<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 02:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 02:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So why do they usually refuse to mention him in debates? Because as soon as someone mentions a supernatural <i>anything</i>, all the people on your side of the aisle leap up, point their fingers, and shout, "Hah! We knew all along you were just a religious zealot! Begone, and take your God theory with you!" And thats the end of the debate.
The only way to have any rational debate is to intentionally avoid mentioning God until the very end, even if it is somewhat illogical. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you have to leave out a crucial part of your arguement to keep things rational, something is wrong.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 4 2005, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 4 2005, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You don't honestly think most IDers haven't thought about what designer they are implying, do you? There may indeed be some, but most IDers know perfectly well that their line of logic leads straight to a supernatural creator.
So why do they usually refuse to mention him in debates? Because as soon as someone mentions a supernatural anything, all the people on your side of the aisle leap up, point their fingers, and shout, "Hah! We knew all along you were just a religious zealot! Begone, and take your God theory with you!" And thats the end of the debate.
The only way to have any rational debate is to intentionally avoid mentioning God until the very end, even if it is somewhat illogical.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course IDers know that the designer must be supernatural. IDers don't mention God, or even a natural designer because both questions demolish ID as a scientific theory.
1. ID maintains that our designers could be natural, but ID offers no explaination as to who these designers are or how they came to be. 2. ID stipulates to a supernatural creator, firmly removing ID from the bounds of anything remotely scientific since it can't be falsified.
Your attempts to paint this as evil dogmatic atheists and mean evolutionary scientists persecuting the hapless Christians and IDers has failed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I'd say you just proved my point. Your argument for dismissing the theory of ID + Supernatural Creator seems to be "I can't prove it wrong". Now THATS some twisted logic. It can't be proved wrong, therefore it can't possibly be true?
Look back at the arguments against it while it doesn't mention a Creator. Those are all points which can be logically debated, and can even produce answers and explanations once you allow us to specify which Creator we are implying. We can even have scientific debates about the ramifications of these events.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just had to pick on this one.
While this is a nice definition of Evolution for the sake of proving it real (how can anyone argue that allele frequencies don't change?), its an ineffective definition for several other questions that Evolution is commonly used to answer.
Specifically, this definition provides no explanation for the ORIGIN of either those alleles, or that population. Both of them have to pre-exist for this evolution to accomplish anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you're describing is known as <i>abiogenesis.</i> It is not an unpioneered field and to say that we know nothing of it is erroneous. There have been many experiments into the origin of amino acids and the conditions in which they could exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you'd actually bothered to <i>read the rest of my post</i>, you'd see that your complaint has already been answered, and demolished.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->]Now, I know that there are THEORIES to account for both of these questions, but they have been left out of the definition precisely because they are not as easily established as fact. If you use the above definition, Evolution just about proves itself. But it doesn't make very many useful predictions until you start including mechanism theories, none of which are proven.
Refusing to provide the mechanism theories while arguing for Evolution is in fact very similar to refusing to identify the Creator while discussing Intelligent Design--funny how that works both ways, huh?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 03:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, I'd say you just proved my point. Your argument for dismissing the theory of ID + Supernatural Creator seems to be "I can't prove it wrong". Now THATS some twisted logic. It can't be proved wrong, therefore it can't possibly be true? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Its not that it can't be proved wrong, its that there is no <i>method that could be used</i> to prove it wrong. That makes it scientifically worthless. Take Newtonian motion. If you observed something that does not exhibit an equal and opposite reaction, that would be your method of proving it wrong. Since we have not found that, we assume Newtonian motion to be true.
If we saw a group of organisms, or a specific pattern, that did not conform to evolution, then our observations would be the method we use to prove it wrong. Since that hasn't happened, we have to assume its correct.
With ID, however, there is no method to prove it wrong. Therefor we can't test it, therefore its completely worthless as a scientific theory.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Aug 4 2005, 06:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Aug 4 2005, 06:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 03:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 03:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, I'd say you just proved my point. Your argument for dismissing the theory of ID + Supernatural Creator seems to be "I can't prove it wrong". Now THATS some twisted logic. It can't be proved wrong, therefore it can't possibly be true? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its not that it can't be proved wrong, its that there is no <i>method that could be used</i> to prove it wrong. That makes it scientifically worthless. Take Newtonian motion. If you observed something that does not exhibit an equal and opposite reaction, that would be your method of proving it wrong. Since we have not found that, we assume Newtonian motion to be true.
If we saw a group of organisms, or a specific pattern, that did not conform to evolution, then our observations would be the method we use to prove it wrong. Since that hasn't happened, we have to assume its correct.
With ID, however, there is no method to prove it wrong. Therefor we can't test it, therefore its completely worthless as a scientific theory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> eX actly. When your response to uncertainty is, "A Wizard did it" without specifying any constraints on what the wizard is able to do, it is worthless as a scientific theory. No matter what you observe, it becomes, "Well the Wizard did that too, he just made it look like that on purpose."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, I'd say you just proved my point. Your argument for dismissing the theory of ID + Supernatural Creator seems to be "I can't prove it wrong". Now THATS some twisted logic. It can't be proved wrong, therefore it can't possibly be true?
Look back at the arguments against it while it doesn't mention a Creator. Those are all points which can be logically debated, and can even produce answers and explanations once you allow us to specify which Creator we are implying. We can even have scientific debates about the ramifications of these events.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it twisted? If we open the door to everything that can't be falsified, we're left with chaotic absurdity. Should we teach the demon theory of disease along side the germ theory of disease? How about the existence of cobbler gnomes? We can't disprove those, but to say that they deserve merit, particularly in the halls of science, is ridiculous. If something can't be falsified, we'd still believe in spontaneous generation of maggots from meat, disease and other maladies are caused by "humours" and that the Earth is orbited by the sun.
Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution are two seperate theories (well, abiogenesis doesn't really meet the test to be a theory) that deal with two different topics. The former is how life originated and the second is how the myriad species came to be.
ID can't be tested because the designer is no where to be found. Dembski's maths manage to reduce ID to an unsolvable mess and Behe's brilliant revelation about irreducible complexity has been proven to be a joke. ID relies on the fact that the public isn't composed of evolutionary scientists and uses linguistic slieght of hand, like the difference between the common use of "theory" and its scientific use, to herd the public into their camp.
If ID is so convincing, why aren't there more biologists jumping on board? How come nearly every scientific body has said that ID is complete and utter bollocks? It can't be the case that all of these biologists, archeologists, chemists and other scientists are conspiring to keep a rival theory down, can it? Why is it that those who are experts in biology think that Intelligent Design is trash? Evolution isn't some half-assed shot in the dark with no real evidence. Darwin's theory of natural selection, genetics, environment. These all combine to form the modern synthesis of evolution. And we're not done. There are still debates within the biology community about evolution like Punctuated vs. Gradual Evolution.
A lot of the confusion in this debate stems from the modular nature of origin-of-life beliefs, and I have to admit I'm somewhat guilty of abusing this confusion myself.
Example: 1--Theory of Evolution within a species via allele frequency changes 2--Theory of Generation of new lifeforms via Evolution 3--Theory of Evolutionary Abiogenesis
1, 2, and 3 are connected--but they are not the same belief. Some people may believe all three, while others may believe just one or two of them. Disproving one of them doesn't necessarily disprove the others, and they really shouldn't be referred to as the same belief during discussion. I'm sure you'll agree with me here, as this was just the example, so let me extend the point to another set of ideas.
1--Scientific Theory of Generation of lifeforms via Evolution 2--Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution as sole source of Generation of Lifeforms 3--Scientific Theory of Creation of lifeforms via outside interference and Intelligent Design 4--Philosophical Theory of Creation of lifeforms by a Creator, possibly via some intermediate method
Now, 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked, and neither are 3 and 4. There are some people who hold 1 but not 2, 4 but not 3, sometimes even 3 but not 4. Now that these have been separated out, I'm going to freely admit that the evidence for 3 is fairly minimal. I honestly wouldn't object to having schools teach 1 but not 3, as the current state of Scientific evidence seems to lean that way.
BUT! In actual practice, 1 is almost NEVER taught in schools as being separate from 2. They are taught together, and it is THIS that drives opposition from the crowd who believes 4, since 4 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 4 and 1 can coexist, 4 and 2 can not.
The solution that has been suggested is to teach the 1-2 couplet, and the 3-4 couplet. Attacking 3 as less scientifically established than 1 may have some merit, but it completely misses the point of the debate. 1 and 3 are not the real issues. 2 and 4 are the real issues. And as much as you might like to believe that non-religious public schools wouldn't teach <i>either</i> of these, the fact is they do. So we need some sort of compromise.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 08:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BUT! In actual practice, 1 is almost NEVER taught in schools as being separate from 2. They are taught together, and it is THIS that drives opposition from the crowd who believes 4, since 4 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 4 and 1 can coexist, 4 and 2 can not. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I've never heard of 2 being taught in schools. All I've ever heard of is schools teaching the physical mechanism, and remaining completely out of the question of a metaphysical cause for that mechanism.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 4 2005, 03:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 4 2005, 03:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Aug 4 2005, 04:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 4 2005, 04:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wait wait wait- ID requirs a massive amount of assumptions, but Evolution doesn't? Still to this day they've proved nothing in Evolution other than natural selection. Many things point to evolution, yes, but that is not fact. Just as many point to ID- so how does ID require more assumptions? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wiggy wiggy what?
Evolution is fact. It's been witnessed in many species, all of which reproduce at a rate a little faster than 5 to 7 generations per century. Bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance very quickly. Mosquitos developed resistance to DDT. It's amazing just how fast a species can evolve if it can reproduce rapidly.
To preempt any "micro- vs macro-" debate, macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time.
ID requires a huge amount of assumptions even if you don't stipulate a supernatural creator. First, it requires life from some other part of the universe. This life must not only exist, but possess intelligence, presumably well beyond our own if it is to be capable of designing the ecosystem of this world. That raises the rather thorny question of "where did the aliens come from?" In an astounding display of undermining their own credibility, IDers won't go anywhere near that. Either aliens evolved naturally, meaning evolution is true or something designed the aliens. If we apply Dembski's fuzzy maths to our naturalistic designers, we find that they must have a designer as well.
To keep ID within the sphere of science, we are left with an infinite regression of designers. The only way to escape this regression is to introduce a supernatural designer, which is the entire point of the ID movement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just use ID with the 'clockwork' setup from 1800s Transcendentalism to explain the beginning of the universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The watchmaker argument has been refuted numerous times.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You understand that what you explained was evolution on a minor scale, correct? Not the massive scale assumed of 'Primordial Soup' to 'Sea Dwelling Creature' to 'Mamallian Monkey-Like Land Walker' to Human, right? Small scale evolution is true, yes- but I'd say that is more a case of adaptation. And even so, it takes many, MANY assumptions about evolution, such as that of how does each cell know how to change each little bit? How do they know where to aim? Where do they get the blueprints for their new selves? Where is this information stored in each cell? Is it merely cellular instinct, or is there a aim from the collective of cells?
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is it twisted? If we open the door to everything that can't be falsified, we're left with chaotic absurdity. Should we teach the demon theory of disease along side the germ theory of disease? How about the existence of cobbler gnomes? We can't disprove those, but to say that they deserve merit, particularly in the halls of science, is ridiculous. If something can't be falsified, we'd still believe in spontaneous generation of maggots from meat, disease and other maladies are caused by "humours" and that the Earth is orbited by the sun.
Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution are two seperate theories (well, abiogenesis doesn't really meet the test to be a theory) that deal with two different topics. The former is how life originated and the second is how the myriad species came to be.
ID can't be tested because the designer is no where to be found. Dembski's maths manage to reduce ID to an unsolvable mess and Behe's brilliant revelation about irreducible complexity has been proven to be a joke. ID relies on the fact that the public isn't composed of evolutionary scientists and uses linguistic slieght of hand, like the difference between the common use of "theory" and its scientific use, to herd the public into their camp.
If ID is so convincing, why aren't there more biologists jumping on board? How come nearly every scientific body has said that ID is complete and utter bollocks? It can't be the case that all of these biologists, archeologists, chemists and other scientists are conspiring to keep a rival theory down, can it? Why is it that those who are experts in biology think that Intelligent Design is trash? Evolution isn't some half-assed shot in the dark with no real evidence. Darwin's theory of natural selection, genetics, environment. These all combine to form the modern synthesis of evolution. And we're not done. There are still debates within the biology community about evolution like Punctuated vs. Gradual Evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how is that NOT twisted logic? Thats like someone from the Medieval days(yes, before evolution) saying "Evolution must be true because of (here is proof)", and someone replying to him "That can't be true because none of it can be proven." Are we as a human race going to repeat the mistake all the scientists before us have convinced themselves for thousands of years of being so arrogant as to think that we even begin to grasp the mechanics of this world around it? We've proved ourselves wrong thousands of times- why can't we be wrong again?
You'll also note that many of the theories that your beliefs are based off of, as well as many of the new sciences, are based off of things that everyone through out as 'trash' back when they first came around. Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the general study of evolution itself?
This is where I exit the thread and watch where it goes, as the discussion forums are a pit of pain and misery and "I'm right you're wrong and theres nothing you'll do to change my mind". Not accusing you of this, Finch <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Aug 4 2005, 08:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Aug 4 2005, 08:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BUT! In actual practice, 1 is almost NEVER taught in schools as being separate from 2. They are taught together, and it is THIS that drives opposition from the crowd who believes 4, since 4 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 4 and 1 can coexist, 4 and 2 can not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've never heard of 2 being taught in schools. All I've ever heard of is schools teaching the physical mechanism, and remaining completely out of the question of a metaphysical cause for that mechanism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then, you haven't looked very closely. Obviously a philosophy stating that there IS no metaphysical cause isn't going to spend much time directly addressing metaphysical causes, but the assumption shows through in every word choice and every guess about things that we don't yet know.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Aug 4 2005, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 4 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You understand that what you explained was evolution on a minor scale, correct? Not the massive scale assumed of 'Primordial Soup' to 'Sea Dwelling Creature' to 'Mamallian Monkey-Like Land Walker' to Human, right? Small scale evolution is true, yes- but I'd say that is more a case of adaptation. And even so, it takes many, MANY assumptions about evolution, such as that of how does each cell know how to change each little bit? How do they know where to aim? Where do they get the blueprints for their new selves? Where is this information stored in each cell? Is it merely cellular instinct, or is there a aim from the collective of cells?
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You just claimed that the concept of DNA is an assumption. Wow. WOW.
And you realise that the jump was not "Primordial soup" to "Sea dwelling creature", it was "primordial soup" to "Astonishingly simple version of life-like processes" to "slightly more complex life-like processes" to maybe "Simple one celled organisms" with probly several steps in between those two. Evolution is not nearly as sudden and unbelievable as ID.
And also, every single one of your questions can be answered using what we already know about natural selection and adaptation through mutation. Except for the one where you kinda ignore DNA.
I'll certainly concede that we all tend to be guilty of simplification and in many cases, overly so. Evolution is a complex topic and the fact that I'm not a doctor of biology doesn't help.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1--Scientific Theory of Generation of lifeforms via Evolution 2--Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution as sole source of Generation of Lifeforms 3--Scientific Theory of Creation of lifeforms via outside interference and Intelligent Design 4--Philosophical Theory of Creation of lifeforms by a Creator, possibly via some intermediate method
Now, 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked, and neither are 3 and 4. There are some people who hold 1 but not 2, 4 but not 3, sometimes even 3 but not 4. Now that these have been separated out, I'm going to freely admit that the evidence for 3 is fairly minimal. I honestly wouldn't object to having schools teach 1 but not 3, as the current state of Scientific evidence seems to lean that way.
BUT! In actual practice, 1 is almost NEVER taught in schools as being separate from 2. They are taught together, and it is THIS that drives opposition from the crowd who believes 4, since 4 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 4 and 1 can coexist, 4 and 2 can not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How exactly are one and two different? Science and atheism are similar in that they both rely on naturalistic explainations, which discounts supernatural causes like a deity. Evolution is atheistic only so far as that it doesn't require the supernatural, but like all science, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The solution that has been suggested is to teach the 1-2 couplet, and the 3-4 couplet. Attacking 3 as less scientifically established than 1 may have some merit, but it completely misses the point of the debate. 1 and 3 are not the real issues. 2 and 4 are the real issues. And as much as you might like to believe that non-religious public schools wouldn't teach either of these, the fact is they do. So we need some sort of compromise.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ID isn't scientifically established at all and as far as scientists are concerned, that's the end of the debate. The vast, overwhelming majority of scientists, particularly biologists, say that ID is bunk. Since it isn't falsifiable or naturalistic, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. It certainly has a place in a philosophy classroom since it's essentially a first cause argument, but in a biology class? No, sir.
In an attempt to keep each post relatively focused, I'll address Quaunaut's post seperately.
<!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Aug 4 2005, 05:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 4 2005, 05:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And how is that NOT twisted logic? Thats like someone from the Medieval days(yes, before evolution) saying "Evolution must be true because of (here is proof)", and someone replying to him "That can't be true because none of it can be proven." Are we as a human race going to repeat the mistake all the scientists before us have convinced themselves for thousands of years of being so arrogant as to think that we even begin to grasp the mechanics of this world around it? We've proved ourselves wrong thousands of times- why can't we be wrong again? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well... if we assume that every time we're wrong again we might as well lay down and not do anything.
True, we have been wrong. True, we will be wrong again. However, each time we have been closer and closer to being correct. There is a difference between being completely wrong and just barely missing truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Evolution must be true because of (here is proof)", and someone replying to him "That can't be true because none of it can be proven." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 4 2005, 06:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 4 2005, 06:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ID isn't scientifically established at all and as far as scientists are concerned, that's the end of the debate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Normally I don't like it when people say, "Thats how it is, end of story.", but I have to make an exception here.
Evolution- Supported by every scientest. Intelligent Design- Supported by no scientist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You understand that what you explained was evolution on a minor scale, correct? Not the massive scale assumed of 'Primordial Soup' to 'Sea Dwelling Creature' to 'Mamallian Monkey-Like Land Walker' to Human, right? Small scale evolution is true, yes- but I'd say that is more a case of adaptation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I preemptively addressed that. You're redefining evolution as "adaptation" because it's convenient. The genetic structure of those organisms changed to suit their environment. If small scale evolution is true, why would you dispute speciation? Is it really so far fetched to think that primates share a common ancestry or that Zebras and horses are descended from a common ancestry? You can't just look at the short term and say that evolution doesn't happen over long periods of time. The genetic makeup of a population will change over time. It's just easier to observe in mosquitos and bacteria because they reproduce at a rate that makes humans look downright slow.
<a href='http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03441/TermPapers/99TermPapers/GenEvo/mutation.htm' target='_blank'>Study on E. Coli Genome Mutation</a>
That one study looked at 10,000 generations of E. Coli. Even if humans produced a generation every 15 years, it would take 1,500 <i>centuries</i> to produce 10,000 generations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And even so, it takes many, MANY assumptions about evolution, such as that of how does each cell know how to change each little bit? How do they know where to aim? Where do they get the blueprints for their new selves? Where is this information stored in each cell? Is it merely cellular instinct, or is there a aim from the collective of cells?
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are a variety of ways a cell can change. Mutator genes, outside sources like radiation and of course, natural selection. Many mutations don't have a particular "aim." Evolution is just a change in the genetic makeup of a population, usually to suit the environment in which it lives. It isn't necessarily "better" and it certainly doesn't possess moral value.
Information is stored in DNA and RNA. Processes are regulated and maintained by chemical interaction. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA' target='_blank'>More on DNA</a>.
Evolution is fact. We've observed it and your distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a false one. The only difference is the time frame.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And how is that NOT twisted logic? Thats like someone from the Medieval days(yes, before evolution) saying "Evolution must be true because of (here is proof)", and someone replying to him "That can't be true because none of it can be proven." Are we as a human race going to repeat the mistake all the scientists before us have convinced themselves for thousands of years of being so arrogant as to think that we even begin to grasp the mechanics of this world around it? We've proved ourselves wrong thousands of times- why can't we be wrong again?
You'll also note that many of the theories that your beliefs are based off of, as well as many of the new sciences, are based off of things that everyone through out as 'trash' back when they first came around. Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the general study of evolution itself?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We certainly can be wrong again, which is why a theory needs to be falsifiable. <i>If a theory can't be proven false, it can never be discarded even if a better theory comes along.</i> ID can't be falsified because there are no observations and no experimentation. It's not arrogance. The modern synthesis is the result of thousands of observations and experiments. Is the theory of evolution complete? No. Science is never really complete, but a scientific theory is the best explaination that we have based on data right now. In the grudge match between evolution and ID, evolution comes out the champ each time. Evolution is the more likely because it can be explained through entirely naturalistic terms.
Relativity, Quantum Theory and evolution were never bunk because they were created in response to observed phenomena. It wasn't the case that observations were found to match the theory. Evolution came from observations, whereas things like "irreducible complexity" came from ID.
ID is putting the wagon before the horse and it shows.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mantrid+Aug 4 2005, 09:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Mantrid @ Aug 4 2005, 09:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 4 2005, 06:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 4 2005, 06:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ID isn't scientifically established at all and as far as scientists are concerned, that's the end of the debate. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Normally I don't like it when people say, "Thats how it is, end of story.", but I have to make an exception here.
Evolution- Supported by every scientest. Intelligent Design- Supported by no scientist.
Guess which one should be taught. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There actually scientist that do support ID. A very few of them. <a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html</a>
But yes the facts are that Intelligent Design has not been fully endorsed by the scientific community. As such it is not fit for the school system yet.
This is not to say that there is no room to teach and learn about Intelligent Design. We can debate till the cows come home about the validity of ID and evolution. And in the education system, that is where universities come in. It is the place to learn and discuss new theories and ideas. Not high school. I mean the theory of extra-terrestial life is still going on. Do we put teach that in high school as well as fact?
Doesnt anyone see the real issue here is whether ID should be taught in high school in the first place and not the validity of ID?
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Aug 5 2005, 03:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Aug 5 2005, 03:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Aug 4 2005, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 4 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You understand that what you explained was evolution on a minor scale, correct? Not the massive scale assumed of 'Primordial Soup' to 'Sea Dwelling Creature' to 'Mamallian Monkey-Like Land Walker' to Human, right? Small scale evolution is true, yes- but I'd say that is more a case of adaptation. And even so, it takes many, MANY assumptions about evolution, such as that of how does each cell know how to change each little bit? How do they know where to aim? Where do they get the blueprints for their new selves? Where is this information stored in each cell? Is it merely cellular instinct, or is there a aim from the collective of cells?
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You just claimed that the concept of DNA is an assumption. Wow. WOW.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And wow again. All of this is explained by DNA, which is indeed where we store the informations that make up our very being. DNA is what controls our growth from a single stem cell into a fully grown human. Change the DNA before growth and you change the outcome of the growth process, just like changing the blueprints of a house before it is built will result in a different house being built.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Aug 4 2005, 08:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Aug 4 2005, 08:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRblong2us+Aug 5 2005, 03:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRblong2us @ Aug 5 2005, 03:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+Aug 4 2005, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 4 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You understand that what you explained was evolution on a minor scale, correct? Not the massive scale assumed of 'Primordial Soup' to 'Sea Dwelling Creature' to 'Mamallian Monkey-Like Land Walker' to Human, right? Small scale evolution is true, yes- but I'd say that is more a case of adaptation. And even so, it takes many, MANY assumptions about evolution, such as that of how does each cell know how to change each little bit? How do they know where to aim? Where do they get the blueprints for their new selves? Where is this information stored in each cell? Is it merely cellular instinct, or is there a aim from the collective of cells?
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You just claimed that the concept of DNA is an assumption. Wow. WOW.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And wow again. All of this is explained by DNA, which is indeed where we store the informations that make up our very being. DNA is what controls our growth from a single stem cell into a fully grown human. Change the DNA before growth and you change the outcome of the growth process, just like changing the blueprints of a house before it is built will result in a different house being built. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I never claimed that it was an assumption, I claimed that we think we know everything about evolution, and that, is an assumption.
Admittedly I'm fighting with little fire here, but saying that 'All Evolution is Fact', I'd begin to think is as pigheaded as the Christian body.
1) Doesn't this discussion fall under the Discussion forum Amedment 1?
2) Assuming there is an omnipresent God, wouldn't a dramatic event of creation kind of remove any element for a rational person to have free will? I mean, it'd be like human DNA being a coded message for "Copyright YHYH, 40004 BC." There's no arguing with that, no free will for anyone with a brain.
So ID peoples, get a grip; there IS a veritable crap-ton evidence for Evolution. Anti-ID peoples, chill out. Just because we think there's a God behind the selection of species that eventually led to us doesn't mean we hate you because you study biology.
Is it bad that I don't care to have a proper debate anymore, and instead just like to throw my thoughts into the middle of a flamewar like this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There actually scientist that do support ID. A very few of them. <a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html</a>
But yes the facts are that Intelligent Design has not been fully endorsed by the scientific community. As such it is not fit for the school system yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No part of ID has been endorsed by the scientific community outside of Discovery Institute members. You're speaking as if ID has scientific merit and it doesn't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is not to say that there is no room to teach and learn about Intelligent Design. We can debate till the cows come home about the validity of ID and evolution. And in the education system, that is where universities come in. It is the place to learn and discuss new theories and ideas. Not high school. I mean the theory of extra-terrestial life is still going on. Do we put teach that in high school as well as fact?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What debate? The debate is over unless you want creationism taught as biology. Bush might say, "The jury is still out on evolution" but it's not. The jury's been back for a long time and the verdict is in. Guess what? Evolution is the man with the master plan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doesnt anyone see the real issue here is whether ID should be taught in high school in the first place and not the validity of ID?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The validity of ID has everything to do with if it should be taught. If it's not valid, it doesn't have a place in schools.
Intelligent Design is creationism gussied up to look scientific. The trouble is, there's nothing scientific about it.
1. ID proponents state that life is too complex to have occured naturally and therefore must have a designer. The implicit goal here is to get people to fill in the blank with "God." When pressed about this designer, IDers will avoid the question, but both resulting possibilities are equally faulty. The first is "turtles all the way down" or an infinite regression of designers into infinity if our designers are naturally occuring. Since the designers must start somewhere, the only way to escape this is to posit a supernatural creator, which is the entire point. ID is backdoor creationism.
2. ID proponents have no trouble using misdirection and subterfuge to accomplish their goals. They'll say that scientific journals won't publish their articles, but there are no articles they produce. At least none that are peer reviewed. They'll take quotes from other biologists who adamantly state ID is bunk out of context in order to support their own aims. IDers won't go up against the scientific community because first, they know they'll lose and second, they don't have to if they want ID in schools.
3. IDers fight in the court of public opinion, not any scientific field. They take to the churches and rally their evangelical supporters, taking advantage of the fact that they know nothing about evolution or even basic biology. Throwing scientific jargon into the mix makes things look legitimate to bystanders because they don't have the training to see through the bullhockey. ID proponents know it's garbage but feed it anyway because it means getting creationism back in schools.
The ID movement is morally and scientifically bankrupt. They prey on those who aren't educated in biology and already believe in creationism. They present themselves as being oppressed when in reality they have no merit, no evidence and no observations. It's a regurgitation of the watchmaker argument which was disproven over a century ago. There is no scientific merit for ID. There never has been and there is no reason it should be in any biology classroom.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 5 2005, 06:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 5 2005, 06:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Intelligent Design is creationism gussied up to look scientific. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ding! Btw folks, there is <i>no question of that</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Aug 4 2005, 09:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Aug 4 2005, 09:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll certainly concede that we all tend to be guilty of simplification and in many cases, overly so. Evolution is a complex topic and the fact that I'm not a doctor of biology doesn't help.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1--Scientific Theory of Generation of lifeforms via Evolution 2--Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution as sole source of Generation of Lifeforms 3--Scientific Theory of Creation of lifeforms via outside interference and Intelligent Design 4--Philosophical Theory of Creation of lifeforms by a Creator, possibly via some intermediate method
Now, 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked, and neither are 3 and 4. There are some people who hold 1 but not 2, 4 but not 3, sometimes even 3 but not 4. Now that these have been separated out, I'm going to freely admit that the evidence for 3 is fairly minimal. I honestly wouldn't object to having schools teach 1 but not 3, as the current state of Scientific evidence seems to lean that way.
BUT! In actual practice, 1 is almost NEVER taught in schools as being separate from 2. They are taught together, and it is THIS that drives opposition from the crowd who believes 4, since 4 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 4 and 1 can coexist, 4 and 2 can not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How exactly are one and two different? Science and atheism are similar in that they both rely on naturalistic explainations, which discounts supernatural causes like a deity. Evolution is atheistic only so far as that it doesn't require the supernatural, but like all science, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait--you meant to tell me you <i>actually can't tell</i> how 1 and 2 are different? Most evolutionists leap at the chance to point out the difference, as soon as their opponents start mentioning how uncannily religious their scientific beliefs seem to be.
But if you honestly don't know, I'll explain it to you.
The Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution is a religious belief set, which starts with the basic precept that there cannot be a God. Nothing else is allowed to contradict this, regardless of what any evidence may suggest. Once established that there cannot be a God, it then goes on to attempt to explain all things in such a way that no God is required for their function, and any theory, no matter how valid by other standards, that suggests the existence of a God is immediately dismissed as Untrue. Scientific Evolution is just one theory that happens to be nearly universally held by believers in Atheistic Evolution Philosophy, because there are no alternative origin of life theories that do not call upon a God.
The Scientific Theory of Evolution, meanwhile, says nothing about the existence of God. It does not require his existence, but neither does it prevent his existence. It is merely a set of physical mechanisms by which some observed changes in species can be explained. If another theory comes by later which can better explain them, it can be discarded. Not so of the Philosophical Theory.
first: Cxwf, not requiring a god is not the same as eliminating him. "Atheistic Evolution Philosophy" is something which has zero hits on google and thus my attempts to learn what exactly you mean by it are a bit hampered.
it seems you mean simply atheists who believe in evolution. This seems unclear. As you clearly state when talking about evolution, it is a theory which neither proves nor disproves god. It simply requires god to have done nothing during the periods of observation. As far as i can tell atheism and evolution are not directly related.
In additon the theory of evolution requires life to operate. simple as that. inanaimate objects simply dont reproduce. which further confuses me about your arguement in realtionship to "Atheistic Evolution Philosophy".
perhaps i am off base on this.
Secondly, the fundemental problem of falsifiying the ID theroy is the largest challenge to it. the simple truth is that much like the existance of god you cannot logically prove that it does or does not exist. there can only be proof of not proof against. thus until one knows every detail of all of time one cannot infact answer the question. it is fundementally impossible to know everyhting, unless one is god. therefore one cannot prove that god didnt do it, unless one is god.
therefore, to prove god doesnt exist one must become god. in principle that is freaking inpossible
I'm not sure that we're actually disagreeing here. It seems to me that we're pretty much on the same page except for a few technical points. I'll try to break my argument down for ease of response.
1. Science, as a naturalistic discipline, can not posit supernatural causes as explanations for natural phenomena such as life. 2. Atheism, the lack of belief in a deity, is also naturalistic and can not posit supernatural causes for natural phenomena. 3. Evolution, like all scientific theories, neither proves nor disproves the existence of a supernatural entity. 4. Evolution is similar to atheism in that it doesn't posit supernatural explainations. 5. That similarity does not make science <i>inherently</i> atheistic, but the correlation between the two naturalistic viewpoints makes for an ease of compatibility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution is a religious belief set, which starts with the basic precept that there cannot be a God. Nothing else is allowed to contradict this, regardless of what any evidence may suggest. Once established that there cannot be a God, it then goes on to attempt to explain all things in such a way that no God is required for their function, and any theory, no matter how valid by other standards, that suggests the existence of a God is immediately dismissed as Untrue. Scientific Evolution is just one theory that happens to be nearly universally held by believers in Atheistic Evolution Philosophy, because there are no alternative origin of life theories that do not call upon a God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering that I am both atheist and evolutionist, I think I would have heard about that somewhere. Perhaps I didn't get the memo. It seems more likely that it's a strawman conjured up to make both atheism and evolution seem intolerant.
I think the difference is this:
Atheism: As there is insufficient evidence for the supernatural, we will not believe in it. Science: The supernatural is outside of the scope of our study.
Just how much debate this single topic has brought up leads me to the conclusion that teaching 'ID' in schools as a science, no less, is a bad idea. When was there last a discussion about whether we've got gravity right or not? The liver? This sort of thing is best left to theoretical discussion IMO and not 'fact' or provable theory as the regular sciences are based on.
As it's already been established in this thread, theories of ID and evolution are able to exist together. The Designer would design evolution, and from a technical standpoint it would be a pretty damn interesting solution to the problem of a changing world. There's no way to prove that could be the case though that we know, like it was mentioned that there's no way to prove the existence of an architect of a building or a designer behind a computer game (thinking abstractly here). Hence, how would it be taught as a science? Why would it be taught to oppose evolutionary theory, as if its 'one or the other'?
Creationism and evolution, however, can't exist together unless you're willing to believe that parts of the bible are false or hugely misinterpreted. Am I right? Not a rhetorical question. Why would Bush say 'both sides' should be taught, unless he thought that it WAS an either or situation, ie, creationism?
i still wish to see this "scientific data" referenced by rad4c and quan
edit: did a google search for ""intelligent design" "scientific data"" first link: <a href='http://www.the-tidings.com/2005/0716/evolution.htm' target='_blank'>pope talks about evolution</a> ... let's ignore this one second link: <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design' target='_blank'>wikipedia</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Critics note that instead of producing original scientific data to support ID’s claims, the Discovery Institute has promoted ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers. Also oft mentioned is that there is a conflict between what leading ID proponents tell the public through the media and what they say before their conservative Christian audiences, and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda. This they claim is proof that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."[16]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
third through fifth links appear to agree with wikipedia, i have neither the time nor inclination to click on the sixth
many references to "scientific data" but no actual data, with the exception of the pirates/global warming graph
edit, while we're talking about "scientific data" <a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/' target='_blank'>ponder this</a> <a href='http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html' target='_blank'>and this</a>
Well, I guess it's my turn to try and derail this sucker. Should politics be allowed to directly influence science?
My vote is no. Scientists should be allowed to become politicians, and politicians scientists. But politicians shouldn't play scientist with the goal of forcing their scientific views upon everyone else. If the scientific community accepts the views on their own merits, that's different.
I'll repeat what I said before (but paraphrase since I don't want to look it up.) The second science blinds itself to legitimate alternatives to current theories is the second science defeats itself. (Please note the word legitimate.) I'm not a big fan of "Discussion forum" so this'll probably be my last post in this thread. I'll keep <!--emo&::lerk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/lerk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lerk.gif' /><!--endemo--> ing it though!
Comments
The only way to have any rational debate is to intentionally avoid mentioning God until the very end, even if it is somewhat illogical. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you have to leave out a crucial part of your arguement to keep things rational, something is wrong.
So why do they usually refuse to mention him in debates? Because as soon as someone mentions a supernatural anything, all the people on your side of the aisle leap up, point their fingers, and shout, "Hah! We knew all along you were just a religious zealot! Begone, and take your God theory with you!" And thats the end of the debate.
The only way to have any rational debate is to intentionally avoid mentioning God until the very end, even if it is somewhat illogical.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course IDers know that the designer must be supernatural. IDers don't mention God, or even a natural designer because both questions demolish ID as a scientific theory.
1. ID maintains that our designers could be natural, but ID offers no explaination as to who these designers are or how they came to be.
2. ID stipulates to a supernatural creator, firmly removing ID from the bounds of anything remotely scientific since it can't be falsified.
Your attempts to paint this as evil dogmatic atheists and mean evolutionary scientists persecuting the hapless Christians and IDers has failed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I'd say you just proved my point. Your argument for dismissing the theory of ID + Supernatural Creator seems to be "I can't prove it wrong". Now THATS some twisted logic. It can't be proved wrong, therefore it can't possibly be true?
Look back at the arguments against it while it doesn't mention a Creator. Those are all points which can be logically debated, and can even produce answers and explanations once you allow us to specify which Creator we are implying. We can even have scientific debates about the ramifications of these events.
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just had to pick on this one.
While this is a nice definition of Evolution for the sake of proving it real (how can anyone argue that allele frequencies don't change?), its an ineffective definition for several other questions that Evolution is commonly used to answer.
Specifically, this definition provides no explanation for the ORIGIN of either those alleles, or that population. Both of them have to pre-exist for this evolution to accomplish anything.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you're describing is known as <i>abiogenesis.</i> It is not an unpioneered field and to say that we know nothing of it is erroneous. There have been many experiments into the origin of amino acids and the conditions in which they could exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you'd actually bothered to <i>read the rest of my post</i>, you'd see that your complaint has already been answered, and demolished.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->]Now, I know that there are THEORIES to account for both of these questions, but they have been left out of the definition precisely because they are not as easily established as fact. If you use the above definition, Evolution just about proves itself. But it doesn't make very many useful predictions until you start including mechanism theories, none of which are proven.
Refusing to provide the mechanism theories while arguing for Evolution is in fact very similar to refusing to identify the Creator while discussing Intelligent Design--funny how that works both ways, huh?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not that it can't be proved wrong, its that there is no <i>method that could be used</i> to prove it wrong. That makes it scientifically worthless. Take Newtonian motion. If you observed something that does not exhibit an equal and opposite reaction, that would be your method of proving it wrong. Since we have not found that, we assume Newtonian motion to be true.
If we saw a group of organisms, or a specific pattern, that did not conform to evolution, then our observations would be the method we use to prove it wrong. Since that hasn't happened, we have to assume its correct.
With ID, however, there is no method to prove it wrong. Therefor we can't test it, therefore its completely worthless as a scientific theory.
Its not that it can't be proved wrong, its that there is no <i>method that could be used</i> to prove it wrong. That makes it scientifically worthless. Take Newtonian motion. If you observed something that does not exhibit an equal and opposite reaction, that would be your method of proving it wrong. Since we have not found that, we assume Newtonian motion to be true.
If we saw a group of organisms, or a specific pattern, that did not conform to evolution, then our observations would be the method we use to prove it wrong. Since that hasn't happened, we have to assume its correct.
With ID, however, there is no method to prove it wrong. Therefor we can't test it, therefore its completely worthless as a scientific theory. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
eX actly. When your response to uncertainty is, "A Wizard did it" without specifying any constraints on what the wizard is able to do, it is worthless as a scientific theory. No matter what you observe, it becomes, "Well the Wizard did that too, he just made it look like that on purpose."
Look back at the arguments against it while it doesn't mention a Creator. Those are all points which can be logically debated, and can even produce answers and explanations once you allow us to specify which Creator we are implying. We can even have scientific debates about the ramifications of these events.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it twisted? If we open the door to everything that can't be falsified, we're left with chaotic absurdity. Should we teach the demon theory of disease along side the germ theory of disease? How about the existence of cobbler gnomes? We can't disprove those, but to say that they deserve merit, particularly in the halls of science, is ridiculous. If something can't be falsified, we'd still believe in spontaneous generation of maggots from meat, disease and other maladies are caused by "humours" and that the Earth is orbited by the sun.
Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution are two seperate theories (well, abiogenesis doesn't really meet the test to be a theory) that deal with two different topics. The former is how life originated and the second is how the myriad species came to be.
ID can't be tested because the designer is no where to be found. Dembski's maths manage to reduce ID to an unsolvable mess and Behe's brilliant revelation about irreducible complexity has been proven to be a joke. ID relies on the fact that the public isn't composed of evolutionary scientists and uses linguistic slieght of hand, like the difference between the common use of "theory" and its scientific use, to herd the public into their camp.
If ID is so convincing, why aren't there more biologists jumping on board? How come nearly every scientific body has said that ID is complete and utter bollocks? It can't be the case that all of these biologists, archeologists, chemists and other scientists are conspiring to keep a rival theory down, can it? Why is it that those who are experts in biology think that Intelligent Design is trash? Evolution isn't some half-assed shot in the dark with no real evidence. Darwin's theory of natural selection, genetics, environment. These all combine to form the modern synthesis of evolution. And we're not done. There are still debates within the biology community about evolution like Punctuated vs. Gradual Evolution.
Search for it. Not my job to prove it, just tell you it's not something to casually throw out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, this being a debate you do have to back up your argument somehow...
if this thread were still in o-t: "yes it is"
Example:
1--Theory of Evolution within a species via allele frequency changes
2--Theory of Generation of new lifeforms via Evolution
3--Theory of Evolutionary Abiogenesis
1, 2, and 3 are connected--but they are not the same belief. Some people may believe all three, while others may believe just one or two of them. Disproving one of them doesn't necessarily disprove the others, and they really shouldn't be referred to as the same belief during discussion. I'm sure you'll agree with me here, as this was just the example, so let me extend the point to another set of ideas.
1--Scientific Theory of Generation of lifeforms via Evolution
2--Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution as sole source of Generation of Lifeforms
3--Scientific Theory of Creation of lifeforms via outside interference and Intelligent Design
4--Philosophical Theory of Creation of lifeforms by a Creator, possibly via some intermediate method
Now, 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked, and neither are 3 and 4. There are some people who hold 1 but not 2, 4 but not 3, sometimes even 3 but not 4. Now that these have been separated out, I'm going to freely admit that the evidence for 3 is fairly minimal. I honestly wouldn't object to having schools teach 1 but not 3, as the current state of Scientific evidence seems to lean that way.
BUT! In actual practice, 1 is almost NEVER taught in schools as being separate from 2. They are taught together, and it is THIS that drives opposition from the crowd who believes 4, since 4 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 4 and 1 can coexist, 4 and 2 can not.
The solution that has been suggested is to teach the 1-2 couplet, and the 3-4 couplet. Attacking 3 as less scientifically established than 1 may have some merit, but it completely misses the point of the debate. 1 and 3 are not the real issues. 2 and 4 are the real issues. And as much as you might like to believe that non-religious public schools wouldn't teach <i>either</i> of these, the fact is they do. So we need some sort of compromise.
I've never heard of 2 being taught in schools. All I've ever heard of is schools teaching the physical mechanism, and remaining completely out of the question of a metaphysical cause for that mechanism.
Wiggy wiggy what?
Evolution is fact. It's been witnessed in many species, all of which reproduce at a rate a little faster than 5 to 7 generations per century. Bacteria can develop antibiotic resistance very quickly. Mosquitos developed resistance to DDT. It's amazing just how fast a species can evolve if it can reproduce rapidly.
To preempt any "micro- vs macro-" debate, macroevolution is just microevolution over a long period of time.
ID requires a huge amount of assumptions even if you don't stipulate a supernatural creator. First, it requires life from some other part of the universe. This life must not only exist, but possess intelligence, presumably well beyond our own if it is to be capable of designing the ecosystem of this world. That raises the rather thorny question of "where did the aliens come from?" In an astounding display of undermining their own credibility, IDers won't go anywhere near that. Either aliens evolved naturally, meaning evolution is true or something designed the aliens. If we apply Dembski's fuzzy maths to our naturalistic designers, we find that they must have a designer as well.
To keep ID within the sphere of science, we are left with an infinite regression of designers. The only way to escape this regression is to introduce a supernatural designer, which is the entire point of the ID movement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I just use ID with the 'clockwork' setup from 1800s Transcendentalism to explain the beginning of the universe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The watchmaker argument has been refuted numerous times.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You understand that what you explained was evolution on a minor scale, correct? Not the massive scale assumed of 'Primordial Soup' to 'Sea Dwelling Creature' to 'Mamallian Monkey-Like Land Walker' to Human, right? Small scale evolution is true, yes- but I'd say that is more a case of adaptation. And even so, it takes many, MANY assumptions about evolution, such as that of how does each cell know how to change each little bit? How do they know where to aim? Where do they get the blueprints for their new selves? Where is this information stored in each cell? Is it merely cellular instinct, or is there a aim from the collective of cells?
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is it twisted? If we open the door to everything that can't be falsified, we're left with chaotic absurdity. Should we teach the demon theory of disease along side the germ theory of disease? How about the existence of cobbler gnomes? We can't disprove those, but to say that they deserve merit, particularly in the halls of science, is ridiculous. If something can't be falsified, we'd still believe in spontaneous generation of maggots from meat, disease and other maladies are caused by "humours" and that the Earth is orbited by the sun.
Abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution are two seperate theories (well, abiogenesis doesn't really meet the test to be a theory) that deal with two different topics. The former is how life originated and the second is how the myriad species came to be.
ID can't be tested because the designer is no where to be found. Dembski's maths manage to reduce ID to an unsolvable mess and Behe's brilliant revelation about irreducible complexity has been proven to be a joke. ID relies on the fact that the public isn't composed of evolutionary scientists and uses linguistic slieght of hand, like the difference between the common use of "theory" and its scientific use, to herd the public into their camp.
If ID is so convincing, why aren't there more biologists jumping on board? How come nearly every scientific body has said that ID is complete and utter bollocks? It can't be the case that all of these biologists, archeologists, chemists and other scientists are conspiring to keep a rival theory down, can it? Why is it that those who are experts in biology think that Intelligent Design is trash? Evolution isn't some half-assed shot in the dark with no real evidence. Darwin's theory of natural selection, genetics, environment. These all combine to form the modern synthesis of evolution. And we're not done. There are still debates within the biology community about evolution like Punctuated vs. Gradual Evolution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how is that NOT twisted logic? Thats like someone from the Medieval days(yes, before evolution) saying "Evolution must be true because of (here is proof)", and someone replying to him "That can't be true because none of it can be proven." Are we as a human race going to repeat the mistake all the scientists before us have convinced themselves for thousands of years of being so arrogant as to think that we even begin to grasp the mechanics of this world around it? We've proved ourselves wrong thousands of times- why can't we be wrong again?
You'll also note that many of the theories that your beliefs are based off of, as well as many of the new sciences, are based off of things that everyone through out as 'trash' back when they first came around. Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the general study of evolution itself?
This is where I exit the thread and watch where it goes, as the discussion forums are a pit of pain and misery and "I'm right you're wrong and theres nothing you'll do to change my mind". Not accusing you of this, Finch <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I've never heard of 2 being taught in schools. All I've ever heard of is schools teaching the physical mechanism, and remaining completely out of the question of a metaphysical cause for that mechanism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well then, you haven't looked very closely. Obviously a philosophy stating that there IS no metaphysical cause isn't going to spend much time directly addressing metaphysical causes, but the assumption shows through in every word choice and every guess about things that we don't yet know.
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just claimed that the concept of DNA is an assumption. Wow. WOW.
And you realise that the jump was not "Primordial soup" to "Sea dwelling creature", it was "primordial soup" to "Astonishingly simple version of life-like processes" to "slightly more complex life-like processes" to maybe "Simple one celled organisms" with probly several steps in between those two. Evolution is not nearly as sudden and unbelievable as ID.
And also, every single one of your questions can be answered using what we already know about natural selection and adaptation through mutation. Except for the one where you kinda ignore DNA.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1--Scientific Theory of Generation of lifeforms via Evolution
2--Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution as sole source of Generation of Lifeforms
3--Scientific Theory of Creation of lifeforms via outside interference and Intelligent Design
4--Philosophical Theory of Creation of lifeforms by a Creator, possibly via some intermediate method
Now, 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked, and neither are 3 and 4. There are some people who hold 1 but not 2, 4 but not 3, sometimes even 3 but not 4. Now that these have been separated out, I'm going to freely admit that the evidence for 3 is fairly minimal. I honestly wouldn't object to having schools teach 1 but not 3, as the current state of Scientific evidence seems to lean that way.
BUT! In actual practice, 1 is almost NEVER taught in schools as being separate from 2. They are taught together, and it is THIS that drives opposition from the crowd who believes 4, since 4 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 4 and 1 can coexist, 4 and 2 can not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How exactly are one and two different? Science and atheism are similar in that they both rely on naturalistic explainations, which discounts supernatural causes like a deity. Evolution is atheistic only so far as that it doesn't require the supernatural, but like all science, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The solution that has been suggested is to teach the 1-2 couplet, and the 3-4 couplet. Attacking 3 as less scientifically established than 1 may have some merit, but it completely misses the point of the debate. 1 and 3 are not the real issues. 2 and 4 are the real issues. And as much as you might like to believe that non-religious public schools wouldn't teach either of these, the fact is they do. So we need some sort of compromise.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ID isn't scientifically established at all and as far as scientists are concerned, that's the end of the debate. The vast, overwhelming majority of scientists, particularly biologists, say that ID is bunk. Since it isn't falsifiable or naturalistic, it doesn't belong in a science classroom. It certainly has a place in a philosophy classroom since it's essentially a first cause argument, but in a biology class? No, sir.
In an attempt to keep each post relatively focused, I'll address Quaunaut's post seperately.
Well... if we assume that every time we're wrong again we might as well lay down and not do anything.
True, we have been wrong. True, we will be wrong again. However, each time we have been closer and closer to being correct. There is a difference between being completely wrong and just barely missing truth.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Evolution must be true because of (here is proof)", and someone replying to him "That can't be true because none of it can be proven." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But if its proof... isn't it already proven?
Normally I don't like it when people say, "Thats how it is, end of story.", but I have to make an exception here.
Evolution- Supported by every scientest.
Intelligent Design- Supported by no scientist.
Guess which one should be taught.
I preemptively addressed that. You're redefining evolution as "adaptation" because it's convenient. The genetic structure of those organisms changed to suit their environment. If small scale evolution is true, why would you dispute speciation? Is it really so far fetched to think that primates share a common ancestry or that Zebras and horses are descended from a common ancestry? You can't just look at the short term and say that evolution doesn't happen over long periods of time. The genetic makeup of a population will change over time. It's just easier to observe in mosquitos and bacteria because they reproduce at a rate that makes humans look downright slow.
<a href='http://info.bio.cmu.edu/Courses/03441/TermPapers/99TermPapers/GenEvo/mutation.htm' target='_blank'>Study on E. Coli Genome Mutation</a>
That one study looked at 10,000 generations of E. Coli. Even if humans produced a generation every 15 years, it would take 1,500 <i>centuries</i> to produce 10,000 generations.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And even so, it takes many, MANY assumptions about evolution, such as that of how does each cell know how to change each little bit? How do they know where to aim? Where do they get the blueprints for their new selves? Where is this information stored in each cell? Is it merely cellular instinct, or is there a aim from the collective of cells?
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are a variety of ways a cell can change. Mutator genes, outside sources like radiation and of course, natural selection. Many mutations don't have a particular "aim." Evolution is just a change in the genetic makeup of a population, usually to suit the environment in which it lives. It isn't necessarily "better" and it certainly doesn't possess moral value.
Information is stored in DNA and RNA. Processes are regulated and maintained by chemical interaction. <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA' target='_blank'>More on DNA</a>.
Evolution is fact. We've observed it and your distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a false one. The only difference is the time frame.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And how is that NOT twisted logic? Thats like someone from the Medieval days(yes, before evolution) saying "Evolution must be true because of (here is proof)", and someone replying to him "That can't be true because none of it can be proven." Are we as a human race going to repeat the mistake all the scientists before us have convinced themselves for thousands of years of being so arrogant as to think that we even begin to grasp the mechanics of this world around it? We've proved ourselves wrong thousands of times- why can't we be wrong again?
You'll also note that many of the theories that your beliefs are based off of, as well as many of the new sciences, are based off of things that everyone through out as 'trash' back when they first came around. Einstein's Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the general study of evolution itself?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We certainly can be wrong again, which is why a theory needs to be falsifiable. <i>If a theory can't be proven false, it can never be discarded even if a better theory comes along.</i> ID can't be falsified because there are no observations and no experimentation. It's not arrogance. The modern synthesis is the result of thousands of observations and experiments. Is the theory of evolution complete? No. Science is never really complete, but a scientific theory is the best explaination that we have based on data right now. In the grudge match between evolution and ID, evolution comes out the champ each time. Evolution is the more likely because it can be explained through entirely naturalistic terms.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought</a>
Relativity, Quantum Theory and evolution were never bunk because they were created in response to observed phenomena. It wasn't the case that observations were found to match the theory. Evolution came from observations, whereas things like "irreducible complexity" came from ID.
ID is putting the wagon before the horse and it shows.
Normally I don't like it when people say, "Thats how it is, end of story.", but I have to make an exception here.
Evolution- Supported by every scientest.
Intelligent Design- Supported by no scientist.
Guess which one should be taught. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There actually scientist that do support ID. A very few of them.
<a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html</a>
But yes the facts are that Intelligent Design has not been fully endorsed by the scientific community. As such it is not fit for the school system yet.
This is not to say that there is no room to teach and learn about Intelligent Design. We can debate till the cows come home about the validity of ID and evolution. And in the education system, that is where universities come in. It is the place to learn and discuss new theories and ideas. Not high school. I mean the theory of extra-terrestial life is still going on. Do we put teach that in high school as well as fact?
Doesnt anyone see the real issue here is whether ID should be taught in high school in the first place and not the validity of ID?
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just claimed that the concept of DNA is an assumption. Wow. WOW.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And wow again. All of this is explained by DNA, which is indeed where we store the informations that make up our very being. DNA is what controls our growth from a single stem cell into a fully grown human. Change the DNA before growth and you change the outcome of the growth process, just like changing the blueprints of a house before it is built will result in a different house being built.
And now for some light entertainment from the late Bill Hicks...
<a href='http://www.archwolf.net/merkaba/billhicks_creationism.mp3' target='_blank'>http://www.archwolf.net/merkaba/billhicks_creationism.mp3</a>
From 1992, don'tcha know. This isn't the first time this has happened.
<a href='http://www.venganza.org/' target='_blank'>Third Alternative to Evolution</a>
Speaking of aegeri...where the hell is he?
That's me firing laughs off after that link. BTW Intermission is almost over!
Grand evolution is as much fact as creationism is- no one knows, and I doubt anyone is ever going to find hard proof, or prove something wrong that way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You just claimed that the concept of DNA is an assumption. Wow. WOW.[...] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And wow again. All of this is explained by DNA, which is indeed where we store the informations that make up our very being. DNA is what controls our growth from a single stem cell into a fully grown human. Change the DNA before growth and you change the outcome of the growth process, just like changing the blueprints of a house before it is built will result in a different house being built. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never claimed that it was an assumption, I claimed that we think we know everything about evolution, and that, is an assumption.
Admittedly I'm fighting with little fire here, but saying that 'All Evolution is Fact', I'd begin to think is as pigheaded as the Christian body.
2) Assuming there is an omnipresent God, wouldn't a dramatic event of creation kind of remove any element for a rational person to have free will? I mean, it'd be like human DNA being a coded message for "Copyright YHYH, 40004 BC." There's no arguing with that, no free will for anyone with a brain.
So ID peoples, get a grip; there IS a veritable crap-ton evidence for Evolution. Anti-ID peoples, chill out. Just because we think there's a God behind the selection of species that eventually led to us doesn't mean we hate you because you study biology.
Is it bad that I don't care to have a proper debate anymore, and instead just like to throw my thoughts into the middle of a flamewar like this?
<a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html</a>
But yes the facts are that Intelligent Design has not been fully endorsed by the scientific community. As such it is not fit for the school system yet. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No part of ID has been endorsed by the scientific community outside of Discovery Institute members. You're speaking as if ID has scientific merit and it doesn't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is not to say that there is no room to teach and learn about Intelligent Design. We can debate till the cows come home about the validity of ID and evolution. And in the education system, that is where universities come in. It is the place to learn and discuss new theories and ideas. Not high school. I mean the theory of extra-terrestial life is still going on. Do we put teach that in high school as well as fact?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What debate? The debate is over unless you want creationism taught as biology. Bush might say, "The jury is still out on evolution" but it's not. The jury's been back for a long time and the verdict is in. Guess what? Evolution is the man with the master plan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doesnt anyone see the real issue here is whether ID should be taught in high school in the first place and not the validity of ID?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The validity of ID has everything to do with if it should be taught. If it's not valid, it doesn't have a place in schools.
Intelligent Design is creationism gussied up to look scientific. The trouble is, there's nothing scientific about it.
1. ID proponents state that life is too complex to have occured naturally and therefore must have a designer. The implicit goal here is to get people to fill in the blank with "God." When pressed about this designer, IDers will avoid the question, but both resulting possibilities are equally faulty. The first is "turtles all the way down" or an infinite regression of designers into infinity if our designers are naturally occuring. Since the designers must start somewhere, the only way to escape this is to posit a supernatural creator, which is the entire point. ID is backdoor creationism.
2. ID proponents have no trouble using misdirection and subterfuge to accomplish their goals. They'll say that scientific journals won't publish their articles, but there are no articles they produce. At least none that are peer reviewed. They'll take quotes from other biologists who adamantly state ID is bunk out of context in order to support their own aims. IDers won't go up against the scientific community because first, they know they'll lose and second, they don't have to if they want ID in schools.
3. IDers fight in the court of public opinion, not any scientific field. They take to the churches and rally their evangelical supporters, taking advantage of the fact that they know nothing about evolution or even basic biology. Throwing scientific jargon into the mix makes things look legitimate to bystanders because they don't have the training to see through the bullhockey. ID proponents know it's garbage but feed it anyway because it means getting creationism back in schools.
The ID movement is morally and scientifically bankrupt. They prey on those who aren't educated in biology and already believe in creationism. They present themselves as being oppressed when in reality they have no merit, no evidence and no observations. It's a regurgitation of the watchmaker argument which was disproven over a century ago. There is no scientific merit for ID. There never has been and there is no reason it should be in any biology classroom.
Ding! Btw folks, there is <i>no question of that</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1--Scientific Theory of Generation of lifeforms via Evolution
2--Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution as sole source of Generation of Lifeforms
3--Scientific Theory of Creation of lifeforms via outside interference and Intelligent Design
4--Philosophical Theory of Creation of lifeforms by a Creator, possibly via some intermediate method
Now, 1 and 2 are not necessarily linked, and neither are 3 and 4. There are some people who hold 1 but not 2, 4 but not 3, sometimes even 3 but not 4. Now that these have been separated out, I'm going to freely admit that the evidence for 3 is fairly minimal. I honestly wouldn't object to having schools teach 1 but not 3, as the current state of Scientific evidence seems to lean that way.
BUT! In actual practice, 1 is almost NEVER taught in schools as being separate from 2. They are taught together, and it is THIS that drives opposition from the crowd who believes 4, since 4 and 2 are mutually exclusive. 4 and 1 can coexist, 4 and 2 can not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How exactly are one and two different? Science and atheism are similar in that they both rely on naturalistic explainations, which discounts supernatural causes like a deity. Evolution is atheistic only so far as that it doesn't require the supernatural, but like all science, it doesn't prove God doesn't exist. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait--you meant to tell me you <i>actually can't tell</i> how 1 and 2 are different? Most evolutionists leap at the chance to point out the difference, as soon as their opponents start mentioning how uncannily religious their scientific beliefs seem to be.
But if you honestly don't know, I'll explain it to you.
The Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution is a religious belief set, which starts with the basic precept that there cannot be a God. Nothing else is allowed to contradict this, regardless of what any evidence may suggest. Once established that there cannot be a God, it then goes on to attempt to explain all things in such a way that no God is required for their function, and any theory, no matter how valid by other standards, that suggests the existence of a God is immediately dismissed as Untrue. Scientific Evolution is just one theory that happens to be nearly universally held by believers in Atheistic Evolution Philosophy, because there are no alternative origin of life theories that do not call upon a God.
The Scientific Theory of Evolution, meanwhile, says nothing about the existence of God. It does not require his existence, but neither does it prevent his existence. It is merely a set of physical mechanisms by which some observed changes in species can be explained. If another theory comes by later which can better explain them, it can be discarded. Not so of the Philosophical Theory.
first: Cxwf, not requiring a god is not the same as eliminating him. "Atheistic Evolution Philosophy" is something which has zero hits on google and thus my attempts to learn what exactly you mean by it are a bit hampered.
it seems you mean simply atheists who believe in evolution. This seems unclear. As you clearly state when talking about evolution, it is a theory which neither proves nor disproves god. It simply requires god to have done nothing during the periods of observation. As far as i can tell atheism and evolution are not directly related.
In additon the theory of evolution requires life to operate. simple as that. inanaimate objects simply dont reproduce. which further confuses me about your arguement in realtionship to "Atheistic Evolution Philosophy".
perhaps i am off base on this.
Secondly, the fundemental problem of falsifiying the ID theroy is the largest challenge to it. the simple truth is that much like the existance of god you cannot logically prove that it does or does not exist. there can only be proof of not proof against. thus until one knows every detail of all of time one cannot infact answer the question.
it is fundementally impossible to know everyhting, unless one is god. therefore one cannot prove that god didnt do it, unless one is god.
therefore, to prove god doesnt exist one must become god. in principle that is freaking inpossible
necessarily necessarily p
I'm not sure that we're actually disagreeing here. It seems to me that we're pretty much on the same page except for a few technical points. I'll try to break my argument down for ease of response.
1. Science, as a naturalistic discipline, can not posit supernatural causes as explanations for natural phenomena such as life.
2. Atheism, the lack of belief in a deity, is also naturalistic and can not posit supernatural causes for natural phenomena.
3. Evolution, like all scientific theories, neither proves nor disproves the existence of a supernatural entity.
4. Evolution is similar to atheism in that it doesn't posit supernatural explainations.
5. That similarity does not make science <i>inherently</i> atheistic, but the correlation between the two naturalistic viewpoints makes for an ease of compatibility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Philosophical Theory of Atheistic Evolution is a religious belief set, which starts with the basic precept that there cannot be a God. Nothing else is allowed to contradict this, regardless of what any evidence may suggest. Once established that there cannot be a God, it then goes on to attempt to explain all things in such a way that no God is required for their function, and any theory, no matter how valid by other standards, that suggests the existence of a God is immediately dismissed as Untrue. Scientific Evolution is just one theory that happens to be nearly universally held by believers in Atheistic Evolution Philosophy, because there are no alternative origin of life theories that do not call upon a God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering that I am both atheist and evolutionist, I think I would have heard about that somewhere. Perhaps I didn't get the memo. It seems more likely that it's a strawman conjured up to make both atheism and evolution seem intolerant.
I think the difference is this:
Atheism: As there is insufficient evidence for the supernatural, we will not believe in it.
Science: The supernatural is outside of the scope of our study.
As it's already been established in this thread, theories of ID and evolution are able to exist together. The Designer would design evolution, and from a technical standpoint it would be a pretty damn interesting solution to the problem of a changing world. There's no way to prove that could be the case though that we know, like it was mentioned that there's no way to prove the existence of an architect of a building or a designer behind a computer game (thinking abstractly here). Hence, how would it be taught as a science? Why would it be taught to oppose evolutionary theory, as if its 'one or the other'?
Creationism and evolution, however, can't exist together unless you're willing to believe that parts of the bible are false or hugely misinterpreted. Am I right? Not a rhetorical question. Why would Bush say 'both sides' should be taught, unless he thought that it WAS an either or situation, ie, creationism?
edit: did a google search for ""intelligent design" "scientific data""
first link: <a href='http://www.the-tidings.com/2005/0716/evolution.htm' target='_blank'>pope talks about evolution</a> ... let's ignore this one
second link: <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design' target='_blank'>wikipedia</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Critics note that instead of producing original scientific data to support ID’s claims, the Discovery Institute has promoted ID politically to the public, education officials and public policymakers. Also oft mentioned is that there is a conflict between what leading ID proponents tell the public through the media and what they say before their conservative Christian audiences, and that the Discovery Institute as a matter of policy obfuscates its agenda. This they claim is proof that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it."[16]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
third through fifth links appear to agree with wikipedia, i have neither the time nor inclination to click on the sixth
many references to "scientific data" but no actual data, with the exception of the pirates/global warming graph
edit, while we're talking about "scientific data" <a href='http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/' target='_blank'>ponder this</a> <a href='http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html' target='_blank'>and this</a>
My vote is no. Scientists should be allowed to become politicians, and politicians scientists. But politicians shouldn't play scientist with the goal of forcing their scientific views upon everyone else. If the scientific community accepts the views on their own merits, that's different.
I'll repeat what I said before (but paraphrase since I don't want to look it up.) The second science blinds itself to legitimate alternatives to current theories is the second science defeats itself. (Please note the word legitimate.) I'm not a big fan of "Discussion forum" so this'll probably be my last post in this thread. I'll keep <!--emo&::lerk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/lerk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lerk.gif' /><!--endemo--> ing it though!