientists do find it tenable, and that many people think those scientists are more informed than their more numerous peers.
Finally, it should also be added that if the question is whether or not ID is a scientific theory - that question is not really under the expertise of biologists. That would be a question for philosophy of science.
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.
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: No, I said we should teach ID, period.
But there's nothing to teach, Tres. ID doesn't have any principles. You couldn't devote even half of a class to it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Sorry, Treso, but you are blowing smoke.
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.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
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.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote: Bob said:
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
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.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
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.
[ November 13, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak:
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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*.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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"?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Lisa,
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.
BTW, "Church of Darwinism and theophobes"???
Dick.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh. Is your god testable? If not, out of science class he goes. If he is, then he's not much of a god.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
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?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" 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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And evolutionary closeness is routinely (and successfully) used to predict the location of genes in related species.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I'm also waiting for how they define "Intelligent Design" as science.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
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.
[ November 13, 2005, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dest,
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?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yes yes, it seems like a bad idea to me too.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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."
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Wait, I shouldn't have been so flippant.
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?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
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?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
"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!"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
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.
Yes, Tresopax, there really is a rule against it. A good rule, and one that you mess with at your peril.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: When part of a proposed scientific model, God would belong in science class.
Here's where I'm with King of Men and the other theophobes here. God can't be part of a proposed scientific model. Some "exogenous influence" could be, but identifying it as God crosses the line.
And yeah, KoM, I completely understand that when there are people like Tresopax who are trying to sneak religion into schools by using ID as a tool, fighting them is a good thing, that still has no bearing on the validity, or lack thereof, of ID.
John Wayne Gacy used to do clown shows for little kids. But not all people who do clown shoes for little kids are serial killers. There's a reason ad hominem is a classic fallacy.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And again, the creator in ID does not have to be God. That's just a prime possibility of who it could be.
That's a claim you're entitled to argue, but not in a science class. Hell, not in any kind of government run anything.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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."
The experiments have been done, Lisa. As I actually said in my post, if you had continued reading instead of just cutting the first part of my post.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I believe that link I gave on speciation had an example or two of it being done.
Its done all the freakin' time with microorganisms, but I do believe there've been several cases with fairly decent sized creatures.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: No, I simply think non-scientific theories should be discussed in science classes if they are related to science.
<shudder> You know what? I'm just going to sit back and watch KoM and the rest rip you up, down and sideways.
What on Earth could you possibly mean by "related to science"?
No, you know what? Don't answer that. Everything in the world can be viewed as "related to science" in some way or another. You really are just trying to find a backdoor for breaking the barrier between government and religion.
You need to understand something, Tresopax. I've said this before, but it obviously needs repeating.
There used to be a thing called trial by combat. The idea was, you'd have advocates of two different positions fight. Whoever won clearly had God and the right on his side. Whoever lost clearly didn't.
Of course, we don't think much of that any more, because we know full well that wrong can win against right, at least in the short term. It's like deciding who should wield supreme executive power by seeing who gets a sword thrown at him by some watery tart.
That's basically what crusades and jihads are. Trial by combat on a massive scale. If I can kill you or forceably convert you more than you can do to me, you win. Your religion wins.
And the ballot box is simply a modern day version of trial by combat. Only instead of winning a battle, you just have to convince more people to vote for you, using bribery or rhetoric or intimidation or outright lies. Whatever works. It's less violent, but no less coercive.
So we have a thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It does the novel job of placing religion outside of the purview of the government. Because when you discuss Christianity (for example) in a government run or funded institution, you're explicitly establishing Christianity as having special standing that Wicca and Islam and worship of Ghu the Terrible don't share.
The idea of the First Amendment is the create a nation where everyone can be safe when it comes to religion. You can teach whatever you want within your religion, but you have to keep it out of the body politic. Because there is no common ground that we can all agree on when it comes to religion. And the only way to avoid crusades and jihads is to refuse to allow the issue out of the realm of individuals and private groups.
So no, Tresopax, non-scientific beliefs (God only knows what you meant by "non-scientific theories", which seems completely oxymoronic to me) should not be discussed in science classes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would like to correct a couple of things:
1) panspermia is subsumed under "Exogenous Influences" theory. It offers one possible mechanism for an exogenous influence. As does ID for that matter.
2) I'm willing to go with a "weak version" of irreducible complexity because, if you read ID theory, they are in fact using this weaker version that I've outlined here, and because it is the only one that I believe generates testable hypotheses (again assuming we can define the word "complex."
Seriously, there is simple no reason to debated ID anymore. If Exogenous Influence theory (which is testable) turns out to be false, then ID theory simply can't be true. (At least ID theory as it is currently formulated in order to be a science).
I take this as completely separate (along with what fugu has so ably posted) from a belief that God was involved in all of it.
I'm merely talking about the generalized version of a theory that proposes some exogenous influence on the genetic makeup and history of present day life on earth.
<pulls up wagon> <orders band to get up there and start playing>
All aboard!!!!
Plenty of seats available.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've read plenty of ID literature, I never see your weaker version; I always see it asserted that the complexity is such that it could not arise without external manipulation, which is much stronger than your statement.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Seriously, though, is there a pro-ID person here (and I'm talking "real" ID as proposed by the people who are trying to turn it into a science, not the various personal versions of ID that have been described in various posts in this thread) who could differentiate ID from EI theory for me? What, short of talking to God, would convince you logically that an experimental result was actually DUE TO an Intelligent Designer versus simply (and only) being able to conclude (at most) that the bits of DNA in question didn't originate on Earth?
The reason I ask is that (as ssywak pointed out) there's at least one version of EI that would explain the entire phenomenon with inter-planetary movement of gene-baring materials, and no intelligence whatsoever.
Here's the kicker. Without knowing the selection pressures and fossil record on EVERY chunk of rock large enough to hold a virus, EVERYWHERE in the universe, there's no possible way to conclude that a "CREATOR" did whatever we see in the genetic makeup of modern earth animals -- assuming we found something that Evolution really could not eventually explain. The problem is...there could be a very nice evolutionary sequence leading from point A to point ZZ somewhere else in the universe and that product was somehow transported here. It wouldn't require intelligence then either. And evolution might still be the right explanation, as long as you look at all systems, and not just Earth's.
Ultimately, ID is simply subsumed under a class of theories that says "hey, look! It's not from around here."
From any perspective OTHER THAN one of faith-based reasoning, there simply isn't a way to conclude that God actively DID any of it.
There is, however, a way to falsify (i.e., test and ultimately reject) a whole class of theories subsumed under EI. Eventually...(and I'm willing to wait a good long while holding the final death of EI in abeyance for at least another 100 years or so) if we never find a form, function, phenotype or genotype that could NOT have arisen from known evolutionary mechanims, the EI theory could just be a footnote.
Until then, I suggest that it could very well be taught as a good thought-exercise. "How might we account for what we see in the world around us?" Well...evolutionary theory does a pretty darn good job, except for a few questions we have. There's the possibility that we might have to modify it to accept some version of EI in the cases that simply defy evolutionary explanations. So, we leave it out there provisionally as a "possibility that has not yet been tested."
Just like relativity was back in its early days.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
fugu
quote:I've read plenty of ID literature, I never see your weaker version; I always see it asserted that the complexity is such that it could not arise without external manipulation, which is much stronger than your statement.
Yes, I know. I'm saying that they are wrong and obviously so. They can't possibly know that there weren't selection pressures ELSEWHERE that would account for what they see. Why? Because their only evidence is "Hey, it's complex, AND when I examine the fossil record and/or related species, I don't see any evidence for intermediate forms...or...the intermediate forms would not be viable." What's left unstated is the obvious caveat "here on Earth."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was disagreeing with this
quote: if you read ID theory, they are in fact using this weaker version that I've outlined here
I have never seen that to be the case.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
In short, I'm saying that logically there is NO possibility of an actual ID theory as it is currently described. It can't go any farther than saying "we don't know how it got here, but it WASN'T evolution."
And to do that, it simply HAS to meet the criteria I've listed for EI.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I was disagreeing with this
quote: if you read ID theory, they are in fact using this weaker version that I've outlined here
I have never seen that to be the case.
Well, they'd never admit it, but that's just in their discussion section. Read their actual criteria and what they say the FACTS are, and it's this broader version. It is only in their interpretation of the level of complexity that they assert it MUST be because an intelligent designer did it.
I'm saying look at how they describe their evidence and, I think, you'll agree that they are using the criteria that are listed for EI.
Again, that's all it could ever be, not proof of intelligence, just that the source is other-than evolution.
What they say they THINK is responsible is just conjecture.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Again, I was proposing EI as the alternative that really WOULD be a "scientific theory."
ID as currently defined is not. And one of the reasons it is not is that it requires that the unexplained be ascribed to an intelligence rather than to an unknown external force. Sans evidence that there actually WAS action by a designer, the real scientific theory simply must remain silent on that point. Or at least open to alternative explanations.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
"...just that the source is other-than evolution"
Or, perhaps, "other than local evolution."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: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.
Yeppers, right you are. Here, from that TalkOrigins link you laughed at :
quote:In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.
They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, that criteria is certainly the best they could ever aspire to in evaluating evidence, simply because the stronger version is provably unscientific; they don't really make it to the weak version, either, but I could see a theory of it (though it would be fantastically hard to come up with even one example, because afaik there are no large gaps in the species record, only relatively small ones).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hmm, I wonder if Kim Stanley Robinson was aware of those papers when he wrote "Years of Rice and Salt?"
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
KoM,
I met those scientists. They were a bunch of morons. While they went and spent all their time on that experiment, they left their investments earning 2.375%, when the market was, in general, returning 5 to 7%. So much for any discussions of "Intelligent Design."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You mean, the designer of the scientists couldn't have been very bright, to come up with critters that make blunder like that? Or the fruit flies were not intelligently designed, since their designers weren't very bright?
Aside from that, have you actually met Rice and Salt? I met t'Hooft once.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:"...just that the source is other-than evolution"
Or, perhaps, "other than local evolution."
Oops...YES! That's exactly what I meant to say.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Which ones? Who decides?
The ones that are contraversial and accepted by a significant number of Americans. The teacher should decide which these are, ideally.
quote:You really are just trying to find a backdoor for breaking the barrier between government and religion.
You shouldn't assume motivations for people. I'd be one of the last ones to favor weakening the First Amendment or teaching a given religion as truth in public schools. If you'd read my posts on other threads over the past five years, you'll find that among the groups I find most dangerous in this country are the religious fundamentalists who intend to base their government on religious dogma.
But separating church and state in no way implies you can't mention God in schools. God, as an idea influencing history, as an element in a scientific model, as a character in a literary work, etc. is just as worthy of study as anything else. These things are not "church" or "religion". The mixing of church and state that we are afraid of is the establishment of an official religion, that might be forced upon people - not the use of religious-related ideas in a non-religious context. Jesus, the Buddha, Confucious, and so on are all religious figures - and yet they also appear in history books in a non-religious context. They happen to be important historical figure too. There is nothing wrong with discussing them in this context. And similarly, discussing God in the non-religious context of science as a scientific entity is perfectly legitimate as well.
ID supporters should not pretend that their position has nothing to do with God. The Emperor has no clothes. I understand that they are trying to defend against the knee-jerk reaction that leads people to conclude anything religious-sounding can't belong anywhere near science, but that just makes them look deceptive. They should come clean that God is a prime candidate for the role of creator in their theory, and make the argument that they are really thinking - that the only way to account for the evolution of life as it occurred would be something much like God controlling it. There is nothing wrong with putting such a claim in science class if it can be treated in the way scientific theories are, and not used and promoted to favor certain religions. Some people will freak out about it simply because it does have "God" in it, but I think just changing the name of God to Intelligent Designer is just a semantic trick, like using a technical term instead of a commonly used one just to sound less unscientific. ID is as scientific as it's tenets justify it being - how it sounds should not matter.
And yes, the Intelligent Designer could be something other than God, but come on... an intelligence that has the power and will to guide evolution over billions of years? Any reasonable person should be able to figure out how this relates to the concept of God.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
No, I never really met them. I just couldn't resist the joke.
Treso,
So you are opposed to breaking down the first ammendment, you like to keep the separation of church and state, but you would like religious dogma taught in public schools as if it were scientifically based.
quote:...discussing God in the non-religious context of science as a scientific entity is perfectly legitimate as well
Again, I refer to tin-foil hats.
Hmm...wait a tick...
quote:And yes, the Intelligent Designer could be something other than God, but come on... an intelligence that has the power and will to guide evolution over billions of years? Any reasonable person should be able to figure out how this relates to the concept of God.
Treso, if I didn't know that you already existed*, I'd say that you were just a straw-man that I put up here...in other words, fellas, I think that Tresopax may secretly be on our side!
*of course, according to Treso's own statements, it may simply be the case that Treso exists only in my own mind, anyhow; as do the rest of you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:but you would like religious dogma taught in public schools as if it were scientifically based
You know I will point out that this is not true, so why say it? Debating the merits of a God-related model proposed by a small minority of scientists and accepted by a significant segment of the public as an explanation for how evolutionary scientific evidence led to life as we know it in no way implies teaching religious dogma.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: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.
Whatever, man. The vast majority of people on the street might assume, for instance, that any theorem of arithmetic is provable in arithmetic. That doesn't mean alternatives to Godel's Theorem should be taught in logic classes. Consensus doesn't make knowledge, or justification either.
I consider myself a populist and a believer in democracy, but this is ridiculous. There are areas of knowledge that are specialized, and the specialists should be permitted (nay, obligated) to educate the public, not the other way around.
As for your claim that evolution, or facts about the age of the universe, are not in the purvey of science, I can only shake my head. I have seen with my own eyes excellent evidence that the universe is 10-15 billion years old. Cosmology is science. Your opinion that every scientific hypothesis must be strictly falsifiable is outmoded. That's Popper and Carnap, it's sixty-year-old philosophy of science.
There is no sharp distinction to be drawn between theoretical truths and experimentally testable ones. All we can do is form the best models of the world that we can, on the basis of both experiment and explanatory power. Read your Quine.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
There was a poll taken many years ago that was reported in either the NY Times or Scientific American. People were asked about some basic laws of physics, such as centripetal force, balistic trajectories, etc.
Here's what the poll determined: a majority of people believed the following:
1) When you swing a weight on a string around over your head, and then suddenly release the string, the weight flies off in a shallow horizontal arc.
2) When you throw an object straight out, it moves out in a straight line; when it looses enough "oomph" (or whatever it is that's keeping it up), it drops straight down.
So, according to Tresopax' law, we need to teach the physics controversy, as well.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
And Treso, you have still failed to provide any scientific support for the ID concept you continue to hawk as having some scientific merit. Or have you given up on that, and taken to simply relying on popular opinion for what is correct?
If you've got a few scientists that believe in ID, then they must, of course, have some real science to back it up. Let's hear it! Because if not, then please just knock it off.
Heck, I knew a guy who ran the Grumman robotics lab who believed fervently in a 10,000 year old earth--he even had books to prove it! Do we teach that, too?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Sigh. Is your god testable? If not, out of science class he goes. If he is, then he's not much of a god.
I disagree with the second part of this. A "god" that is completely un-testable is also unknowable. I submit that a knowable god is de-facto superior to an unknowable one.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'd like to point out that Bob's EI even if proven true would not necessarily change the theory of evolution. To my knowledge, Evolutionary Theory does not hinge on any claim that life sprang up on Earth out of nothing. In other words, if future observations show conclusively that life on Earth was seeded from elsewhere, that fact could still be assimilated into Evolutionary Theory, even as we now understand it.
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
How is an untestable God also unknowable? Doesn't faith precede miracles? Are you saying that science should be able to prove a true god?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Cosmology is science. Your opinion that every scientific hypothesis must be strictly falsifiable is outmoded. That's Popper and Carnap, it's sixty-year-old philosophy of science.
There is no sharp distinction to be drawn between theoretical truths and experimentally testable ones. All we can do is form the best models of the world that we can, on the basis of both experiment and explanatory power.
That opens the door to ID being a science, though. It is the experimentally unfalsifiable nature of ID that is the reason people can call it unscientific.
quote:There are areas of knowledge that are specialized, and the specialists should be permitted (nay, obligated) to educate the public, not the other way around.
But again, when specialists disagree, which specialist do you accept as the most expert specialist? If you think one particular maverick specialist knows better than all the others, you are going to accept him. The public inevitably has to choose the experts that will educate the public. And when the public disagrees on which experts to trust, I think it's better to present BOTH viewpoints rather than just whatever viewpoint the majority of the public favors. That way the arguments are determining what students accept, rather than just forcing upon them whatever the majority of the uninformed public thinks they should accept (whether that be Evolution or ID).
quote:So, according to Tresopax' law, we need to teach the physics controversy, as well.
There is a major difference between believing something because you haven't studied the dominant theory and proposing an alternative to the dominant theory. I don't understand the Franco-Prussian War that well, but that doesn't mean that when confronted with a historian's claim about it, I'm going to suggest I know better than him. This is quite different from the situation where I think I DO understand the Franco-Prussian War, and simply find the historian's claim not believable given things I believe I know.
ID supporters aren't claiming "I don't really understand this topic, so I'm just guessing ID is right" in the way they would if questioned about physics principles they don't get. They are under the impression that they believe in ID because they know better than science in general, and have been convinced by the experts they think have presented the stronger case.
However, if many people believed heavy objects inherently fall faster than light objects, rejected physicist claims and experiments to the contrary, and insisted not just that they believe differently but that they have a good rason to believe differently, then there WOULD be a contraversy. In such a situation, we WOULD want to teach that as a contraversy - although I would wager to say that when both arguments were presented, almost everyone would be convinced by the physicist's experiments. And if ID is as blatantly wrong as so many claim it to be, you should have no fear that people won't realize that fact just as readily if presented with that contraversy.
quote:And Treso, you have still failed to provide any scientific support for the ID concept you continue to hawk as having some scientific merit.
I don't know the evidence presented by ID theorists (sadly, my school took your policy and failed to teach me anything about it.) I don't even believe in ID. However, I do know that if you go read articles by the scientists promoting ID, you can find their arguments fairly readily. My argument does not rest on ID being a strong argument - it just rests on the observations that there IS a contraversy surrounding it, many people DO believe it is a strong argument, and it does relate to science in the same way evolutionary theory does. I could think it was the dumbest argument in the world, and it would still merit classtime. Please note that I never said ID had scientific merit - I just said it belongs in science class, in part because many people do believe it has scientific merit.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There are other standards for telling science from pseudoscience besides complete falsifiability. In a 1981 court case regarding creation science, the following criteria were used:
(1) Explanation of existing results in terms of exceptionless natural laws.
(2) Ability to predict further results.
(3) Experimental testability to some extent.
(4) Tentativeness of central assumptions.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sartorius: How is an untestable God also unknowable? Doesn't faith precede miracles? Are you saying that science should be able to prove a true god?
Short answer: Yes, science should be able to prove a true God.
Long answer: A god who really exists should be testable in some way. There must be some method of detecting his existence and determining the nature of that existence. If one can neither detect the existence of God in any way, nor determine the nature of that existence in any way how would one happen to come upon any knowledge at all in relation to that "god". This is especially true if you believe that such a "god" has such things as a "plan" for us, and that he "requires" certain things of us.
The tools we use for detecting things are observation and deduction, whether of the thing itself, or of the effects that thing has in our world. Everything we know we learn either from observation and deduction or from the testimonies of those who have observed and deduced something. If you ask anyone why they believe God exists, at some point it will come down to observation and deduction, or at least faith in the observation and deduction of others. The alternative is that God is completely non-observable neither directly nor indirectly.
Science is an attempt to know the world through precise observation and deduction. While individual scientist and branches of science tend to compartmentalize and focus on relatively narrow fields of observation, the idea is that all the parts will fit. Science neither excludes God, nor uses the word as a label for all the "unknown". However, if God exists in any way either within our observable universe or if he has any effect in our observable universe, science ought to be able to detect Him, at least in theory, given sufficiently thorough observation of the supposed phenomenon. The alternative is a God who neither exists in this universe nor interacts in this universe in any observable way. I submit that such a concept of God is supremely useless. Such a God is 100 percent theoretical and is the very definition of agnosticism.
quote:Doesn't faith precede miracles?
Does it? What does that sentence mean to you in the context of the universe in which we live? Is a miracle a divine suspension of natural law? Or is it a label we give things that we simply can't explain? One thing the phrase could mean is that if you are willing to chalk the unexplained up to God (faith), then those things will remain unexplainable (miracles). This, of course is a tautology. What I think most people mean by the phrase is that if your belief motivates you to action (faith) then you will see results you previously might not have believed possible (miracles). This, I myself, believe is true, but has no bearing on the discussion at hand. There are, doubtless, other interpretations of the phrase. If you care to submit one, I'll tell you how it fits into what I've written here.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I should add "Law 6" to my list:
When pressured, deny that you really supported your original position at all.
Great work, Treso. So glad we wasted our time.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Guys, are we done here? This horse was dead 100 years ago.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:(1) Explanation of existing results in terms of exceptionless natural laws. (2) Ability to predict further results. (3) Experimental testability to some extent. (4) Tentativeness of central assumptions.
I don't think the evolution model of the development of life passes these any better than ID though. They both have exceptions yet to be explained, they both are not experimentally testable but incorporate theories that are testable, and they both offer similar but slightly differing predictions about future results. I'm not sure what "tentativeness of central assumptions" means though.
quote:Guys, are we done here? This horse was dead 100 years ago.
You say this, but some state school boards seem to disagree, and are coding their position into policy....
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't think the evolution model of the development of life passes these any better than ID though"
You're wrong, however.
1) Evolution can explain current life on earth. Do we have each step in the process? No, but then, thats not what point one says needs to be done. Holes are not exceptions, and there is no life on earth that has been demonstrated to be an exception to the laws of natural selection. ID, on the other hand, can't posit any natural laws that explain life on earth.
2) Evolution commonly does predict future results, and experiments have been done in the lab the results of which are predicted by evolution. EXACT results? No. General results? Yes. ID makes no predictions, on the other hand.
3) Evolution IS experimentally testable. Numerous experiments have been done testing evolution. It is, in fact, one of the most tested scientific theories out there. ID, on the other hand, has no scientific evidence backing it that seperates it from evolution.
4) This means that the subject under question could be demonstrated to be wrong. ID cannot be falsified, thus, it cannot be demonstrated to be wrong. Evolution can, and I offered up several examples eariler in the thread.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:"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.)
(BTW, I think you mean heliocentric model of the solar system.)
I can't for the life of me guess what you mean that no experiments can be done to back up 'countless' scientific theories (including the ones you list). Even if you mean 'classroom experiments' -- even if you mean 'classroom experiments accessible to a typical high school' -- this is just wrong.
Maybe science education in this country is completely missing the boat. Maybe the curriculum should start with "The earth is flat, night is the cloak of heaven, the sun is the chariot of Ra, the stars are a map of our personalities riding on a massive clockwork machine, and flood, famine, and disease are punishments for bad behavior"; and proceed, experiment by experiment, replicating the work of the ages, to show that the earth is (almost) a sphere, that it orbits the sun (in a slightly irregular ellipse), that the stars are like our sun, and comprise furnaces of nuclear interaction, that the cosmos is of such a size and age, that this famine is due to that pest, that this flood is due to that climatic shift, that this disease is due to that virus, etc., etc.
Something like the above could fill a 2-3 year science curriculum. Instead of the current system (of compressing the above into textbooks rather than more costly and time-consuming labs, permitting the curriculum to reach so much farther and deeper into what is known), where 3% of the pupils are prepared for careers in premed, biochem, etc., and 97% apparently doodle and doze and wake up in Hatrack one day claiming that science can experimentally prove practically nothing, this approach promises to produce graduates 100% of whom would understand what science is about and how it works; unfortunately, none of these would be ready for higher ed and careers as doctors, chemists, biologists, etc.
Maybe you disagree that education should include summations of knowledge and it should be possible for scholarship to proceed from knowns to knowns without always having to re-prove something already proven.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Lisa wrote:
quote:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by ssywak:
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.
Lisa, I think Steve's error was not dishonesty, but rather jumping to the conclusion that Tres's "religion" is a God-based philosophy, as opposed to an Intelligent-Creator-based philosophy.
You obviously know differently.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Random comments:
- I really like Bob's EI proposal. As presented, it is just this side of a satirical strawman, while (to me) remaining intellectually and scientifically sound.
- I'm not usually a spelling/grammar nazi (and I am deliberately keeping this out of an 'argument' post) -- but it's 'controversial,' not 'contraversial.' OK, I feel better Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
Yeah, I get all my science from right-wing fundamentalist school boards.
But isn't this the whole reason we're having this debate? To understand why a group of right-wing fundamentalists would be pushing a non-scientific concept, steeped in religious dogma, as a scientific theory in our public school system; and just what sort of people would dig up som minimum level of ancient, ill-informed and incorrect doggerel in a vain attempt to support them?
You, yourself stated that you are not aware of any scientific backing for the "theory" which, up until page 9 of this thread, were fully in support of. Lisa has offered none, as well.
Lisa did call me a "dick," though. At least I have that.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Thanks, John.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:4) This means that the subject under question could be demonstrated to be wrong. ID cannot be falsified, thus, it cannot be demonstrated to be wrong.
That's not strictly what's meant by "tentativeness of central assumptions." What it means is that the core assumptions that go into a theory are open to revision if needed to explain some problematic results.
Now, ID certainly doesn't meet this criterion, because the whole "God" part of the view isn't open to criticism...
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Yes, science should be able to prove a true God.
I surprised that no one else has anything to say to this. Haven't the evolutionists been arguing the seperation of science and religion?
Science is a hobby that I haven't had much time to devote to (and I'm still young and learning), but the vast majority of scientists I have had the privilege of learning from (Steven Jay Gould, Robert M. Hazen, and Alex Filipenko just to name a few of my favorites) have made it very clear that science can have nothing to say about the existence of God. Non-overlapping magisteria is the term Gould uses.
Why do you disagree and how would you test for a god?
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: One thing the phrase could mean is that if you are willing to chalk the unexplained up to God (faith), then those things will remain unexplainable (miracles). This, of course is a tautology. What I think most people mean by the phrase is that if your belief motivates you to action (faith) then you will see results you previously might not have believed possible (miracles). This, I myself, believe is true, but has no bearing on the discussion at hand. There are, doubtless, other interpretations of the phrase. If you care to submit one, I'll tell you how it fits into what I've written here.
What it means to me personally is that faith based in tangible proof is weak and will not withstand much pressure.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I've trained my kids to be total assholes in class if the concept of "God" or "ID" is ever brought up.
Just like me.
But when my son's deeply religious friends made fun of him and his sister for believing in evolution, he was courteous and reserved (I don't know if I would have been that well behaved!)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:1) Evolution can explain current life on earth. Do we have each step in the process? No, but then, thats not what point one says needs to be done. Holes are not exceptions, and there is no life on earth that has been demonstrated to be an exception to the laws of natural selection. ID, on the other hand, can't posit any natural laws that explain life on earth.
ID is the proposal of a set of natural laws (and the corresponding model explaining those laws) to explain life on earth. That their laws include an intelligent designer does not alter this, unless "natural" automatically disallows intelligent designers - which makes this rule seem to have a rather arbitrary bias against certain possibilities.
quote:2) Evolution commonly does predict future results, and experiments have been done in the lab the results of which are predicted by evolution. EXACT results? No. General results? Yes. ID makes no predictions, on the other hand.
What does evolution predict that ID does not? Keep in mind that ID shares many of the same features as evolution, and thus makes many of the same predictions - including similar DNA, the presence of fossils, etc. The only major differences I see are that ID predicts there will be evolutionary changes that cannot be explained except by intelligence, and that the progress of evolution in ID would have to progress in some sort of purposeful direction.
quote:3) Evolution IS experimentally testable. Numerous experiments have been done testing evolution. It is, in fact, one of the most tested scientific theories out there. ID, on the other hand, has no scientific evidence backing it that seperates it from evolution.
What experiment tests it? Again, finding historical evidence that is consistent with a theory, though informative, is not a scientific experiment - and can be done to support ID too.
You are applying far harder standards to ID than you are to Evolution.
quote:Now, ID certainly doesn't meet this criterion, because the whole "God" part of the view isn't open to criticism...
Why not?
quote:You, yourself stated that you are not aware of any scientific backing for the "theory" which, up until page 9 of this thread, were fully in support of.
When did I say I was in full support of ID - give me the quote. I am not. I am in support of teaching it as the controversy it is, and continue to be in support of that, even on page 9.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OK, you convinced me. Let's put ID in the science class.
Heck, lets go further.
ID in Electronic Engineering courses. After all it was God who said, "Let their be light." What makes the lights come on when I switch the switch? God. Bulbs don't burn out, they loose their divine inspiration. The way to improve a light bulb is not via all this electronic resistance garbage. Its make the bulb more pious, perhaps with a cross etched in the glass.
ID in Driver's Ed. In many Islamic countries you get into a cab and tell the driver where you want to go. They respond with a pat islamic phrase which I forget, but translates to, "If God wills it so." I say let the Bible, not some state book of rules, traffic laws, or safety experts be your guide on the road and the number of prayers on US highways will greatly increase. (Sorry Bob, you've been replaced by a Saint).
ID in Algerbra. 4X * 2Y = 8X: Find for X. Answer. X=3, the holy trinity, because God told me it did. Any mathematics you do to contradict me are meaningless since my faith in X=3 is superiour.
We can even expand this. Why not teach the theory of French in English class. They have nouns and verbs and words. Why should we exclude French? Isn't that being bigoted against the French language. (Being bigoted against the French is excusable by some people)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:ID in Driver's Ed. In many Islamic countries you get into a cab and tell the driver where you want to go. They respond with a pat islamic phrase which I forget, but translates to, "If God wills it so."
"Inshalla," or "God willing."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
That's what it was. A professor in college told me about it. He is an expert in Mid-East policy, and lost an arm. I never did find out if he lost it because of a taxi driver.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Its use is by no means restricted to Muslim Arabs. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Ha! Some expert!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Twinky, apparently not. Its supposed to be used by Science teachers in Kansas.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
"Teaching the controversy" ???
Rubber stoppers for everyone!
Dick.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Stephen, seriously, you're starting to sound like KoM. Maybe you should take a step back from this one.
I mean, c'mon, you're letting Tresopax fluster you? A guy who sets out to play Devil's Advocate at every turn?
Until he starts setting educational policy, I don't think you need to get upset about his opinion. Whatever he may claim it to be at any given moment.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I've trained my kids to be total assholes in class if the concept of "God" or "ID" is ever brought up.
Just like me.
But when my son's deeply religious friends made fun of him and his sister for believing in evolution, he was courteous and reserved (I don't know if I would have been that well behaved!)
My guess is that your kids have learned that being an A-hole like their father isn't the best way to solve problems. Some never learn.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Believe it or not, camus, sometimes "being an A-hole" -- or being willing to stubbornly make some noise in the face of determined ignorance, which is unfortunately perceived as the same thing a lot of the time -- is often the only way to be a principled person. It depends, of course, on the "problem" you're trying to solve: if the "problem" is that a teacher is trying to pass on misinformation, then "being an A-hole" is probably a pretty decent (although not ideal) solution to a complex problem; if a good friend is mocking you for not believing in God, "being an A-hole" is probably less important than maintaining that friendship.
If atheists didn't learn to roll with some of those punches, life in America would be nearly intolerable.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
What fluster?
I'm just wearing the nom-de-plume given me by Lisa.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Tom, While I agree with that statement, it didn't sound to me like that was the same thing Steve was trying to teach his children. Edit: noted the clarification of your statement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Think about that for a second, Stephen. Do you really want to classify yourself based on starLisa's definition? It's not necessary to give her that much power.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sartorius:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Yes, science should be able to prove a true God.
I surprised that no one else has anything to say to this. Haven't the evolutionists been arguing the seperation of science and religion?
To the degree that religion deals with metaphysical* claims they are separate schools of thought. Science by definition does not deal with metaphysics*
However, one does not have to restrict ones philosophical beliefs to the realm of metaphysics. Indeed, a God confined to metaphysics is no more relevant to modern life than any other myth or cultural artifact. If God is a being who exists in, or interacts with our universe, such existence or interaction with our universe should be verifiable within the framework of science. That is, if God lives on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy, that should be scientifically verifiable. If God literally created Adam and all the separate species 6000 years ago there should be scientifically verifiable evidence of that fact. In these cases, "religion" is making a non-metaphysical claim. However, religion seldom does this. To some, ID makes - or tries to make - such a claim. What it ends up doing, though, is making the claim "God=the unknown", or more precisely "In the realm of biology, 'an unknown intelligent designer' = the unknown." This "God equals the gaps in scientific knowledge" idea is, at its most powerful, a metaphysical* claim, not a scientific one. At its weakest, it is a semantic game or tautology. That is why this whole thread has been largely a challenge for someone who believes ID makes scientific claims to state the scientific claims that ID makes. "Irreducible Complexity" is the best that anyone has come up with so far, and it has been found scientifically lacking.
quote:Originally posted by Sartorius: Science is a hobby that I haven't had much time to devote to (and I'm still young and learning), but the vast majority of scientists I have had the privilege of learning from (Steven Jay Gould, Robert M. Hazen, and Alex Filipenko just to name a few of my favorites) have made it very clear that science can have nothing to say about the existence of God. Non-overlapping magisteria is the term Gould uses.
Why do you disagree and how would you test for a god?
I would not disagree. This is because I believe that all we know about "God" at this point is purely metaphysical* speculation. I wouldn't bother testing for God, because I don't believe such a being exists in our space-time. However, if "God" is located on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy, he should be, at least theoretically, scientifically verifiable.
quote:Originally posted by Sartorius: What it means to me personally is that faith based in tangible proof is weak and will not withstand much pressure.
I can understand that. I might counter that faith that is based independent of any tangible proof is dangerous. The danger of that faith corresponds directly to its strength. The perpetrators of 9/11 had a faith that was strong enough to withstand all the pressures that allow less faith endowed humans to live together in relative peace. Perhaps for them the fall of the towers was the miracle of which their faith was preceding. One would have to ask a member of their specific brand of their faith. To me, such exceeding faith (of the type not grounded in any tangible proof) can just as easily give the strength to commit atrocities as it can give the strength to make the world a better place. The crux is how good is the guess upon which you have placed your faith. Thankfully, most people either have relatively weak faith, or they have guessed benignly.
************ *I use the word "metaphysics" with the meaning: "a priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Rubber stoppers for everyone!
In fairness, if I actually heard someone take the position you seem to say I'm taking, I'd be handing out metaphorical rubber stoppers too....
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Camus,
Tom actually hit the nail right on the head. I call it "Creative Assholism."
Just like relying on StarLisa's definition.
It's a polite way of saying that I think Teso and Lisa are full of nonsense.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
That's great Steve. You're obviously a very clever person. I commend your cleverness. However, which do you think would be more productive, a student being getting kicked out of class for being disruptive over a matter that may or may not have been what the student thought it was, or a parent coming in and talking to the teacher about his concerns over the curriculum?
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If God literally created Adam and all the separate species 6000 years ago there should be scientifically verifiable evidence of that fact. In these cases, "religion" is making a non-metaphysical claim.
Ah. I get you now. I don't believe in that sort of God.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:ID is the proposal of a set of natural laws (and the corresponding model explaining those laws) to explain life on earth. That their laws include an intelligent designer does not alter this, unless "natural" automatically disallows intelligent designers - which makes this rule seem to have a rather arbitrary bias against certain possibilities.
Tres, since the theistic God is omnipotent and has free will, by definition there can be no natural laws governing his actions. He has the power to do anything, and there's nothing in his nature to prevent him from doing anything. So anywhere that ID appeals to God, it fails to offer explanations in terms of laws.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Again, finding historical evidence that is consistent with a theory, though informative, is not a scientific experiment
False. As long as you weren't aware of the historical evidence prior to its being predicted by your theory, it counts as new evidence for the theory. It doesn't matter when the result occurs, it matters when you learn about the result.
All of this follows straightforwardly from Bayesianism, which seems to be a pretty close approximation of how we adapt to new evidence.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Tongue in cheek, Camus; tongue in cheek.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Steve, My initial response was somewhat meant to be as well. However, I am still concerned with the way you are raising your children. Considering your complete lack of tact in this thread (at least KoM is generally funny and usually has a legitimate point) it wouldn't surprise me one bit if you were completely serious about the attitudes you instill in your children.
Regarding your clever little terminology, I couldn't care less about what you consider to be wit or humor, so don't flatter yourself into thinking I was responding to that.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
"Clever little terminology?"
Care to explain?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
not really. To do that would be to imply that this is actually worth discussing, which it isn't. I think I've derailed the topic of this thread enough already, my apologies to JVP, Paul, Dan, Destineer, Karl, and the others, whose names I can't remember right now, that have contributed much very interesting information to this topic.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
No appology to me. This thread has been all over the map and that's just as much because of me as anyone. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sartorius:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If God literally created Adam and all the separate species 6000 years ago there should be scientifically verifiable evidence of that fact. In these cases, "religion" is making a non-metaphysical claim.
Ah. I get you now. I don't believe in that sort of God.
Hmmm. What sort of God do you believe in? I only included the "6000 years ago" example because it was the most obvious. My point holds true (in my opinion) for any claim religion makes about the natural world. Do you believe in a God that doesn't work in the natural world?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:As long as you weren't aware of the historical evidence prior to its being predicted by your theory, it counts as new evidence for the theory.
By historical evidence I didn't mean old evidence. I meant the sort of evidence that is used to back up historical theories, rather than the experimental evidence that is supposed to support scientific theories. Old texts, for instance. Or fossils.
quote:Tres, since the theistic God is omnipotent and has free will, by definition there can be no natural laws governing his actions. He has the power to do anything, and there's nothing in his nature to prevent him from doing anything.
A) Intelligent Design does not require the designer to be the theistic God, so it doesn't need to accept this assumption.
B) I disagree with that definition of the theistic God. I think that theists consider God to good, and consider good to be something meaningful, more than simply "like God". If this is true, then God must act in a good fashion, and thus must follow rules. Many theists will claim otherwise, but I think they are confused - because the notion of a God that obeys no rules yet is considered good either makes good meaningless or contradicts itself. In short, I think that if most theistic accounts of God are accurate, He must be limited by His own nature. (I suspect Mormons have to be right on this particular issue, if I understand their position correctly.)
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: No appology to me. This thread has been all over the map and that's just as much because of me as anyone.
The reason I enjoy these types of threads so much is because of the insightful and thought provoking comments by people like yourself and JVP. It seems, however, that I often times get caught up in the minor details that are really quite insignificant and are actually of very little interest compared to some of the other discussions. I find that I end up wasting half a page debating semantics or some other trivial issue. Thus, the apology is for getting the entire thread sidetracked from the much more interesting debates by the much more informed members. Anyway, back to the discussion...
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I meant the sort of evidence that is used to back up historical theories, rather than the experimental evidence that is supposed to support scientific theories. Old texts, for instance. Or fossils.
That's what I meant too. And if your theory predicts that you'll find a fossil of a certain type that you haven't seen before, and you end up finding that fossil, then you've just gained evidence for your theory.
That's an experiment. Your theory predicted you'd find the fossil, and then you went ahead and confirmed that prediction.
As for the God part, I don't need the omnipotence/free will thing to make my point. You're making my point for me, in a sense, by showing that the notion of the designer is so overly flexible. ID advocates can make up an intelligent designer to explain pretty much any evidence, since they can tool His intentions to fit the facts. Can't you see that this isn't the same as hypothesizing that there's an unchanging law of nature which explains all the phenomena we've observed so far, but could easily be ruled out by the next fossil bed we find?
Anyway, I think most ID fundamentalists (insofar as they've thought deeply about theology) would consider you quite heretical for supposing that either God's power or his freedom is somehow limited.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Tres, I think your understanding of the scientific method and science in general is sorely lacking, and I think that has been demonstrated by numerous people on this thread. Perhaps its time to step back and admit that you might not have enough information to make an informed judgement.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Camus,
I trust that one day, we'll meet again when I'm in a better and more intellectual mood. Sorry if I've wasted your time with trivia and nonsense.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"ID is the proposal of a set of natural laws (and the corresponding model explaining those laws) to explain life on earth. That their laws include an intelligent designer does not alter this, unless "natural" automatically disallows intelligent designers - which makes this rule seem to have a rather arbitrary bias against certain possibilities."
No its not a set of natural laws. It proposes a being that exists, without either experimental or observational evidence for said being, and says this being did things according to rules that we don't understand, or even know if they exist, that created the variety of life on earth. Those aren't laws, tres.
"What does evolution predict that ID does not? Keep in mind that ID shares many of the same features as evolution, and thus makes many of the same predictions - including similar DNA, the presence of fossils, etc. The only major differences I see are that ID predicts there will be evolutionary changes that cannot be explained except by intelligence, and that the progress of evolution in ID would have to progress in some sort of purposeful direction."
Which basically means that ID makes no predictions. THe outline of what will happen in the future must be known in order for it to be a testable scientific prediction. ID makes philosophical predictions, not scientific. You can't test for ID's predictions (Even granting that these are predictions, which I disagree that they are).
"What experiment tests it? Again, finding historical evidence that is consistent with a theory, though informative, is not a scientific experiment - and can be done to support ID too."
Quite wrong, tres. Scientific evidence is experimental AND observational. ANy evidence gathered through observation, as long as the evidence is rigorously documented, and all necessary measurements are taken during observation, is scientific evidence.
Further, the historical record does not support ID theory. Why? Because there is no observational or experimental evidence for the designer. You can't posit something, in science, that you have no observational or experimental evidence for.
Even further, there have been literally thousands of experiments in the lab where environmental pressures are placed on populations, and those populations change according to the laws of natural selection. As I mentioned at least twice previously in this thread, which leads me to believe you aren't reading your opponents statements.
"You are applying far harder standards to ID than you are to Evolution."
No I'm not. You're ignoring thousands of data points in order to make this claim.
Posted by Sartorius (Member # 7696) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Hmmm. What sort of God do you believe in? I only included the "6000 years ago" example because it was the most obvious. My point holds true (in my opinion) for any claim religion makes about the natural world. Do you believe in a God that doesn't work in the natural world?
I believe in a God that doesn't always have to be tinkering around with His creations to get them to work properly. Blessings are the natural consequences of a certain set of actions that lead to personal happiness, as sin is a set of actions the natural consequence of which is misery (eventually, somewhere down the road).
I do believe that His spirit testifies of truth. Is that a working in the natural world? If so, I guess I do believe in "that sort of God". I took that to mean the planning and demanding that I don't believe He does, but I think now you're talking about something much broader than that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That's very enlightening. Do you think you could define 'testifies of truth' to us less exalted sorts?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Camus,
I trust that one day, we'll meet again when I'm in a better and more intellectual mood. Sorry if I've wasted your time with trivia and nonsense.
I did not mean to imply that your points were trivial. My comment was more in regards to the way I ignored the actual issue and attacked the minor details, which is never very productive.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Yeah, except many of my points were trivial! I struck at "popular" targets (not implying that Treso or Lisa are or are not popular, but that the targets they represented were).
Many others made the points I would have liked to have made (and, I hope, am capable of making), but I had neither the time nor the energy to sit down and write them out. It all turned out well--the points favoring science in the science class, and opposing the introduction if ID as if it were science were strong and very well supported.
The points made by ID proponents got weaker and weaker, and were eventually weeded out. Sort of an evolutionary process, if you would!
I especially liked ticking off Lisa to the point where she felt the need to insult me. Base, I know, but fun. And it was quite the rush to see Tresopax go from supporting ID in the science class to finally stating, "Um, no; that's not what I really meant. I don't really support it." Something about, "before the cock crows..."
But I know I can do better.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And it was quite the rush to see Tresopax go from supporting ID in the science class to finally stating, "Um, no; that's not what I really meant. I don't really support it."
And again, you failed to ever show me that quote where I claimed ID was true... Please stop making up positions for me. I can do that well enough myself.
quote:That's an experiment. Your theory predicted you'd find the fossil, and then you went ahead and confirmed that prediction.
Except that if you don't find the fossil, you don't consider Evolution falsified. Instead you say you merely haven't found the fossil yet, and keep looking. That's not how a scientific experiment works.
And again, just as we can search for and find a fossil, we could also search for and find a one-million-year-old rock saying "This is God - I exist!" That doesn't mean the "God exists and left hidden messages to us in one-million-year-old rocks" theory is scientific.
quote:It proposes a being that exists, without either experimental or observational evidence for said being, and says this being did things according to rules that we don't understand, or even know if they exist, that created the variety of life on earth. Those aren't laws, tres.
In that general form, you are right. It is probably too vague to be consider a law. ID would be greatly improved if they were to treat the designer as rule-driven, which would allow them to make more powerful predictions. For instance, if it proposed that the intelligent designer set out to design life in a certain way, they could then test that theory against the way life seemingly did come about to see if it consistently progresses in that particular direction. I agree that this suggests ID does have some work to do - but at worst I think this is a problem they need to solve, not something that completely separates them from science altogether.
quote:Even further, there have been literally thousands of experiments in the lab where environmental pressures are placed on populations, and those populations change according to the laws of natural selection. As I mentioned at least twice previously in this thread, which leads me to believe you aren't reading your opponents statements.
Speaking of not reading opponents statements, I mentioned several times that evolution as a theory to explain present behavior is most definitely scientific, because it is directly testable. It is only the evolutionary theory of the origin of all specieis, the historical claim, that I'd dispute the scientific character of. That evolution occurs in labs is a fact that is incorporated both into Evolution and ID, both of which accept evolution as a process that occurs in nature, disagreeing only on whether it is influenced by any intelligence over the long run.
quote:Tres, I think your understanding of the scientific method and science in general is sorely lacking
No, trust me, it's not... unless by sorely lacking you just mean I'm not a professional scientist, in which case you'd be right.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Except that if you don't find the fossil, you don't consider Evolution falsified. Instead you say you merely haven't found the fossil yet, and keep looking. That's not how a scientific experiment works.
Yeah, it basically is. I used to do high-energy particle physics. If you're trying to find something like the Higgs boson, and your theory predicts that the boson will appear at some energy higher than 1 TeV, you run your collider for a long time. If you find an example of the particle, you say your theory is confirmed. If you don't, then you say you're still waiting. You haven't been lucky enough to come across the right result yet.
If it goes on like that for a couple of decades, then you begin to worry...
And no, I don't think you lack understanding of the scientific method. I do think you have unconventional and mistaken, but overall pretty well-informed, opinions about it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" It is only the evolutionary theory of the origin of all specieis, the historical claim, that I'd dispute the scientific character of."
Historical claims are very much a part of scientific epistomology. Part of why I say you don't have a good understanding of scientific epistomology is this strange insistence that observation is not part of science, and that science can't make historical claims. Of course it can, if there is evidence of a scientific nature that speaks to the historical events that science is making a claim about.
"That evolution occurs in labs is a fact that is incorporated both into Evolution and ID, both of which accept evolution as a process that occurs in nature, disagreeing only on whether it is influenced by any intelligence over the long run."
Of course this form of ID incorporates evolution in the lab. Evolution is a real scientific theory. ID says "Evolution plus a bit that we don't need." Occam's razor kills this form of ID. Evolution fits all the available facts, this form of ID adds a component that we have NO evidence for, but says its necessary, despite NO evidence that its necessary to add anything to evolution.
And by evidence, I mean rigorous observational or experimental evidence.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If you're trying to find something like the Higgs boson, and your theory predicts that the boson will appear at some energy higher than 1 TeV, you run your collider for a long time. If you find an example of the particle, you say your theory is confirmed. If you don't, then you say you're still waiting.
Hmmm... that is an interesting experiment. I don't think I'm willing to say that is unscientific.
But that does seem to open the door to theism itself being scientific in that particular sense. I'll refer back to the one-million-old-rock proclaiming God's existence. It's definitely possible to set up a theory that assumes both that God exists and that He would be sure to show us that He exists. Under such a theory, you could predict that God would leave proof of his existence, and thus it would become testable - in that we could look for years and years for that piece of evidence, and conclude that our theory holds true if and when we find it.
quote:No, trust me... it is.
Why would I trust you more than myself in regards to what I do or do not understand. You've never even met me. And the statements that you claim demonstrate a lack of understanding really only demonstrate that I disagree with you.
quote:Occam's razor kills this form of ID.
Occam's razor is neither a proven nor valid principle with which to kill theories.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right, and we've been looking for two thousand years and haven't found it yet. There does come a point when you say, 'oh well, guess that theory wasn't much good after all.'
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" It's definitely possible to set up a theory that assumes both that God exists and that He would be sure to show us that He exists."
Yes it is.
But lets look at this in more detail. Lets say you have a scientific theory (scientific because its built on scientific evidence, is falsifiable, makes predictions about either the future or the past, or both, and is not contradicted by other scientific evidence). One of the predictions is, as destineer said, that you should find a certain particle under certain conditions. You currently have a theory, (as long as there are other predictions this theory makes, that have been confirmed, if it only makes one prediction, then you have a hypothesis), but its a falsifiable theory because if that boson never shows up the prediction is wrong. Or, its currently a hypothesis, if it only makes one prediction. In either case, the hypothesis or theory came from other scientific evidence.
A theistic scientific claim that makes the same sort of prediction would be a hypothesis (unless it makes other predictions which have already been confirmed). But to be a viable hypothesis, it would have to be built on previously obtained scientific evidence, and not falsified by other scientific evidence.
So the question is, what is your scientific evidence that allows you to invoke god?
While its possible to set up a theory that assumes god exists, I'm not sure you have any scientific ground to stand on to set up that theory. So it STARTS as an unscientific theory, until the predictions your theory makes start to be borne out under scientific scrutiny.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's definitely possible to set up a theory that assumes both that God exists and that He would be sure to show us that He exists. Under such a theory, you could predict that God would leave proof of his existence, and thus it would become testable - in that we could look for years and years for that piece of evidence, and conclude that our theory holds true if and when we find it.
Taking this idea seriously, the theory suffers from serious problems of simplicity and internal logic. The god in question is supposed to be very powerful, so if he wanted to be discovered why would he leave the evidence in such an out-of-the-way place?
In fact, this points us toward some of ID's biggest explanatory problems. Evolution has a specific story to tell about many of the features animal species have, including humans. In order to tell a similar story, ID would have to make a lot of arbitrary assumptions about the intentions of the purported designer(s). Why exactly did they want beings that are left-right symmetric? What's the deal with the appendix?
If the designer is supposed to be a benevolent God, this will ultimately lead us to the problem of evil. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Occam's razor is neither a proven nor valid principle with which to kill theories."
No, but it is a reason to throw a theory into the dustbin until someone demonstrates why the unnecessary components of a hypothesis are, in fact, necessary.
Its one of the same problems as the ether theory. In order for ether theory to work, you need to explain a lot of things with very questionable explanations. They make internal sense, but there's no scientific observational evidence that supports those questionable explanations. If you've got a theory that has all its components based on scientific evidence, and explains all the experiments or observational evidence you've got, and you have another theory that is exactly the same, but has an extra claim that has no scientific evidence supporting it, then the second theory is not the valid scientific theory, relative to the first one.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Except that if you don't find the fossil, you don't consider Evolution falsified.
Just how many fossils do scientists need to find in order to satisfy you? The thousands upon thousands of extant fossils are insufficient somehow?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So the question is, what is your scientific evidence that allows you to invoke god?
Well according to ID theorists, their theory is built to solve holes in the evolutionary explanation of how life got from non-living matter to human beings. So it's pretty much built on the same evidence that evolution is, only attempting to explain that evidence in what ID theorists consider to be a more complete fashion. This is not to say I think their claims about holes in evolution is correct - it is only to say that such claims are derived from how they view the evidence at hand.
quote:In order to tell a similar story, ID would have to make a lot of arbitrary assumptions about the intentions of the purported designer(s). Why exactly did they want beings that are left-right symmetric? What's the deal with the appendix?
It would not be arbitrary if supported by the evidence. But it might be very very complicated, in order to set out a theory of the designer's intentions that is consistent with all data.
quote:No, but it is a reason to throw a theory into the dustbin until someone demonstrates why the unnecessary components of a hypothesis are, in fact, necessary.
I don't believe this is so. If I did, I would probably have to become a solipsist, because there's really no absolute need to assume any of you really exist outside my perception of you. The "simplest" explanation I can think of for everything is a world in which the only entity is me.
quote:Just how many fossils do scientists need to find in order to satisfy you? The thousands upon thousands of extant fossils are insufficient somehow?
My point there wasn't that there haven't been enough fossils to back up evolution. My point was that if they didn't find a fossil, it wouldn't falsify evolution. They'd just say they haven't found a fossil yet.
And as far as fossils go, they tend to support ID and evolution equally. The only ones that I'd think critically differentiate one theory from the other are the fossils of evolutionary dead-ends. Why would an intelligent designer create one sort of life only to kill it off?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I was thinking that my exchange with Sartorious above was kind of straying from the point of this thread, but on further thinking, I'm not so sure. If anyone is still reading, perhaps I can shed further light on this subject by bringing the tangent back to the point:
I made the claim, "If God is located on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy, he should be (at least theoretically) scientifically verifiable". However, does that make the claim "God lives on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy" a scientific theory, or even a scientific hypothesis? I say "no", and I will attempt to explain why.
For years scientists have theorized the existence of planets around distant stars. How is this a scientific theory and God being around a distant star not? Paul tells us the difference above. Scientific theories build upon and invoke other established science.
For instance: We know that the only star we can observe close-up has not only 1 planet, but 9 of them (give or take Pluto or planet X). We have scientific knowledge that supports our theories of how planets develop, how stars form, etc. All of these theories support the idea that what happened here should happen anywhere similar circumstances occur. We know from scientific observation that our Sun is not a unique star. Indeed it's pretty average. Therefore it is logical to hypothesize that other stars also have planets. However, we can't see them as they are too far away. How might we find out about them? Well, we can observe the gravitational effects of our planets on The Sun. We know that a sufficiently large planet should produce a measurable wobble in its star. We observe distant stars and we see the wobble. If we measure precisely enough, we can calculate the probable size and orbital distance from its star of a suspected planet. And that's what scientists did. Using this hypothesis, to date, they have found several planets around distant stars.
What about God? Well, first, we don't even have a scientific definition of God. What does it mean that "God" is on a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy? Which planet? How might we detect Him if he is there? We have no answers to any of those questions. We have absolutely no place to begin. Set aside the fact that we can't even see a planet in the Andromeda Galaxy. Even if we could go there and happened to find a being on a planet there, what is it about him that would justify the label "God"?
Likewise the "Intelligent Designer". The only thing we know about the theorized Intelligent Designer is that it supposedly did the stuff involved in the evolution of species that we haven't yet found an alternative cause for. In a literal sense, "Intelligent Designer" means "Originator of Species" or "Originator of First Life" or "Force that Powers Evolution". When the question is "What is the origin of life?" or "What is the origin of species?" or "How is Evolution brought about?" answering with a label that reiterates the question is a tautology. How did life begin on Earth? The Life-starter started it. What is the "Life-starter"? Its the thing that started life on Earth. Sure, that's logical. In fact, it's flawlessly logical. It's also completely useless.
Now if you doubt that what I've written above is the case, ask yourself what additional scientific information we gain, or stand to gain from invoking ID? Nothing. ID makes no claim as to the nature of this designer other than it is intelligent (which term, itself, hasn't been scientifically defined: in my view a cat displays obvious signs of intelligence, a chimp even more so.) ID does not offer anything as to the nature of this force. How is it different from saying "The variety of species we can observe on Earth are here because Charlie did it"?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Well, the above discussion is a bit optimistic in its view of how scientific theories are developed. In "Fodder for Science Debates" in this forum, I'm developing a sidebar to the present thread that contests that slightly, for those interested...
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I liked that, David. I'm going to respond here because I don't want to set the frame of the other thread narrowly within this discussion.
In defense of the "optimism" above, we are arguing ideals. I don't think anyone is trying to remove inspiration or intuition from scientific inquiry. But even Einstein's theories, un-proven as they were at the time, had their basis in science that had come before. They also pointed to methods by which support could be found and was found once technology caught up.
So I agree that if we're not careful we can appear to be arguing against any role of inspiration or guesswork in science. I don't think people are doing that here, at least not yet.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:And as far as fossils go, they tend to support ID and evolution equally. The only ones that I'd think critically differentiate one theory from the other are the fossils of evolutionary dead-ends. Why would an intelligent designer create one sort of life only to kill it off?
I'm sorry but this absolutely and positively false. The sad thing about ID is that it proposes we will find evidence of exogenous influences in the irreducible complexity of current day structures or functions. To the extent that ID has generated testable hypotheses, comparative studies and studies of fossil forms have clearly supported evolutionary explanations of the items in question. That is, descent with modification, not sudden appearance of fully formed structures in their modern forms.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And as far as fossils go, they tend to support ID and evolution equally."
"I'm sorry but this absolutely and positively false."
Its not ENTIRELY false, Bob. Everything you could ever hope to find could be argued to support ID theory, which is part of why ID can never be scientific.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Paul, ID theory is a specific variant that says specifically that examples of irreducible complexity are evidence of an intelligent creative force at work in developing the critters that appear in our world.
If one wants to talk about a theory that just says "a (or THE) God" did it, then we should probably call it by a different name in order to distinguish it from the (partially) testable theory of ID.
Given that ID depends on findings of truly irreducibile complexity, it is false that the fossil record supports Evolution and ID equally. It does not.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is a nice ID Field Experiment that can take place and hence prove its scientific validity.
The city of Dover PA ousted every ID proponent on its school board.
Soon there after, Pat Roberson came out with a warning, basically saying God (his "I" behind the "ID") will strike down Dover for its rebuttal of God's way.
According to Slate Magazine the Pope also announced his unhappiness with the voters of Dover PA. However the Pope did not predict disaster. He reminded everyone that "Love" was the ultimate "D" in ID.
So here is the lab work.
We shall sit and study the city of Dover PA.
If it is attacked by any kind of plague, we will have proof that Robertson is right, and that God is a vengeful Intelligence.
If nothing happens, or (Heaven forbid?)something good happens to Dover, then we have proof that the Pope is correct, and God is a loving designer.
See. Practical Experiment. ID is Science.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Given that ID depends on findings of truly irreducibile complexity, it is false that the fossil record supports Evolution and ID equally. It does not.
Hear, hear.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dan,
I'm sorry, but it would take a series of plagues to convince me.
I hope the people of Dover are patient.
we really need this thing to run its course.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:So here is the lab work.
We shall sit and study the city of Dover PA.
If it is attacked by any kind of plague, we will have proof that Robertson is right, and that God is a vengeful Intelligence.
If nothing happens, or (Heaven forbid?)something good happens to Dover, then we have proof that the Pope is correct, and God is a loving designer.
See. Practical Experiment. ID is Science.
I hope we're not going by Robertson's definition of 'plague', or he'll modify it to mean "every resident of Dover will die of natural causes sometime in the next hundred years."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And he'd be wrong then too.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, ID theory is a specific variant that says specifically that examples of irreducible complexity are evidence of an intelligent creative force at work in developing the critters that appear in our world.
If one wants to talk about a theory that just says "a (or THE) God" did it, then we should probably call it by a different name in order to distinguish it from the (partially) testable theory of ID.
Given that ID depends on findings of truly irreducibile complexity, it is false that the fossil record supports Evolution and ID equally. It does not."
I disagree with your statement about what ID specifically says. See here (The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection)
or the wiki ( William Dembski, one of Intelligent Design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of Intelligent Design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence),
You'll see that irreducible complexity is one concept among many that ID proponents advance to show that life is designed.
Using the definition from IDnetwork, any peice of data could be argued to be in support of ID, regardless of what the data actually is.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Would ID proponents need to define, then, what they would consider evidence of non-intelligent design?
I can scan the MRIs of my lower back with the L4/L5 disk herniating out so badly that I could not walk. Would that be sufficient proof of non-intelligent design? What else might suffice?
--Steve
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Paul, I now see the confusion.
I apologize for being so rigid earlier.
Here's the problem (at least from what I could glean from the sites that you linked to -- the wiki one wouldn't open, the other two did).
I was referring to the rather recent restatement of ID that was begun in the late 90's (or maybe a little earlier) by a particular scientist (whose name I will have to look up when I get home). That theory was called "Intelligent Design" and, for what it's worth, it was not the vague "whatever Evolution can't explain MUST be evidence of ID" theory that is outlined in the links you provided.
I agree, after reading those two links, that there are people going around selling a theory they call ID which has become the vague and, frankly, nonsensical, thing described. In effect what they have done is try to merge creation "science" -- the easily dispensed with young-earth, God is a trickster -- with what I guess we now have to call "scientific" ID theory in order to distinguish it from this junk.
I think it is telling that both of the sites that did open are political action-type sites rather than anything having to do with scientific discussion. One was apparently set up mainly to do what needed to be done in order to get Kansas' Education System to derail itself.
The other is affiliated with something called "Leadership U" which is apparenlty a fake "university" in which a list of "faculty" is provided based on their Christian stance on learning. To whit:
quote:Welcome to the Virtual Faculty Offices page. Below you will find a list of the personal Web sites of university professors representing virtually every discipline.The professors listed here are men and women who have found that a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ informs and enhances every aspect of their personal and academic lives.
I personally think this is all rather odd. The originator of modern ID was careful to tread lightly on the issue of God. This set up, to me, looks like a 2nd wave adoption of his theory by the Christian activists hoping to use it to gain entre into the science education curriculum.
I can't say that the first guy had "real" ID and these people are just perverting it, of course, because it's been known all along that ID was just another version of creationism anyway.
At any rate, I apologize. I clearly no longer know what ID is or what it stands for, or proposes as major tenets. It indeed does appear that ID can mean anything. And therefor, nothing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Interesting... wiki opened for me.
Anyrate, no apology necessary.
"It indeed does appear that ID can mean anything. And therefor, nothing."
Exactly.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Big mistake on their part, IMHO. It's like the mistake of "inserting" God into the spaces where they currently think Evolution can't account for it. It's the same mistake that pious but scientifically ignorant people have made through the ages, too.
It just forces the human concept of God into an ever shrinking box, instead of getting God out of the box altogether.
Creation Science/ID is probably the worst thing a religious person could promote in terms of an educational strategy that would (or would not as the case may be) provide a bulwark against atheism in the educational system. And, more importantly, against the eventual rejection of all religion by students who feel ultimately betrayed when they learn that the facts and the theory don't align.
Or rather, when they realize that the "alternative" theory is not science and relies on "and then a miracle happens" to explain everything. All this does is, eventually, teach people that miracles can usually be explained (away) by naturally occurring phenomena.
[ November 16, 2005, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It indeed does appear that ID can mean anything. And therefor, nothing.
This doesn't follow. Plenty of things that are used to refer to many different things do still mean something - democracy, Christianity, liberalism, etc. Even Evolution can refer to a whole variety of ideas, from the fact that populations have beeen observed to evolve in lab environemtns, to the certain theory of how non-matter eventually became man, and so on, although each is united by the common notion of life evolving from one species into a nother. Similarly, although ID could mean a number of different things, all of these share in common the use of an intelligent being to solve percieved holes in evolutionary theory. In order to become a more complete theory, it must be crystalized into more specific forms over time, as usually is the case with any new theory in almost any discipline.
quote:Creation Science/ID is probably the worst thing a religious person could promote in terms of an educational strategy that would (or would not as the case may be) provide a bulwark against atheism in the educational system. And, more importantly, against the eventual rejection of all religion by students who feel ultimately betrayed when they learn that the facts and the theory don't align.
Except that the supporters of ID believe the facts and theory do align, and that people will be convinced of this eventually.
I do wonder, though, why the religious would really want to put God into science. This seems to do little more than open the door to science to tell them how their religion is proven wrong. After all, if God's nature becomes testable, then there would be a secular means to reject certain religions flat out. Of course, I suppose that again these advocates believe their religion is 100% right, and thus could not be proven wrong.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: Similarly, although ID could mean a number of different things, all of these share in common the use of an intelligent being to solve percieved holes in evolutionary theory. In order to become a more complete theory, it must be crystalized into more specific forms over time, as usually is the case with any new theory in almost any discipline.
Tres, the problem isn't that it means "many" things. It's that now (according to those websites that Paul linked to) ID explains EVERYTHING with a deux ex machina insertion. This means: 1) It no longer generates testable hypotheses -- something that Meyer's "original" formulation of ID had going for it, but that this generalized version no longer does.
2) It no longer actually generates ANY hypotheses, other than "God did it." Which is fine for a religion, but tends to stifle rather than promote scientific discovery. It simply ceases to even masquerade as science -- something that was clearly the goal of ID from the beginning.
So, because this is "everything" it is, in fact, "nothing" from a scientific point of view. And, based on what I read on those sites, this was done on purpose in order to make ID inclusive of such things as "young Earth creationism" rather than for any reason having to do with scientific discovery.
quote:Except that the supporters of ID believe the facts and theory do align, and that people will be convinced of this eventually.
We have hundreds of years of history on this that should not be ignored. Because the popes fought scientific explanations of natural phenomenon, they routinely picked the wrong (and I do mean PROVEABLY wrong) side of arguments that could be settled empirically. The other thing they did was encourage people to look for God in the special acts that made things "happen" in the universe.
ID is not special in this regard. It is in the same vein -- an explanation that eventually puts faith-based reasoning in a position superior to that based on empirically-determined facts.
Since empiricism works better for describing observable phenomenon, I think we can safely say that eventually ID (as it is currently described on those websites) is going to fail time and time again to provide an explanation that is better than (or even as good as) the one coming from an evolutionary framework. It makes itself irrelevant over time with each new discovery that is explainable with ANY theory that doesn't require the deus ex machina.
This is a guaranteed method of making God irrelevant. The very thing they accuse scientists of wanting to do now. And, ultimately, they will have no-one to blame but themselves because they are the ones forcing God into this particular box.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It is interesting what happens when you shine the same bright, seering light on ID details, that ID tries to shine on Evolution details.
I also agree with Bob. When you search for God in the cracks of nature and science, then you miss the bulk of God that is Nature and Science.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:When you search for God in the cracks of nature and science, then you miss the bulk of God that is Nature and Science.
That's beautiful, Dan.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:2) It no longer actually generates ANY hypotheses, other than "God did it." Which is fine for a religion, but tends to stifle rather than promote scientific discovery.
This is false. Versions of ID share, at the minimum, an idea that some part of observed evidence we have regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Thus it would have to generate the hypothesis that problems arising with evolution will continue to remain unsolveable without appealing to intelligence. I have not heard any version of ID claim that evolution occurred exactly as mainstream science says, except there is an intelligent designer controlling it in totally unobservable ways - this would not be ID.
quote:ID is not special in this regard. It is in the same vein -- an explanation that eventually puts faith-based reasoning in a position superior to that based on empirically-determined facts.
ID is specifically designed in a way to NOT be in that vein. That's the idea behind it. It seeks to justify an Intelligent Designer through empirically-determined facts. And those supporting it certainly seem to believe that is possible.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:Versions of ID share, at the minimum, an idea that some part of observed evidence we have regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
Which parts, specifically? Let's work this out...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What I am getting from this discussion is that ID is not a theory as much as an attack on a theory.
Scientist proposes X. Someone else proposes that X is wrong. That is how science works. To have someone else propose that Not-X is in itself a theory we call Blue is misleading and detrimental to the debate. That is how politics works.
Anything that argues against Evolution is proof of ID.
Anything that argues against ID is just someones lack of understanding about the other facets of ID.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Which parts, specifically? Let's work this out...
You would have to find an ID proponent who studies this sort of thing to get those details. And my suspicion would be that there are different varitions on the theory that dispute different parts.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
<snort>
So basically you can refute all of our points because we don't really understand what ID is, but if we want to really talk about it we need to find someone who knows what they're talking about?
And up to now I thought the "cork" comments were just mean.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No Tres, that's not how it goes. You made a claim. Either back it up or take it back. If you don't know about something, you don't get to claim that it is true but then back away when someone asks you to substantiate it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And my suspicion would be that there are different varitions on the theory that dispute different parts."
Well, yes, there are, and so far all concrete disputations have been disproved.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
See, Tres has tipped his hand here. He doesn't really understand anything about the issue. It's just that theoretically there could be some possible way of phrasing ID so that it has substance. Since it's theoretically possible, it must exist even though he doesn't know what it is.
But it's real. At least as real as we are, what with being figments of his imagination and all.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I tole you guys!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:No Tres, that's not how it goes. You made a claim.
I backed up my claims, namely that ID should be taught in school and that ID is not by nature less scientific than the historical theory of Evolution. But now you are expecting me to back up a claim that I've never made and don't even believe - namely that ID is the correct model and supported by the evidence.
Of course I don't fully understand the supposed evidence for ID. I'm not a scientist, I don't believe in ID, and my school did not have the foresight to teach it to me. I'm not going to put arguments into the mouths of ID supporters as if I am qualified to make their points for them.
If I defended the right to practice the LDS religion, would you then require me to prove to you why the LDS religion is the one right religion? I'm not even LDS, so how could I do that?
[ November 17, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I backed up my claims, namely that ID should be taught in school and that ID is not by nature less scientific than the historical theory of Evolution"
In order to back up the second of these claims, you do indeed have to show "But now you are expecting me to back up a claim that I've never made and don't even believe - namely that ID is the correct model and supported by the evidence."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That doesn't follow. There are countless scientific theories that have turned out to be false and not supported by all the evidence. Hence, to be a scientific theory does not entail being true, proven, or even supported by all the evidence.
I would have no idea how to give evidence for quantum mechanics, for instance, and it might someday turn out to be false - but that does not mean I can't tell you that it is most definitely a scientific theory and belongs in school science classes.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"That doesn't follow." Well, yes it does. In order to show that something is not less scientific then something else, you need to show how it is backed scientifically, assuming the "something else" has supporting scientific evidence that has been provided (which it has, repeatedly, on this thread).
"ence, to be a scientific theory does not entail being true, proven, or even supported by all the evidence."
While this is true, there is NO scientific theory that is not supported by SOME of the evidence. You've yet to show that there is any of this evidence, so you have yet to show that ID meets one of the minimum criteria for being considered science.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Hypothesis: Heavier objects fall faster than light objects.
This theory is not supported by any of the evidence, yet it is still a scientific theory, because it is easily testable through scientific methods and makes clearly observable predictions. It just happens to be a wrong scientific theory.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
No, its a falsified scientific hypothesis.
There's a difference between that, and a scientific theory.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Okay... is a falsified scientific hypothesis less scientific than a scientific theory, or just less justified?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
There's no meaningful distinction, within the context of that particular question.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ok, that wasn't very helpful. Let me try again.
To be a scientific theory, something has to be unfalsified, and it has to be supported by the evidence, and falsifiable, and make predictions that can be tested. (Ok, there's more to it then that, but without those, its not a scientific theory). You can make a hypothesis, using the scientific method, and gather data, using the scientific method, but you can't assert, as scientifically valid, a falsified hypothesis. You can assert a falsified hypothesis as having been reached through the scientific method, but you can't say that the hypothesis is currently scientific, because the scientific method doesn't justify it.
So the answer to the question is, because it is less justified, it is also less scientific.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
...and we're back to ID being relegated to an "oh, by the way, there is also ID theory, which has been pushed by a bunch of religious fundamentalists as an explanation for life's existence and development on earth, but it has absolutely no scientific backing or validity. It has no more validity than the Geocentric universe model that was favored prior to Copernicus."
But something tells me that's not what the ID proponents have been pushing for, is it?
Treso, if you agree that the first statement is all that's necessary, then I think we can consider this question answered, and we can all go home.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
To me ID seems to be one in a long line of holy Crusades designed not so much to change the world, but to solidify support with in the church.
How do you hold so many denominations, so many differences in doctrine and ideals together? You give them someone to fight.
After all, living a truly Christ-like life is hard. Battling Satan is easy--especially when you pick which Satan to fight.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
How long before Pat Robertson realizes that so much of the science he hates is based on developments by the ancient Islamic peoples?
Cru-Sade!
Cru-Sade!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:...and we're back to ID being relegated to an "oh, by the way, there is also ID theory, which has been pushed by a bunch of religious fundamentalists as an explanation for life's existence and development on earth, but it has absolutely no scientific backing or validity. It has no more validity than the Geocentric universe model that was favored prior to Copernicus."
No, because it is not agreed upon that ID has no backing or scientific validity. Many people believe it does, including some scientists, so to say it has "absolutely no scientific backing or validity" would be misleading at best. Instead, the truth should be taught: "ID is a hypothesis widely opposed by many scientists but supported by some other scientists, including many believers in God. Here are the reasons and evidence given in favor of it, and here are the reasons and evidence given to oppose it...."
And again, if you are confident that the reasons so clearly all favor Evolution, then what are you worried about?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Tresopax- It has no scientific backing or validity, because the only bits of concrete testable evidence that have been offered up have been refuted. If you ask most scientists who say they believe ID to be true, and are doing work in the area, they will tell you they are looking to find evidence to support the hypothesis, not that they have unrefuted scientific evidence for the hypothesis.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And again, if you are confident that the reasons so clearly all favor Evolution, then what are you worried about?"
I'm worried that our students, who already have a middling to poor understanding of the scientific method, will be further hindered in gaining an understanding of what the scientific method is.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
QED QFD
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:And again, if you are confident that the reasons so clearly all favor Evolution, then what are you worried about?
I'll tell you what I'm worried about.
I'm worried about the insular, alternative epistemology that American social conservatives are building for themselves. They want to be able to believe what their parents believed, and do so comfortably, regardless of the evidence that's actually out there. When honest news media makes that difficult, they create Fox News. When their college professors make it difficult, they get David Horowitz to push for a "student's bill of rights" and hiring preferences for conservative faculty. And when science rocks their self-deceptive boat, they want the "controversy" to be taught.
They don't want to look at the facts; they just want the self-satisfaction of knowing that ID "experts" disagree with the real experts and agree with them.
In reality, the only controversy is between knowledge and ignorance.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I guess The Church learned something from the Galileo fiasco after all. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've no basis for this, but I think the Church is learning from the bad example set by a lot of the American Protestant groups. It's like they're holding up a mirror to what the Church sort of used to be like. My sense of the ironic finds the idea of the Church being redeemed by their distaste of the authoritarianism and anti-intellectual ignorance of many of the Protestants to be delightful.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It has no scientific backing or validity, because the only bits of concrete testable evidence that have been offered up have been refuted. If you ask most scientists who say they believe ID to be true, and are doing work in the area, they will tell you they are looking to find evidence to support the hypothesis, not that they have unrefuted scientific evidence for the hypothesis.
They think it is scientific and being scientific requires having evidence for it, but then admit that there is no evidence for it?
Michael Behe, who spoke at the trial itself, certainly seems to thinks there is evidence for it.
quote:I'm worried that our students, who already have a middling to poor understanding of the scientific method, will be further hindered in gaining an understanding of what the scientific method is.
But why would discussing a controversy over the scientific method prevent them from understanding the scientific method? I think the reverse is true. A failure to discuss controversies over the scientific method would harm their ability to judge science from non-science. It is through controversy that such lines become clearer.
quote:They don't want to look at the facts; they just want the self-satisfaction of knowing that ID "experts" disagree with the real experts and agree with them.
Yes, but keeping such a debate out of schools only serves to further allow this separation of fact and false faith. You don't refute an idea by suppressing the discussion of it. You don't refute it by mocking it or calling it unscientific or blasting it through all mainstream authorities. If an idea is false, people must be allowed to see for themselves why it is false - including on Hatrack.
This is all part of a larger relativism problem. There is an idea that all people have a right to not only believe what they want but also be correct about it, at least for themselves. This idea is extremely dangerous, and it stems from basic philosophical ideas our society has accepted. However, I don't think stopping the discussion of a topic among children is going to help change that idea. I think the reverse is true - we advocate good judgement by teaching how to compare one "alternate" truth to another, and how to make a judgement about which is better.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Schools only have so much time to devote to certain area of studies. Common sense dictates that they should study those subjects that have been deemed by authority to be worthwhile and as-near-to-fact-as-possible-right-now.
ID doesn't qualify, if I understand things correctly.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
David,
I believe that Mr. Sokal must have been one of the co-authors of the TimeCube treatise.
I say...TEACH IT! Teach the controversy!
I also think that we should devote at least two classes a week in Home Economics to teaching TimeCube.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
If you really don't support ID, then just what the heck point is it you are trying to make? And, more importantly, why?
I know the whole Cyrano de Bergerac (Voltaire) thing, "I may not believe in a word you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," but no one's really stopping people from espousing ID. We're just trying to make sure that it doesn't go where it doesn't belong.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:You don't refute an idea by suppressing the discussion of it. You don't refute it by mocking it or calling it unscientific or blasting it through all mainstream authorities.
I don't know about refutation, but you'll certainly help prevent self-respecting people from believing it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Many people believe it does, including some scientists
Tres. Please stop using "scientists" like it is some homogeneous group. If a nuclear physicist renders an opinion in support of ID based on his/her belief in God, my immediate reaction is to look at that person's background and areas of expertise. If they don't appear to have any background in modern biology, my secondary reaction is to discount their statements because they are talking about a field that they have no expertise in.
Likewise, if a chemist (say Meyers, for instance) creates the modern version of ID theory, my reaction is to look at his background and areas of expertise.
Calling Meyers ANY kind of biologist is a stretch beyond the breaking point, IMHO.
And frankly, if the number of "scientists" with a background in biology who believe in ID is vanishingly small, it doesn't deserve to be taught in High School science class as ANYTHING.
Why? Because the time in High School Classes is so short and so precious that covering anything beyond the basic and accepted facts and theories in any particular field is actually doing a disservice to the students. People who graduate high school and go on to college are expected to have a pretty good grasp of the essentials of the fields that are important for their major or their general studies requirements.
I could see this, maybe, coming up in AP Biology or a class devoted almost entirely to Evolutionary Biology. but it's not even close to earning a spot in a general Bio course. Those courses spend so little time on Evolution now that taking any of that time away for odd-ball sideshow theories is just a disservice to everyone involved.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Common sense dictates that they should study those subjects that have been deemed by authority to be worthwhile and as-near-to-fact-as-possible-right-now.
What authority? What common sense?
Common sense dictates that they should study those subjects that they will find most useful in their lives. Learning to judge what theories to accept or reject in science or science-related topics is a useful, even critical skill. The origin of mankind is an important question to most people, and one they will confront during their lives at various points in their lives. The evolution of life and the process that caused it is critical to an understanding of why biology is how it is today. For these reasons, the ID-Evolution debate is a useful topic to discuss for the typical student. I took Biology in high school, and a minority of the time was spent learning things I actually use. Most of the facts we were taught were quickly forgotten.
quote:I don't know about refutation, but you'll certainly help prevent self-respecting people from believing it.
It certainly hasn't stopped people from believing ID so far...
quote:If you really don't support ID, then just what the heck point is it you are trying to make? And, more importantly, why?
The point is that it belongs in science classes, as a discussion, whether or not it is true, because so many people consider it so important. More so, it is important to include things like this in science class - to fight the common acceptance of science as a dogma. Science is not a set of facts, and it is certainly not a religion. It is a method for examining observations and judging theories on how to explain those observations. The highest priority for science classes should thus be teaching the method of science, rather than the facts of science. But denying the existence of controversy teaches the opposite lesson - that science really is a set of facts that are not to be questioned, that we accept because scientists tell us to accept them. This is not the scientific method, or at least it should not be. And teaching this false lesson to the more religious students is going to inevitably force many of them to reject science, because it transforms science into a religion that is at war with their own. That is not what science is. As a way of examining observations, science only threatens religion insofar as religion is false. But as a set of dogma, or a set of experts who cannot be contradicted, science can easily be viewed as the enemy, in the same way the "liberal media" can be the enemy to so many conservatives. And as a set of dogma, science could very easily become the oppressor of the truth, rather than the truth-seeker - whenever the most accepted scientific theories end up wrong.
This issue is important because it is about more than the value of ID - it is about how to view and treat science.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The point is that it belongs in science classes, as a discussion, whether or not it is true, because so many people consider it so important."
It doesn't belong as a "discussion," because that gives equal weight to a theory that has no scientific weight, and something that has tons of scientific weight. It could easily fit into a class discussion on what scientific metholodogy is, and how ID does not meet the criteria of science, but thats not whats being pushed by "ID in school" proponents.
"But denying the existence of controversy teaches the opposite lesson"
I'm not sure who exactly is denying the existence of controversy. There is certainly controversy over this, but that doesn't mean its a scientific controversy. Literally less then 1% of practicing biologists think ID is a scientific theory. Its probably far lower even then that. The controversy here is a religious/political controversy, not a scientific one.
"This issue is important because it is about more than the value of ID - it is about how to view and treat science."
We should view and treat science as science... and not as religion. ID doesn't belong in a scientific discussion, other then, as one of my professors used to say "A question to be discussed over your favorite adult beverage." Its philosophy, or religion. But not science. And teachers should carefully explain the difference if it comes up in a science classroom.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It doesn't belong as a "discussion," because that gives equal weight to a theory that has no scientific weight, and something that has tons of scientific weight.
Except that scientific "weight" should not stem from the percentage of scientists who believe something. It stems only from the scientific evidence you can provide to support that thing and the degree to which that evidence is convincing. Discussions distribute weight in exactly that way.
quote:ID doesn't belong in a scientific discussion, other then, as one of my professors used to say "A question to be discussed over your favorite adult beverage."
Do I have to point out what's wrong with insinuating that philosophical and religious questions are so trivial that they only merit being discussed while drinking?
Furthermore, science should not be in the business of deciding which questions are allowed to be asked in science. It only limits the methods through which those questions can be answered. If a biologist (or anyone) thinks a question can be answered through the scientific method, they are entitled to treat it in a scientific fashion. Others can present evidence against whatever answer they come up with to that question, but they should not be mocking them with the suggestion that such topics only belong in casual bar discussions.
[ November 19, 2005, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It certainly hasn't stopped people from believing ID so far...
That's because it hasn't been universally condemned by the media and powers-that-be.
Consider: does anyone give any consideration to the "dissenting opinions" of Ward Churchill regarding 9/11? No. And not because he's been refuted. Because he's been shouted down.
And rightly so.
quote:Do I have to point out what's wrong with insinuating that philosophical and religious questions are so trivial that they only merit being discussed while drinking?
Not so trivial... just so contentious and so lacking in objective methodology.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But denying the existence of controversy teaches the opposite lesson - that science really is a set of facts that are not to be questioned, that we accept because scientists tell us to accept them.
Pardon the elitism, but this is true for everyone but the scientists. In specialized fields, only qualified people can have good grounds for questioning results unless their claim is that the methodology of the field is unsound. And proving that is a tall order (though I think Sokal has done so with critical theory).
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
quote:No, because it is not agreed upon that ID has no backing or scientific validity. Many people believe it does, including some scientists....
quote:But denying the existence of controversy teaches the opposite lesson - that science really is a set of facts that are not to be questioned, that we accept because scientists tell us to accept them.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read all week. And I've been reading computer manuals
Tres, have you actually read even a page of a bona fide scientific book lately? An article in Scientific American? You would have found that acceptance of and presentation of controversy, uncertainty, and ignorance abound in typical science writing.
[And incidentally, it is then turned against scientists the other way -- 'they aren't even sure!' -- like the way Lisa ridiculed the article on speciation that was linked to here, for spending its first 1/3 explaining how little research there is and how poor the evidence is. Sounds like damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't.]
You're absolutely right about one thing: It isn't responsible science, or science education, if it doesn't acknowledge where the gaps are, the margins of error in experimental data, the unknowns, and the most likely alternative explanations extant, along with a thumbnail sketch of the preliminary evidence leading one way or another.
I'm not sure where you got the idea (since you seem to support the notion that 'scientific method' is a creditable pursuit and worthy of being taught accurately) that 'many people believe it' is by itself sufficient reason for something to be listed by a scientist as an alternative explanation for something she is studying.
As I have noted before, every scientific assertion on any topic ever written could be appended with, "or, an 'intelligent' force or being could cause this to occur."
Here's an exercise for you: Try appending that clause after each of the following:
"Get your flu shots, they will protect you from the virus, or if you catch the virus, the disease's course will be less severe."
"The yeast causes the dough to rise."
"Rising global temperatures may be caused by a natural climatic cycle, or by a greenhouse effect exacerbated by human activity."
"Unprotected sex furthers the spread of some diseases like AIDS."
Would you consider those amended sentences to be scientific? Is the appended clause susceptible to research? Evidence?
Now, for each of those amended sentences, which is MORE scientific if instead you append the clause "or, according to many people, an 'intelligent' force or being could cause this to occur"?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Except that scientific "weight" should not stem from the percentage of scientists who believe something. It stems only from the scientific evidence you can provide to support that thing and the degree to which that evidence is convincing. Discussions distribute weight in exactly that way."
It won't in a high school classroom. High school biology teachers are not experts in the field of evolution, which is unsurprising since they teach evolution for 15 minutes. To properly run a discussion on this would require that all high school biology teachers have masters graduate work concentrated in evolution. Further, you'd need to turn it from a 15 minute segment into a 3 week segment, in order for the students to properly participate in the discussion. I'm not willing to cut out three weeks of real biology so that religious folk can try to undermine the scientific method by putting ID into science classrooms.
A discussion is great, when its feasible. Its not so great in a high school classroom when to have a productive discussion requires that all the participants have a depth of understanding of a specific field that high schoolers never attain for any specific field.
"Do I have to point out what's wrong with insinuating that philosophical and religious questions are so trivial that they only merit being discussed while drinking?"
In a scientific discussion they are EXACTLY that trivial. Philosophy and religion do not belong on in a scientific discussion, and thats exactly what is wrong with your whole attempt to get ID into the classroom. Its putting philosophy and religion into science. What a good science teacher is trying to drum into his students head during high school is that philosophy and religion should NOT be in science. This is one of the reasons I so object to ID in the high school. It undermines science. Whether thats a deliberate attempt or not, I won't say for any individual person. But thats the effect.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tres, JVP is absolutely correct. The version of ID now being bandied about would essentially insert God into everything (not just science). As an example, we would have to add a section in Philosophy classes that would discuss how human reason is really just an illusion created by God to trip us up, or otherwise steer mankind in one direction or another.
In fact, the possibility that "I think, therefore I am" was delivered through divine revelation, rather than logic, must be entertained whenever we teach the segment on the Enlightenment.
And in nutrition classes, we must teach that there's a possibility that the reason carbohydrates break down into cellular fuel is that God is there with a little chisel working at the molecules (whatever those are) and turning a crank inside each cell.
In math classes, 1 + 1 = 2 not because of an immutable property of numbering systems, but because God is there to ensure that it always works out that way. Phew! Thank God for that!
I'm sorry to say it, but ID theory has bitten itself in the tail as near as I can tell from the links provided a page or two ago.
And if you insist that it belongs in Science class, I beg you to explain how or why it should be limited to just that segment of learning when it clearly touches on every thing, every time, and every possible thought, action or event in our world. I submit that ID as currently proposed is the only thing that should or would ever get taught anywhere if it should ever be taught at all.
[ November 19, 2005, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Would you consider those amended sentences to be scientific? Is the appended clause susceptible to research?
As I said, I don't consider ID to be completely scientific - rather it is just a science-related model that integrates other scientific theories. The historical model of evolution fits in the same category.
quote:In specialized fields, only qualified people can have good grounds for questioning results unless their claim is that the methodology of the field is unsound.
This is false. Good grounds for questioning results are good ground for questioning results regardless of who is presenting those refutations. It may be that "qualified" scientists are more likely to question results well, because of their training. It also may be that in some situations "qualified" scientists are more likely to fail to question results well, because their training prevents them from seeing certain questions they should ask. Both effects have been demonstrated historically. There is no shortage of scientific ideas that came from the fringes of science - from people who were at first viewed as wackos who did not know what they were talking about. And this is true for almost any acadmeic discipline.
If we decide to treat science as a church and its scientists as prophets who cannot be questioned by the common person, it should be no surprise when those who disagree with its claims refuse to accept it as a discipline. And it almost makes teaching science in schools pointless. Why bother having students do labs if what they should really do is learn how to obey scientists unquestioningly? Why bother teaching them details about science if they aren't allowed to use these details without first deferring to whatever the scientific community tells them is true?
quote:Philosophy and religion do not belong on in a scientific discussion, and thats exactly what is wrong with your whole attempt to get ID into the classroom. Its putting philosophy and religion into science. What a good science teacher is trying to drum into his students head during high school is that philosophy and religion should NOT be in science.
A good science teacher should show how philosophy and religion relate to science, and should definitely NOT try to keep them out of scientific discussion. Science is most definitely not a field in isolation. Its authority stems from the philosophy behind the scientific method. Its implications can apply to almost every field concerned with empirical reality. And the conclusions of other fields can impact how we consider it. If we are teaching students that other disciplines do not belong in science, we are teaching a fundamentally flawed lesson.
quote:High school biology teachers are not experts in the field of evolution, which is unsurprising since they teach evolution for 15 minutes. To properly run a discussion on this would require that all high school biology teachers have masters graduate work concentrated in evolution.
Then why do we allow them to teach evolution at all? If they can do that, I think science teachers are capable of devising discussions of the issue that will be informative and fair to the evidence in question.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gah, isn't this thread dead yet? I wish starLisa would come back, at least she was willing to argue on actual evidence. Well, up until that started going against her, anyway.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"As I said, I don't consider ID to be completely scientific - rather it is just a science-related model that integrates other scientific theories. The historical model of evolution fits in the same category."
Again, this is entirely false. The historical model of evolution is entirely scientific. Remember, one of the fundamental tenets of scienctific inquiry is that the laws that govern the natural world are constant, unless there is a change that leaves evidence that can be detected through the scientific method that those laws change. Which is why scientific theories, such as evolution, can predict backwards in time. If the laws apply today, then they applied yesterday, even if we weren't checking yesterday to see if those laws applied.
Again, if you want to try to compare ID and evolution, please provide an unfalsified peice of evidence that supports ID contrary to evolution. I suggest the reason you can't do so is not because you aren't an expert in the field, but rather there is none to be found.
"A good science teacher should show how philosophy and religion relate to science, and should definitely NOT try to keep them out of scientific discussion. Science is most definitely not a field in isolation. Its authority stems from the philosophy behind the scientific method."
Philosophies and religion other then the epistomology of science do not relate to scientific inquiry, other then when philosophies and religions use scientific results to justify their own standing. Science is an epistomology, and understanding that epsitomology is essential for high school students. But its also essential that high school students understand that if it is not contained within that epistomology, then it is not science.
" And the conclusions of other fields can impact how we consider it."
Yes, we might derive interesting questions that we'd like science to explore, using other fields. But simply because we ask a question in another field and then ask science to investigate the question, does not make the question necessarily scientific. And what is TRULY not scientific is reaching a conclusion through other epistomologies or religions, and then saying that there must be scientific evidence to support that conclusion, so therefore the conclusion is science.
This is exactly what you are doing, btw.
"If we are teaching students that other disciplines do not belong in science, we are teaching a fundamentally flawed lesson."
No, we're teaching exactly the correct lesson. Scientific inquiry IS isolated, in that anything that is known via methods that are not scientific has no place in a scientific theory. Yes, science interacts with other fields, but does not interact with other fields in gaining knowledge. Once the knowledge is gained, science can disseminate that knowledge, and that knowledge can effect other philosophies, and can effect how people view science, but because science is a strict epistomology, results from other fields cannot be used other then to ask questions within science.
"Then why do we allow them to teach evolution at all?"
For the same reason we allow all teachers to teach what they do. We do not ask teachers to have masters level work concentrating in every idea they will teach. Can you imagine asking a history teacher to have a masters in colonial america, another in the american revolution, another in the civil war, another in reconstruction, etc? Its simply not feasible. What we ask teachers to do is have strong knowledge of the content they will teach, but not expert level knowledge... expert level knowledge takes a long time to gather, and is unnecessary for teaching high school students.
" If they can do that, I think science teachers are capable of devising discussions of the issue that will be informative and fair to the evidence in question."
Not within a reasonable time frame, they can't. Have you seen how many falacies there are concerning evolution? It would take weeks to go over all the falacies, and why they are falacious, if we're going to provide evidence. Don't waste time in a science classroom by making science teachers spend a 2-3 week unit discussing something that shouldn't even be in a science room to begin with.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Remember, one of the fundamental tenets of scienctific inquiry is that the laws that govern the natural world are constant, unless there is a change that leaves evidence that can be detected through the scientific method that those laws change.
Science would lack any reason to make such a claim. Again, science is only as powerful as logic entails it can be. It has no way of scientifically testing whether 1 million years ago, the laws of science operated in just the same way as they do now. And if, as people have suggested, science has no business making non-scientific claims, then science has no business making the assumption that natural laws did act the same way back then.
Again, I disagree - I think making such claims IS science's business, which is why historical evolution is relevant to science, in why ID is as well.
quote:Again, if you want to try to compare ID and evolution, please provide an unfalsified peice of evidence that supports ID contrary to evolution.
Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?
quote:Philosophies and religion other then the epistomology of science do not relate to scientific inquiry, other then when philosophies and religions use scientific results to justify their own standing.
All scientific models are grounded in philosophical non-scientific claims in order to make those models meaningful. Starting with the extremely basic, almost all models assume the physical existence of things - a nonscientific claim. Almost all assume there is some sort of link between causes and effects - another claim that cannot be tested. Science must make the nonscientific assumptions that their instruments reflect the things they are supposed to be measuring, rather than just the instruments themselves. Math is used by all science and taught in science class, yet is not scientifically determined. More field specific, scientific models that relate to history almost always integrate non-scientific historical claims into their models. In order to relate to the actual human mind, psychology must make numerous non-scientific assumptions about the relationship between observable behavior and the internal mental state of individuals, and about those individuals' ability to self-report to some degree. Ethics even comes into play when medical theories are made to determine what should or should not be done to a given patient. And you, yourself, attempted to include the nonscientific claim that "one of the fundamental tenets of scienctific inquiry is that the laws that govern the natural world are constant" in the scope of science. Even science itself would not exist without the philosophical invention of the scientific method that gives it any epistemological value. Science cannot function as we need it to without these nonscientific claims - no matter how much scientists tend to overlook them (and I suspect they often do).
quote:It would take weeks to go over all the falacies, and why they are falacious, if we're going to provide evidence.
I would prefer a shorter unit, simply designed to introduce the main claims and the main disputes over those main claims. Going over every detail is not necessary for the issue, any more than going over every detail of evolution is. We're not asking students to be experts on the ID debate. We are merely hoping to introduce it to them in the way we are introducing everything else to them, so they can understand what it is about later in life. And we are hoping to show them how scientific issues can be debated, and to get them to think about what it means to be scientific. Doing so does not require weeks and weeks of classtime.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Science would lack any reason to make such a claim"
Thats because its one of the fundamental underlying axiom's of science. It is not based upon any scientific inquiry... it is the premise upon which science is built. If you reject the premise that the laws governing the universe are unchanged unless the a law that changes leaves indications that can be discovered scientifically, then you are outside the realm of science. This is a fundamental postulate to science. Without it, you might be doing something that looks like science... but it isn't.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"We're not asking students to be experts on the ID debate. We are merely hoping to introduce it to them in the way we are introducing everything else to them, so they can understand what it is about later in life. And we are hoping to show them how scientific issues can be debated, and to get them to think about what it means to be scientific. Doing so does not require weeks and weeks of classtime."
Yes it does, because otherwise they will come away with the completely unscientific notion that ID has scientific merit. Just as, for some reason, you have.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?"
No I can't, because of the unscientific nature of ID. Any peice of evidence can be claimed by the IDer to exist because of the intelligent nature of the designer. ID does not make any predictions that can be used to seperate it from any other scientific theory, which is part of why it is not scientific. I can provide you with dozens of attempts by IDers to show irreducible complexity, that have been falsified by evolutionary science. I can show you thousands of examples of speciazation, and thousands of examples of experiments in the lab that show seperation of population in accordance with the principles of evolutionary theory. I can show you an evolutionary tree that has fewer evidenciary gaps then IDers will try to get you to believe there are. I can show you evidence for increased diversification of life over time, and I can show you failed species, and successful species. I can show you DNA evidence. I can show examples with evidence of, really, everything evolution claims should occur.
In other words, what I can show you is that evolution does not need ID in order to explain all the evidence we have, and the evidenciary gaps are steadily closing. We'll probably never have complete evidence for the universal descent of species, simply because of the nature of what we're looking at. But I can show you a complete theory, with evidenciary backing.
ID, to have any scientific credibility at ALL, is "Evolution plus god." (alter god to whatever). Because there is no evidence for that "plus god," bit, evolution is distinguished from ID. Science deals with positive proof for theories. That is, for something to be established as a scientific theory, it must have evidence in support of it. Every peice of evidence that could be used for ID is part of evolutionary theory... but there's no extra bit of evidence to support "plus god" to distinguish ID from evolution.
In other words, evolution is distinuished from ID by every peice of evidence that does not require "plus god" to explain. Which is, literally, tens of thousands of peices of evidence. So let me start with one: The inheritence of genes from parents is a peice of evidence in support of evolutionary theory that distinguishes it from ID, as there is no positive scientific evidence within that transfer to suggest "god did it."
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tres,
You are ignoring a whole swath of extremely pertinent information in Paul's posts, John's posts, my posts, fugu's posts.
I don't really understand what it is you think you are accomplishing, but I do wish you'd either respond or tell us that you have nothing to say.
I realize it's tough trying to answer 4 different people all of whom are making different points about your posts, but I suspect that this argument would've ended 4x already had you forced yourself to address the points you have chosen not to address.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?"
No I can't, because of the unscientific nature of ID. Any peice of evidence can be claimed by the IDer to exist because of the intelligent nature of the designer.
Well... If we take 'Intelligent' to mean 'a good engineer', ie the usual sense of the word, then you can point to any number of bad designs in nature. Consider the human spine, for example, plainly intended for a four-legged gait. (I'm sure starLisa would agree with that one.) Or the human eye, whose sensory cells are upside-down and therefore less acute than those of the octopus.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Or nerve cells embedded in teeth!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, but the IDer can simply respond to bad designs in nature by saying "Ahh, but the designer didn't design that part." Or, more classically "Ineffableness of god!"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sure, that's why I specified 'good engineer' for intelligence. If the IDer really, really wants to argue for a Stupid Designer, that's their business.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I don't really understand what it is you think you are accomplishing, but I do wish you'd either respond or tell us that you have nothing to say.
If I answered every individual point made by four separate posters, I'd be writing posts all day and they'd be so long and convoluted that they'd be unreadable. Some points I think I've already addressed. Some points overlap. I try to answer the ones I think are most important that I haven't yet really answered and that I think will most broadly answer the problems you all seem to be having with my position. If there is one particular point you'd like me to address, please distinguish it - but I can't answer ten from four different people every time I post.
quote:Thats because its one of the fundamental underlying axiom's of science. It is not based upon any scientific inquiry... it is the premise upon which science is built.
I don't think it is a fundamental premise of science that laws are unchangeable. For instance, if science said the laws of physics might not apply in the early stages of the big bang, I would not find this inherently unscientific. Science IS based on the idea of using natural laws to explain and predict behavior in the present, future, and past. I think science itself, strictly speaking, is the use of observations to create and test these proposed natural laws. But these laws do not have to be unchanging - they could hold true only depending on certain circumstances being true. A will cause B, when C is the case, but will cease to be true when C is no longer the case. You could choose to make a hypothesis in which there is no C, where A will always cause B, but you could just as easily choose a counterhypothesis in which the law applies to a limited situation. If both hypotheses are supported the same evidence, you can't really reject one or the other. This does not mean only one can be scientific, and it does not mean the distinction between the two does not belong in science. Instead, it means both interpretations are consistent with science for the time being, that neither is supported by science above the other, and that science for now cannot answer the question of which is wrong. In this way, it doesn't need to assume anything it can't logically justify. It informs based on exactly how far it is justified in informing us, and leaves further conclusions to us to interpret.
quote:Yes it does, because otherwise they will come away with the completely unscientific notion that ID has scientific merit. Just as, for some reason, you have.
If by having scientific merit you mean it can stand as a hypothesis until scientific evidence is found to reject it or until a convincing reason is given why it is inherently beyond the scope of science, then yes - this is what I would want students to learn in science class. If by having scientific merit you mean we have reason to think it is true, I don't think they will conclude that unless the ID side of debate can present such a compelling reason, which you all have claimed does not exist to be presented.
quote:ID, to have any scientific credibility at ALL, is "Evolution plus god." (alter god to whatever). Because there is no evidence for that "plus god," bit, evolution is distinguished from ID. Science deals with positive proof for theories.
Firstly, science deals with negative proof against theories. It cannot give positive proof (there is no way to prove something will always hold true), but it can let a theory stand time and time again as long as it does not fail (there is an easy way to prove something will not always hold true - by finding one case in which it is false!)
Secondly, just as ID could be called "Evolution plus God", Evolution could be called "ID minus God". It is (presumably) the same theory but without the intelligent designer. And since science can't prove the "minus God" part, why should it assume it? In short, the same argument goes both ways. I think you may be using Occam's Razor to prevent that argument from going both ways, but Occam's Razor is yet another assumption that I don't think science itself has any business making. We, as we interpret science, can choose to accept Occam's Razor and reject ID. Or we could decide not. And thus science would tell us certain evolutionary processes occur, but cannot determine the exact process of what is driving those processes, whether it is simply natural laws or whether it is intelligence - and the argument could end there.
EXCEPT... ID proponents don't seem to agree that the theory they are presenting cannot be distringuished from evolution in any scientific way. Thus I don't think it could be fair to their position to claim what they are saying is simply "Evolution plus God". They seem to think that the evidence we have is inconsistent with any evolution without an intelligence manipulating it, thus supporting their claim that there must be an intelligence. It is their job to show why this is true, and to convincingly answer the refutations from those who do not accept their reasoning. But they are entitled to present their argument, even if they aren't experts. And if there are enough that continue to see the evidence as sufficient, so much so that it becomes a national debate and laws being passed to support one side or another, then we have a responsibility to teach children what the debate is all about and how it relates to science. And finally, since science is about the evidence being convincing rather than accepting whatever scientists say, we should teach it through explaining evidence, rather than simply declaring correct whatever most scientsts say. If you are correct in that there is very clearly no real evidence, then it should be readily apparent when the supposed evidence is laid out, even if briefly, before students.
quote:The inheritence of genes from parents is a peice of evidence in support of evolutionary theory that distinguishes it from ID, as there is no positive scientific evidence within that transfer to suggest "god did it."
As I alluded to above, the same evidence distinguishes ID from Evolution, because there is no positive scientific evidence within that transfer to suggest god didn't do it. Occam's Razor should not be considered a law of science.
quote:Well... If we take 'Intelligent' to mean 'a good engineer', ie the usual sense of the word, then you can point to any number of bad designs in nature.
I agree that this should be considered possible evidence against ID - and could be easily conveyed even to high school students. It is possible, though, to refine ID around it - but you can only refine so far before a theory becomes unbelievable even if for purely unscientific reasons. Even if consistent with all evidence, I doubt many would accept the existence of a Stupid Designer, for the simple nonscientific assumption that beings capable of controlling evolution shouldn't be too stupid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If you are correct in that there is very clearly no real evidence, then it should be readily apparent when the supposed evidence is laid out, even if briefly, before students.
In my opinion, the supposed evidence should be laid out in front of scientists first, and then they can decide whether or not to lay it in front of students. Since when did students get to decide whether a theory had merit?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tres,
I would take it as a personal favor if you would answer my first post on this page. If you need to cut back a bit, just deal with the last paragraph, or link to where you think you've already answered it.
Again, I'm sorry we're kind of inundating you with points to answer, but I do see you as picking only those that you feel you can answer and just leaving the rest aside because you have no good answer and they are just to damaging to your case.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In my opinion, the supposed evidence should be laid out in front of scientists first, and then they can decide whether or not to lay it in front of students. Since when did students get to decide whether a theory had merit?
They always have. Ultimately, I think it is always a person's own responsibility to determine what they will or will not believe - something that is especially true in any field that is supposed to be grounded entirely in reason. Even if you just believe whatever someone else says, you should remember it is your judgement call to weigh their opinion so heavily.
quote:I would take it as a personal favor if you would answer my first post on this page. If you need to cut back a bit, just deal with the last paragraph, or link to where you think you've already answered it.
Sorry Bob.... I will try to respond to it:
As I understand what you said, you are pointing out the problem that you can add God to any theory and create a new alternative theory that explains all the exact same evidence in a different way. I agree that this is a problem, and an even bigger one than that. I'll go further and say you could add an infinite number of crazy things to theories to explain away the exact same evidence, and end up generating an infinite number of alternative theories for any given set of data. You could say we are all in the Matrix, and that explains everything. You could hypothesize an alternate universe that somehow controls everything that occurs in this universe. You could make even crazier models. I believe it would be correct to admit any of those explanations are legitimate alternative theories, no matter how ridiculous the elements in them seem to be. Science would be right to say it cannot distinguish between them.
So then the first question becomes: Why don't we consider all these models (crazy or not) as equal? I said before that I think non-scientific assumptions are important to science. This is how. We have non-scientific reasons that lead us to favor one particular theory that fits the data other the others. Occam's Razor could be one of those reasons. The simple fact that a theory sounds bizarre could be another. I think in many cases the "beauty" and simplicity of a theory is a big factor into which we accept. I don't really understand how all of that works, but I'm confident it must work something like that because I know I have no evidence against a crazy theory like "we are all in the Matrix", yet I nevertheless do not find myself convinced by it. There must be assumptions I am making, justified or not, that lead me to accept this and live on accordingly until something proves otherwise. It is these same nonscientific assumptions, I believe, that lead scientists and nonscientists alike to favor whatever theory seems most believeable over those that sound crazy or needlessly complicated.
But I think it is important to note that this is different from saying science has rejected those crazier alternatives. They are still valid alternatives. If they are testable then they are scientific hypotheses that could turn out to be true. If not testable, they can still reflect meaningful disagreements between alternative scientific models that could be used to understand and explain how scientific theories fit together. The alternatives continue to be alternatives until proven false - although that does not mean they have to be the alternative we believe, at least not until every other possible alternative is gone.
Then that leads to another question: How is ID any different from these other crazy alternatives that could exist to any other theory? And that answer, I believe, is because people actually think it will prove to be a more accurate theory. You are right that God could cause 1+1 to equal 2, but nobody seems to be concerned about that alternative. For some reason, they ARE very concerned about intelligent designer's role in Evolution, though. That, in itself, distinguishes it from all those other possibilities that nobody really cares to make a big deal about. That makes it controversial, while the method through which 1+1=2 is not controversial.
But why teach controversy just for controversy's sake? Because when students get older, they will be exposed to major controversies and will probably have to make a decision. Chances are slim that the average Kansas resident will one day be asked to decide whether or not they believe God makes 1+1=2. But it is likely they will someday enter into discussions over the relationship between God and evolution. They might even have to pick their politicians according to their position on that. Thus, because something is controversial, it is important to prepare students to understand that controversy. This would be just as true if 50% of Kansas residents thought it was scientifically proven that aliens live in Roswell. If that were true, that theory too would merit some discussion, regardless of how ridiculous the theory sounds. And while we could simply say that scientists reject it and thus it must be wrong, I don't think that is how we should be teaching students that science operates, or how we should be teaching students to judge scientific theories. We should be teaching them to look at evidence. Thus, in my view, the appropriate way to make them aware of a controversy that they will one day probably have to face is by comparing the evidence for both sides, not by simplying telling them what the collective scientific community says is right.
I don't see a problem with putting this in science class because science class is not a sacred thing that is limited only to strictly scientific questions. Even if you don't believe my claim that evolution itself is historical rather than scientific, will you admit there are other unscientific claims discussed in science class? The scientific method itself is something that definitely cannot be scientifically justified. I view science, and all fields, as interconnected with everything else. A graduate of a science class should understand not just science itself but how it relates to other things, and how to apply it to other disciplines. There should not be separate compartments of truth in that person's mind, but rather one truth that integrates all disciplines. This should be the goal of science class - to achieve this with respect to those issues related to science.
So anyways, to answer your question more directly, I think ID is an important issue to teach while all those other God-related hypotheses are not because the ID question is one students will likely confront, while the others are not. Those other hypotheses are still just as possible, but until people start being convinced they are more reasonable than the more dominant accepted theories, they are at the bottom of the infinte list of things that could be discussed.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tres, thanks. That was a truly great post, IMHO.
I have two answers.
ANSWER 1: Sorry, but there are people who believe all of those things. They just aren't numerous.
I thought you were basing your arguments on an overarching principle, not just numbers of adherents. Your way leaves us to the point where in some communities it'll be critically important to teach ID in great detail while in others it'll be given no time at all. IMHO. This is our current situation and, to my mind, no solution at all. It dooms kids in Kansas who may not be interested EVER to have to sit through ID lessons (in some districts, but not others) while in PA (and most other states) they escape it.
ANSWER 2: I see your point and, as I've said earlier, if what we are doing is using ID as an instructional tool to teach the difference between a scientific explanation and one based on religion, I'm all for including it in the curriculum.
My hope is that the only ones doing so would be supremely qualified Biology teachers, and then only in advanced courses so that the subject could be treated in sufficient detail.
I do see how maybe a general science class could benefit from addressing the controversy (as you suggest). Again, just teaching the difference between a valid scientific theory and an invalid one would be worth the time.
. . . Unfortunately, I think we're likely to be stuck for a good long time in the scenario outlined in ANSWER 1 -- local school boards getting it "in" because they've elected a certain brand of religious folks to decide what will be taught. And that means that ID will have to be taught as if it is the truth or potentially so. And that means that your goal of educating people about the controversy isn't going to happen.
Nor will they particularly well-educated about science, IMHO, if ID is taught as if it is a scientific theory.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Good grounds for questioning results are good ground for questioning results regardless of who is presenting those refutations. It may be that "qualified" scientists are more likely to question results well, because of their training. It also may be that in some situations "qualified" scientists are more likely to fail to question results well, because their training prevents them from seeing certain questions they should ask. Both effects have been demonstrated historically. There is no shortage of scientific ideas that came from the fringes of science - from people who were at first viewed as wackos who did not know what they were talking about. And this is true for almost any acadmeic discipline.
Right, by `qualified' I meant trained in the methods of the discipline. It seems just obvious to me, in the extreme example, that if you don't know math you have no grounds for questioning anyone's mathematical results unless you think that math is not in general a good way to get at the truth.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I thought you were basing your arguments on an overarching principle, not just numbers of adherents. Your way leaves us to the point where in some communities it'll be critically important to teach ID in great detail while in others it'll be given no time at all. IMHO. This is our current situation and, to my mind, no solution at all. It dooms kids in Kansas who may not be interested EVER to have to sit through ID lessons (in some districts, but not others) while in PA (and most other states) they escape it.
Well... yes, it would mean the importance of teaching it would vary by community or state. In some areas it might be unneccessary, for the time being at least. I wouldn't say it "dooms" kids though. From their perspective, I suspect a discussion of ID would be rather interesting. And from a learning perspective, I suspect it would teach them a lot about how to think about theories and how to judge their merit.
As for overaching principles, I was basing this on a number of overaching principles about what I think science should be. It should be something that derives its value from the evidence it presents, rather than from the inherent authority of scientists. And it is something that integrates and applies to other disciplines, not a thing in isolation. I think these principles, if we are following them, include ID as a topic that could fit into a science class - but whether or not it would be a priority enough to justify teaching it rather than some other material does come down to the liklihood that they will confront it in life, and thus comes down to the number of adherents.
quote:Right, by `qualified' I meant trained in the methods of the discipline. It seems just obvious to me, in the extreme example, that if you don't know math you have no grounds for questioning anyone's mathematical results unless you think that math is not in general a good way to get at the truth.
Yes, but there could be a difference between being 'trained in the discipline of math' and 'knowing math'. You can't really question a mathematical result unless you know math, but you might be able to know math without having an advanced degree in the field, or without working in the field, etc. If an amatuer mathematician finds a mistake in some mathematical theory that nobody else has seen, that mistake is not invalidated just because he is not as qualified as those who laid out the original theory. If the mistake can be verified by valid math, then it is correct to question it, even if you are not 'qualified'.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?"
No I can't, because of the unscientific nature of ID. Any peice of evidence can be claimed by the IDer to exist because of the intelligent nature of the designer.
Well... If we take 'Intelligent' to mean 'a good engineer', ie the usual sense of the word, then you can point to any number of bad designs in nature. Consider the human spine, for example, plainly intended for a four-legged gait. (I'm sure starLisa would agree with that one.) Or the human eye, whose sensory cells are upside-down and therefore less acute than those of the octopus.
So next time you design an ecosystem, you do it the way you think is right. Maybe those items are like that for a reason.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
I've got a reason.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gah, isn't this thread dead yet? I wish starLisa would come back, at least she was willing to argue on actual evidence. Well, up until that started going against her, anyway.
How cool. I don't even have to be here to be the target of smarminess from KoM. I feel special.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh good, you're back. Do you feel like responding to my previous post directed at you, or are you going to prove me right by chickening out?
And incidentally, I'm not talking about ecosystems, but individual animals. For example, just what do you think is the reason for the human spine, so badly adapted (as you are apparently well aware) for bipedal walking?
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Premise: God created the universe, man, and everything.
Premise: God is perfect and so He created things perfectly.
Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
Counter: That's just the way God intended it to be. Isn't that just so perfect?!?
[sounds of heads banging on a wall]
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
quote: Premise: God is perfect and so He created things perfectly.
Can't a person that is perfect make something intentionaly imperfect?
quote:Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
It wasn't until we made it that way.
quote:Counter: That's just the way God intended it to be. Isn't that just so perfect?!?
So what your saying is that you want to understand the creator of the universe with a mind that could possible understand enough to even begin to? ( Thats not a shot at your mental capabilitys, just saying that its impossible)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, we are saying that IDers say they understand the mind of their designer. Which is the simpler explanation : The 'Intelligent' designer, for some convoluted reason of its own, does deliberately shoddy work; or evolution just takes whatever works?
In other words, why are you suddenly arguing for a Shoddy Designer? Could it be that you are not really arguing on the evidence, but - gasp - have an outside agenda?
There is a name for this fallacy : Special pleading. If you are attempting to show that something must be intelligently designed because it works so marvellously well, then it is dishonest to turn around and argue that there must be a reason for the parts that don't work very well. Either it's intelligent, or it's not. Make up your mind to one of the two, and stick to it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:You can't really question a mathematical result unless you know math, but you might be able to know math without having an advanced degree in the field, or without working in the field, etc. If an amatuer mathematician finds a mistake in some mathematical theory that nobody else has seen, that mistake is not invalidated just because he is not as qualified as those who laid out the original theory. If the mistake can be verified by valid math, then it is correct to question it, even if you are not 'qualified'.
Yeah, Tres, but if the people who do have formal qualifications look at the 'mistake', say "No, you forgot this, that, and the next theorem, and anyway you got this sign wrong, and also you didn't integrate xe^x correctly, oh, and 5 plus 3 is usually considered equal to 8", and the amateur goes on arguing, saying "well you're only saying that because I made you look bad! OMG scientist conspiracy!" - that's when people begin using roll-eyes smileys and calling for real, formal qualifications. And I'm sorry, but this is the level of ID discourse today.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
I think the problem is that if ID is right we still can' can't answer it until apcolipse when Jesus comes back. And if evolution is right we will have to have some major break-through in science to anwser it.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
ID=/=Jesus. Or else keep it the *$%$#( out of public schools, no arguments needed.
Also: apocalypse.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: And if evolution is right we will have to have some major break-through in science to anwser it.
What the heck does this sentence mean? Evolution isn't a question, it is an answer. Granted it's an answer to a specific question, and there are many other questions that Evolution doesn't answer, but those remaining questions, in and of themselves, do not constitute a failing of Evolution. Evolution is the major break-through in science.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
She's using the word "answer" to mean "prove," Karl. In other words, she's saying that you won't be able to prove ID until Jesus returns, and won't be able to prove evolution barring a major scientific breakthrough.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: I think the problem is that if ID is right we still can' can't answer it until apcolipse when Jesus comes back.
Wow. You're going to have a really long wait, then.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
FRESH NEWS!!!
Score one for the science guys in Kansas-- ID = Religious Mythology Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:
quote: Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
It wasn't until we made it that way.
Hmm...let me guess how you were brought up.
You'll have to provide some reasoning, proof, or other evidence that "we made it that way." And blaming it on "Adam and Eve"...well you can if you must, but I was seriously hoping for something, you know, not based purely in mythology.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dan,
Did you note the "persecution" statement from the opposition?
This kind of thing will never work to end the debate or satisfy those who wish to see ID mainstreamed into the science curriculum.
And it probably will just give them ammunition to complain about the perversion of religious instruction in major universities.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Score one for the science guys in Kansas-- ID = Religious Mythology
Hmmm.... If some professor created a course called "The Inherent Wrongness of the Iraq War", do you think that would help or hurt the anti-war cause?
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
I can't believe this topic is still here. Anyways, this seems pretty off the current string of conversation, but this relates to fugu's suggestion (way back on the 1st page) that the universe simply existed and had no beginning in a similar manner as I had described God existed. I don't think this is a reasonable possibilty considering that the universe is composed of matter. Like fugu said, there are definte limitations to the universe, and matter needs to have come from something. Inanimate matter cannot have simply existed with no beginning because matter does not simply exist.
The only way something could have existed for all "time" is if the thing in question is not made of matter and thus, not limited to it's laws. This can be described as spirit, since God in not made of matter (except Christ, but that's beside the point). I also want to stress the point that there is a difference between a soul and a spirit. A soul is defined as "something which animates life", thus, all living things hace a soul, but only human beings have a spirit.
Furthermore, I don't think evolution is any evidence against the existence of God. Intelligent design refers to the creation of matter while evolution refers to the developement of matter. Evolution seems to be anything but evidence against Intelligent design, and therefore, a God
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pericles: why must the matter have come from something? Do you have any justification for that?
If anything, that as far as we can tell matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed (despite our best efforts to do both, and not succeeding in the least) seems to strongly suggest that it did not come from somewhere.
Also, your characterization of ID is wrong. I do not know of any proponent of any note who suggests ID involves the creation of matter, only that God causes genetic changes. Evolutionary theory most definitely speaks to whether or not that is scientifically supportable.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
I'm sorry, but can you clearly state what Intelligent design argues then please. I'm not sure if we're even arguing the same theory anymore when you stated that ID does not involve God creating the universe.
From what I believe, Intelligent design suggests that due to the complexity of the universe, it is unlikely that it had randomly arranged itself into order. And the current result of the universe can thus be traced back to a first uncaused cause, that is God.
God created matter and the laws of science, arranged the universe into an orderly fashion and set it into motion. I don't see how that is against evolution. God created matter and got it going. He was the first cause of the universe, that does not necessarily mean He is the constantly manipulating it.
Since He created the universe and its laws, evolution, a natural part of our world, is also a by-product of His intelligent design. If I am wrong of ID, please correct me in the most criical fashion.
[ November 22, 2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Pericles ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually fugu, the links provided by Paul Goldner at some earlier point in this thread pretty much made it clear that ID is no longer a "pure" theory about genetic changes and the impossibility of "descent with modification" through natural selection to account for SOME phenomena. btw, Pericles, that's pretty much the ORIGINAL meaning of ID.
Nowadays, it has come to mean the same thing as Creationism (and not even the abortive "Creation Science"). That is, everything we see is due to God's activity in constant stream of creation and adjustment, etc.
It is a "theory" only in the sense that religion is a theory rather than a theology. It has ceased to even make a pretense of vagueness on WHO the intelligent designer must be. It's God. The God of Abraham, by the way, and none other.
Period.
I was shocked to find this out, but it is clear to me that the ranks of ID proponents and the responsibility for pushing the "theory" into the limelight has been taken over 99.9% by the Christian Right wing (StarLisa is perhaps in that remaining .1%) and turned into a statement about God, not about science.
(Not that ID ever was about science in the first place, but it at least pretended better than it does now)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Pericles, three points :
1. An uncaused first cause does not have to be capital-G God. It could just as well be the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
2. An extra layer is unnecessary anyway. We know the Universe exists; therefore at some point there was an uncaused cause. Why not make the Universe its own cause? Cut out the middleman, as 'twere.
3. You have absolutely no information on the probability of the current Universe, because you have no data sample. 'Probability' has a precise, mathematical definition, but it only applies to things that are in principle repeatable. There are only two answers you can properly give to 'what is the probability of the current Universe' : Either 'insufficient data, not defined' or '100%'. The latter being the result of the calculation 'the number of this kind of Universes divided by all the Universes we know'.
In short, you are using bad logic and worse math to support your particular version of a feel-good Universe. That's fine, but don't expect to get taken seriously in a scientific discussion.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
It really depends on how that course is taught, don't it?
BTW, Pericles, I have a real difficulty with something coming from nothing. I guess we're on the same page, there.
So, where did this "God" thing come from? I mean, the universe is a pretty complicated place--it has to have been created by something. And if this "God" thing you talk about supposedly created the universe, then it must be just as complicated--if not more so. And something that complicated OBVIOUSLY needs to have been created by something else, and from something else.
I mean--come on! We all know; I mean that common sense tells us that complicated things don't just arise out of nothing, and they just can't "have been around for ever"!
So what created this "God" thing you're talking about?
Actually, other than (supposedly) creating this current universe, what else do we know about this "God" thing? How else would we know that it's a "real" thing, and not just some made-up thing? Or how would we know if it was the right thing, and not some poser? What evidence or proof do we have for it even existing? What tests have been performed on it? Pictures taken? Fossils found? Anything?
[ November 22, 2005, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
Thanks King, I’ll try to be more careful in my wording.Probability was a wrong choice. You’re right that this god may not be the God, or a god at all. It may just be a creator.
Ssywak, I actually had a vey similar discussion with fugu at the beginning of this thread. If God was so complex, shouldn’t he/she/it have a creator as well. The simple answer is no, because He having a creator Himself would be paradoxical in His nature. It is helpful to understand the Christian perspective of God.
Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
God does not have a creator Himself because that would be a direct paradox to His omniscience, omnipotence, and infinite being. He cannot be these things and rely on another being for existence because then those listed characteristics would not be true.
Another aspect of Christian God that people often forget is that He isn’t a biological nor physical being at all (except for Christ at one point), He is spirit. Since He is not composed of matter, His existence does not depend on laws and theories concerned with biology, physics or chemistry. He is infinite, therefore impossible to fully comprehend by finite minds. If people fully understood God’s nature, He wouldn’t be God since He must not be infinite, and therefore not God at all.
Another example of ID could be that a staircase represents causality or the universe while the base represents God. The base does not rely on another plateau for it wouldn’t be a base in the first place.
As opposed to proof, there are only personal testimonies from witnesses, miracles, and photos that the Vatican has accepted but most people still deny as sound scientific proof. One example of a miracle is that which occured at Fatima. Around 70,000 witnesses all claiming to see the same thing but still people believe that every single one of these people had simply seen the same thing because they wanted to see the same thing. Please note that the crowd was not simply composed of devout or ignorant Christians, there were also scientists, news reporters, atheists and agnostics, and they claim to have seen the same things as those around them.
The reasons why you don’t see them in scientific journals or scientific articles is that either they will be ridiculed by the scientific community or that since the ’miracles’ cannot be explained by science, it must be an anomaly, a mistake that is simply discarded and ignored. They simply believe that this occurence was simply a coincidence that just happened to occur in a place of faith.
Please recognize that I’m not expecting for all these sudden converts due to what I’ve written, but I find it helpful to understand both sides. I much appreciate people correcting my logic as long as they explain why it’s wrong. I simply wanted to tell you about what I believe. I’m not denying the fact that our universe is heavilly based on scientific laws and theories and proofs and etc, I’m simply saying that’s not all it relies on.
[ November 23, 2005, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Pericles ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I've been checking in on this thread every few pages and I thought Tresopax's post higher up was one of the most cogent arguments yet on why we should bring up ID in the classroom. I don't think we should "teach" it, but I do think there is a place to discuss it.
There is a time in every teaching of evolution where the instructor needs to talk about what has not yet been proven, how evolutionary theories have changed from new discoveries, and what scientists are still debating over. This is the time and place for a discussion of ID and the controversy. Spend two weeks discussing evolution, spend an afternoon discussing alternative theories and popular beliefs.
In the textbook it should be one of those colored sidebars on one page. In this way you address a very real topic -- many people believe in a directed design -- without assigning it equal weight. And students would see how scientific studies have effects in non-scientific aspects of life outside the classroom.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
>>>Another example of ID could be that a staircase represents causality or the universe while the base represents God. The base does not rely on another plateau for it wouldn’t be a base in the first place.
If the base itself weren't resting on something, it wouldn't be very steady. I wouldn't trust it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
That's all very well and good, but your argument for ID then rests on shaky ground. If something cannot exist without being created -- as you insist the rest of the universe cannot -- then you need to explain why God can exist without being created. Otherwise, we clearly have "evidence" of something existing without being created, and therefore it's conceivable that the universe, like God, could have either sprung into being or always existed.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
God can exist without being created because He is God. He is infinite, He always was, always is, and always will be. He is omniscient, all powerful and capable of doing everything. Like I’ve stated before, it is impossible to know in scientific detail how He is capable of existing from infinity, it is also impossible to comprehend in, scientific detail, how He can do anything. The only answer I can give you that is for certain is because He is God.
It is impossible to understand every possible detail of God and explain it in a logical, scientific, and finite manner. This is because God is an infinite being. Finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite. If a person discovered and understood the fullness of God and tried to write it in a scientific journal, it would take him forever and ever and he would never be able to finish it, even if the writer could live forever himself. That is how complex and great and powerful God is. He is simply beyond human comprehension.
This is why millions of people worship Him, because God is God. He is what He is, His existence does not depend on anything but Himself. He sustains Himself. These traits in themselves deserve worship and praise. That’s why it is important to accept with humility that we simply can’t understand Him and never will.
St Thomas Aquinas, after writing the five possible reasons for God’s existence informed his fellow brother to destroy all his writings and documents saying ’’It is straw’’. His proofs and writings could not possibly convey the love he had for God, and the infinite love that God had for everyone.
If someone told you to make a list of why you love your children, your wife, your friends, you would realize that a list on paper could not possibly convey the fullness of your intentions. It would be nothing, it is straw.
I could go on and on why God can do this and how He can do that, but in the end, it is all just straw.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Why can't The Universe exist without being created because It is The Universe? Why can't The Universe's existence only depend on Itself? What if The Universe was, always is, and always will be?
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
And we come full circle back to the ID theory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, see, we don't.
You have yet to explain why it would be impossible for the Universe to have always existed, and for the universe itself to be infinite. If we're going to claim that something -- God -- can do it, why can't we make the same claim about the universe with just as much justification?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Also, ID theory is not at all about this - these are purely philosophical/logical arguments for God's existence, and they revolve around the origin of the universe. ID theory only refers to the attempted use of scientific data to justify God's existence, and revolves around the complexity of life, not the question of the origin of the universe.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
The universe cannot exist through its own will because, well, it doesn’t have a will. Please correct me if I’m wrong in making this assumption, but I believe you are suggesting that if one follows the string of cause and effect, it is possible that it leads to the whole universe’s own existence and that it had always existed. If this is the case, a cause could not be traced back to a single factor but an infinite amount of causes, considering there be an infinite amount of space in the universe with galaxies with their own solar systems, and solar systems having their own planets, and so on and so forth, leading to an infinite web of causality that cannot be traced back to a single cause at all.
We know through science that energy cannot be created or destroyed but we do know that matter can be destroyed. This was shown through the breaking of the atom. The atom is the smallest intact divisible form of matter before it just becomes energy.
Please note that I am now delving into assumptions and these following thoughts are in no way the thoughts of the Christian Church.
Now, we must assume that energy has always existed, due to the law of conservation of energy, it cannot be created or destroyed. This is where I believe ID comes in. The universe does not yet exist except as protons, eletrons and neutrons floating in space. Space, a measurable, physical quantity must have always existed as well in order to contain these particles. Then instantly all these particles begin arranging themselves into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules to structures, structures to gas, liquid, or solid, all arranging themselves infintely into planets with orbits and solar systems and galaxies and finally we have the infinite universe. This would undoubtedbly have involved a span of time, so time must have existed for always as well.
I could simply state that this design of the universe could not possibly have arranged itself so perfectly and say that I’m done but I’ll try to continue to explain. Returning to when the universe was simply in a state of energy, this state could simply not exist since these energy particles would instantaneously begin to bond due to their charges would always have attracted, therefore there may have been a state before the particles even existed for that state of energy to even have been. The only explanation I can think of that could have possible have existed before this state is God, a being not composed of matter, a spirit.
So if we were to go back and break things down as far as we could, three things might have always existed, time, space, and energy. We know that time and space can be manipulated so it is not a concrete example. So all that’s left is energy. But energy cannot be simply in a state of energy because it must instantly become something. Therefore, I think there must have been something before the energy to be able to put it into a ’’dissociated’’ state and then begin the universe having designed energy, knowing that it would follow the rules of physics and chemistry and then biology.
I know that seems like a farfetched example but that all I can think of at the moment. I’ll try to give it more thought. So my answer for now is that if you reduced the universe to a state of energy there must be something before this state to have designed and set the energy into motion.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Pericles, no one said that the universe had a "will," or existed because of its will. Who says that "will" is a prerequisite for existence? Rocks do not have will, yet they exist.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Pericles:
quote:Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
God does not have a creator Himself because that would be a direct paradox to His omniscience, omnipotence, and infinite being. He cannot be these things and rely on another being for existence because then those listed characteristics would not be true.
Ah...St. Anselm's "Most Perfect Island" theory.
Think of a [God/Island]. Think of a perfect [God/Island]. If that [God/Island] did not exist, then it would not be perfect. Therefore: This perfect [God/Island] MUST EXIST.
But how do you know that it is this particular infinite God that created the universe. What if he created a number of semi-infinite Gods, and each one of those created a universe? How could you know, or tell the difference?
quote:Another aspect of Christian God that people often forget is that He isn’t a biological nor physical being at all (except for Christ at one point), He is spirit. Since He is not composed of matter, His existence does not depend on laws and theories concerned with biology, physics or chemistry. He is infinite, therefore impossible to fully comprehend by finite minds. If people fully understood God’s nature, He wouldn’t be God since He must not be infinite, and therefore not God at all.
How convenient and anti-thought. If you try to know God, then you lose God. So stop trying to know God, and just...accept it.
But accept what? That something created the universe? And if I accept that (I'll accept "something," but I won't accept "God." Let's continue), then what about all the other attributes assigned to "God"? Are they necessary, or sufficient, for a universe-creator? Does the creator of a universe need to be omniscient? Does it need to be all-powerful? You know, if it didn't need to be "all powerful" that would get rid of a lot of silly paradoxes (large rocks, etc., come to mind). Does it need to be infinite? It could be semi-infinite--it could have no meaningful beginning, but could have died 2.87 billion years after creating the universe.
A universe-creator might just have to be "powerful enough," and "knowledgable enough." It wouldn't even have to love us, or care about us. We could be an interesting experiment. Or an oversight. Or a complete mistake. This universe-creator might have had a real keen interest on sponges and fungi, and we just sort of snuck in.
You really don't know all that much about this "God" thing, do you? You have one book, you have all these horribly documented "Miracles" (I researched "Fatima" on the NY Times archives--there is no record of any article, let alone a front-page article, across a +/- 5 year span around 1917, and the only useful article I could find dated from 1952, when the "Keepers of the Shrine" discredited the only known "photographs" of the "Miracle of the Sun" as fakes), and you have all these screwy, contradictory, and unrealistic claims. Yet you call it "Certain" knowledge, and I've heard many call God "The Ultimate Truth," as if calling it thus will somehow make it so.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
Ssyak, I’m not saying you should stop trying to know God, that is actually contrary to what Christians believe in. Realization that God can not be fully understood is basically knowing that people just don’t know everything. Accepting something is not always ignorance, it’s can also be humility.
I’m not quite sure which paradox you are referring to in terms of ’’large rocks’’ and the all-powerful. If you could clarify, that would be greatly appreciated.
In terms of a God being so great that He doesn’t need our praise and love, well, I frankly am very thankful that I exist. You would then probably argue that we’re not products of some untanglible being, but merely a union between a sperm and an egg, developing into a human being. I find it difficult that human beings just evolved a conscience, evolved emotions, and evolved a sense of reflective thought. Nomatter how far into the future we go, I doubt that chimpanzees will evolve into an intelligence that encompasses these traits.
I also reject the thought that humans are just animals who are slaves to their passions. I don’t believe that love is merely a byproduct for survival. We have a fundamental knowledge between right and wrong although it might vary between people. When a person you love romantically loves someone else, you are hurt, not because your chances of ’’mating’ with that person is lower, but because you wanted them to love you back.
You know that adultery is wrong because you have a conscience. You know killing is wrong because you have a conscience.
Getingt back to the topic, I want to clarify that God does not require our praise. Sincerely, God does not need us. But God does find joy through our seemingly futile attempts as a parent finds joy despite their children’s small attempts to love you. We love Him because He loves us. We know this since He humbled Himself to the state of humanity, became man to redeem us. (I could go on about the duality of Christ but it would take too long). This sacrifice would be infintely greater than a person to sacrifice his humanity to become a bacterium to save bacterium.
The idea of humanity being an oversite is doubtful if one takes into mind that He is omniscient. Everything is known to Him. He knows all the infinite possibilities of every single piece of His creation but does not manipulate our free will since that would be against His loving nature.
I find it hard to believe that the New York times would document anything occuring besides what was happening in WWI. Fatima is also an extremely small village so I doubt news would have reached America. I suggest you research newspapers of the country itself rather than relying on the all-knowing New York Times. A miracle you should look into is the one link I gave previously about the Eucharistic miracle. The link for scientific analysis about the miracle are also given.
If you don’t mind, if you could list off some of the contradictions of the New Testament, please allow me to clarify them for you.
[ November 24, 2005, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Pericles ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Pericles,
You're clearly reading from texts that no one's posted here.
"Doesn't need our praise and love" ?? When did I say that?
"humans are just animals are slaves to their passions" Again: ?? I didn't say that, either.
And if you look up "Fatima", you will find that there are many references to atheists and NY Times reporters being there to witness the "predicted event" (of course, who could tell them apart?). And that it received front-page coverage on the NY Times. And, yeah, I'll trust a local Fatima paper over the NY Times. Maybe it'll show up right next to the report of a sighting of Batboy.
quote:..if one takes into mind that He is omniscient
He is not omniscient. "He" does not exist. Please show me how he is omniscient, and how you know that he experiences joy at....anything. You're making this up, or you're parroting something that you've read in one particular book, or books directly derived from that book, or people who get their statements from that book. You go and make all these unsupported claims, and then use these claims to prove that these claims are true. Yikes!
quote:No matter how far into the future we go, I doubt that chimpanzees will evolve into an intelligence that encompasses these traits.
You know, they said the same thing about Homo Erectus about 5 milion years ago...
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
I’m sorry ssyak if you think that I am the only Christian that believes God is omniscient. But I’m prety sure all Christian books, cathechisms, and the Bible claim this. I’m also not ’parroting’ something I’ve read either. And I’m sorry if you feel inclined to purge the world of god, God, or a creator and people like me are standing in the way.
The statment that God does not need our praise and love was not a direct quoation but a seemingly obvious hidden premise in your statement.
’’A universe-creator might just have to be "powerful enough," and "knowledgable enough." It wouldn't even have to love us, or care about us.’’
Perhaps I was mistaken and apologize if I was wrong. The point about humans not being slaves to their passions was simply me trying to emphasize how not all things are scientifcally based.
About Fatima, I was wondering if you happened to find any quotes from the atheists themselves. I’m pretty sure these atheists claim to have seen the same thing as the religious, many of them having been converted.
I will gladly show you, ssyak, that God is omniscient if you can prove that a God cannot exist.
And this is me just being a bugger but, could you get me the name of the person who said that Homo Erectus quote, because if you could that’d be great!
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Pericles, I'm just wondering why you think a discussion of the (or really your) Christian idea of god is appropriate here. If the "scientific" theory of Intelligent Design can even hope to make it into schools, it has to be a theory outside of the Christian idea of god. You seem to draw the conclusion that IF "god" performed certian miracles (Eucharist, Fatima), THEN he must have created teh world because the Bible says that that is the way god is. But, guess what? I'm not Christian, the U.S.A. is NOT a Christian nation, and school is not a place to indoctrinate children in far-fetched understandings of the world, such as the unporoved and unsustained christian idea. Or Jewish or muslim, etc etc. Convince me that ID is valid without delving into any sort of religious explanation, and then I'd consider taking it seriously.
>>>About Fatima, I was wondering if you happened to find any quotes from the atheists themselves. I’m pretty sure these atheists claim to have seen the same thing as the religious, many of them having been converted.
I was wondering if YOU had any quotes from those former athiests. If I'd "seen the light" after doubting, I'd be shouting from the mountaintops to show others that my former disbeleif was wrong. *looks around* Hmm.
Posted by Pericles (Member # 5943) on :
Actually I have realized that the current conversations have little relation to the actual topic of this thread. I originally stated that the existence of God is not counterintuitive of evolution as some people believe, so I wished to clarify this point. I also realize that the majority of the people on this thread are agnostics and atheists, but if you can offer your point of view, why can’t I.
And honestly, I don’t think ID can be explained without involving a relgious or philosophical explanation, sorry.
Here are some quotes
1) One of the principal anti-clerical publications of the day was O Dia, a major Lisbon newspaper. On October 17th, O Dia reported the following:
At one o'clock in the afternoon, midday by the sun, the rain stopped. The sky, pearly gray in color, illuminated the vast arid landscape with a strange light. The sun had a transparent gauzy veil so that eyes could easily be fixed upon it. The gray mother-of-pearl tone turned into a sheet of silver which broke up as the clouds were torn apart and the silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy gray light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds. A cry went up from every mouth and people fell on their knees on the muddy ground. The light turned a beautiful blue as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands. The blue faded slowly and then the light seemed to pass through yellow glass. Yellow stains fell against white handkerchiefs, against the dark skirts of women. They were reported on the trees, on the stones and on the serra. People wept and prayed with uncovered heads in the presence of the miracle they had awaited.
2) Another observer who witnessed these events was Joseph Garrett, a natural sciences professor at Coimbra University. Dr. Garrett described the events in a similar manner:
This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmamant and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during these moments was terrible.
3) The other major Lisbon newspaper, O Seculo, sent its editor, Avelino de Almeida to the scene. He had been quite dismissive of the entire story of Fatima and its predicted miracle in an article he wrote on the morning of the 13th. However, now as a witness to the events of Fatima, he noted the following:
From the road, where the vehicles were parked and where hundred of people who had not dared to brave the mud were congregated, one could see the immense multitude turn toward the sun, which appeared free from clouds and in its zenith. It looked like a plaque of dull silver and it was possible to look at it without the least discomfort. It might have been an eclipse which was taking place. But at that moment a great shout went up and one could hear the spectators nearest at hand shouting: " A miracle! A miracle!" Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was Biblical as they stood bareheaded, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside any cosmic laws - the sun "danced" according to the typical expression of the people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So if we were to go back and break things down as far as we could, three things might have always existed, time, space, and energy. We know that time and space can be manipulated so it is not a concrete example. So all that’s left is energy. But energy cannot be simply in a state of energy because it must instantly become something. Therefore, I think there must have been something before the energy.
One thing that you're not quite getting is that matter, energy, and time are all the same thing. One cannot really exist without the other, or the potential for the other. In other words, there could not have been any time before there was energy, because there would not have been Time without energy. Time started at the moment we got energy, whenever that was or however it happened. There's a reason that most "creation of the universe" theories postulate a multiverse, and this is it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Pericles, I don't know if you read my responses to you and Joldo about Fatima not too long ago in a different thread. You can find it here.
Omniscience is a trait that I figure all Christians attribute to their "God." And not just Christians, either. I think that it's a trait attributed to all world-creating "entities." Why is it so attributed? Who knows; but it commonly is.
And unless you have direct evidence, or a method to determine this independently, then you're "parroting" something you've either heard or read. And you don't have direct evidence that your "God" is omniscient.
And the "God does not need our praise..." How did I imply that? I don't think that your God exists at all, not that he doesn't need this or that.
And how do I prove that an invisible, undetectable entity does not exist? You're the one making the odd claims, the burden of proof is on you. Proove existence fist, then try for omniscience. And don't go using the Bible--the Bible states the premise; it does not provide the proof.
BTW, glad to hear you say that ID = "God did it." We can therefore keep it completely out of public schools. So at least that's decided.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Pericles, I suggest that you never try to argue physics with anyone who actually knows whereof he speaks. Which, interestingly enough, is a reasonably large minority on this board. You plainly haven't the least conception of what energy, time, or matter are; not only that, you can't even conceal your ignorance in math like the rest of us. Come back when you have equations - preferably consistent both with QM and GR, or you'd best have a damn good explanation why not - showing why there must have been something 'before the energy'.
Also, your assertions on what energy can and cannot do make no sense.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I'd be interested in seeing your openness to alternative theories, Pericles. If intelligent design is valid, then are you willing to accept different theories about the designer?
I assume you presume the single-creator theory already, but why not multiple creators? Given how many different types of species there are in the world -- and how many variations exist between "irreducibly complex" organs -- wouldn't it be equally, if not more valid to hypothesize multiple independent creators vying their designs against one another?
Or why not incompetent creators? A ridiculous number of species have died out, as proven by the fossil record, more by the day -- is whoever designed these species too incompetent to provide them with traits needed to survive in this world?
To assume a single, perfect (and what a subjective word that is) deity is to assume a great many things that don't make sense even relative to polytheistic theories, which are a fairly lunatic step as is. Are you as willing to insist on intelligent design if it means teaching children some rather heathen ideas like polytheism and divine incompetence?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: And honestly, I don’t think ID can be explained without involving a relgious or philosophical explanation, sorry.
Pericles, honey, pretend I am shouting here:
That's why it doesn't belong in a science class!!!!
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Long time no see, man ('round these parts, anyway).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
<-- Tears of frustration. If you don't mean what you say, please say so!
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)