Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Whaleboy]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Nothing of this sort should be taught as 'scientific fact'. Because they aren't. Hell, "scientific fact" is almost a contradiction in that it applies there is no further room for analyse or discussion.

Wrong. Evolution *is* scientific fact, it is just not absolute fact. Scientific fact means a theory/hypothesis that corresponds successfully with empirical observations in a manner such as evolution, gravitation etc. That it is not absolute fact merely means that you don't need faith to say it is true. You're argument would also mean no science could be taught.

Actually, there are whole fields of science dedicated to "intelligent design", what with genetic engineering, molecular control, ect... Really, most applied sciences are nothing more than a study in intelligent design.

Hardly. The question of design is irrelevant to those arguments, and though you may find scientists from those fields concuring with ID, since the refutations are philosophical I'd take their views no more seriously in that respect than a plumbers.

It does have testable predictions. As the article I linked to explained, we can measure the complexity of a system, the amound of information it carries, etc... With that data, we can determine the probability that the system is the result of chance or the result of intelligence. So, it is very testable.

Umm no, it relies on the notion of contingent possibilities, accordingly if one shows (as Russell does) using PSR among other arguments that contingent possiblities aren't in fact contingent, then the whole thing falls apart, both as a theory and as something that makes predictions. Furthermore, presenting systems of increasing complexity and then saying that ID runs in proportion to those odds is affirming the consequent, and using the premise as the conclusion . A big fallacy in other words.

Intelligent design is not 'science' because it cant be refuted not because it cant be tested.

I think it can be refuted by refuting the context in which it is supposed to occur (i.e. context for God) and by using Occams razor.

In fact, DNA can be shown to be the result of intelligence because of the level of complexity, the degree of organized information, the functionality and the fact that there exists no natural mechanisms to produce DNA by chance.

And again, PSR refutes this notion. If it were any other way, we would be impossible, we are here, ergo this was determinable and the odds are irrelevant.

You could also take a structuralist approach and examine it at each constituent stage of construction to reduce the odds but that's unnecessary here of course.

[Whaleboy]

That's because, in the absense of an intelligent actor, there IS no answer to "why" or "who"!

Kant would have something to say about that Kuci . Though I am a moral relativist, morality need not rely on God. But of course, philosophy and science both have their remits and their limits, and there is a point where philosophy is, God help us all, useful.

[Ramo]

It does have testable predictions. As the article I linked to explained, we can measure the complexity of a system, the amound of information it carries, etc... With that data, we can determine the probability that the system is the result of chance or the result of intelligence. So, it is very testable. In fact, DNA can be shown to be the result of intelligence because of the level of complexity, the degree of organized information, the functionality and the fact that there exists no natural mechanisms to produce DNA by chance.

Dude, that article is bull****. To pick one of the many, many problems with it, it assumes that various reactions between molecules are equiprobable. Particles bond not through totally random chance, but through physical forces.

Intelligent design is not 'science' because it cant be refuted not because it cant be tested.

Theories are refuted in science by testing its predictions.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Wrong. Evolution *is* scientific fact, it is just not absolute fact. Scientific fact means a theory/hypothesis that corresponds successfully with empirical observations in a manner such as evolution, gravitation etc. That it is not absolute fact merely means that you don't need faith to say it is true. You're argument would also mean no science could be taught.

Science isn't a product, it's a method.

[Whaleboy]

And a system of definitions .

Hypothesis* -> Sound hypothesis = contingent theory**
Sound hypothesis + valid/strong empirical observation = valid hypothesis = provisional theory***

* Flat earth
** creationism, ID, geocentric
*** General relativity, quantum mechanics, heliocentric, evolution, round earth, "we need air to live"

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


There are no facts which can be tested with Creationism.

Thats what I said. It cant be refuted.

EDIT: others seem confused as to what I meant also.

Almost by definition, creationism is not empirically testable (cannot be refuted) therefore it is not science.

[GePap]

Correct, science is a method- which is why teaching ID is nonsense.

Evolution does not seek to answer the question-where did life come from-it asks, how did life come to look like what it does today- the question of origin is pointless, first to all.

The question to that is for chemists to answer- maybe they will do well in a few years, who knows.

Darwin's great idea was to comapre human forced selection to what may happen in nature, with natural and sexual selection.

It does have testable predictions. As the article I linked to explained, we can measure the complexity of a system, the amound of information it carries, etc... With that data, we can determine the probability that the system is the result of chance or the result of intelligence. So, it is very testable. In fact, DNA can be shown to be the result of intelligence because of the level of complexity, the degree of organized information, the functionality and the fact that there exists no natural mechanisms to produce DNA by chance.

What does that have to do with species in the real world?

Can ID give a set of predictions to what changes might occur in a species faced with a totally new environment?

Does ID explain if the "designer" has stopped? Does it explain the METHODS used by said designer if they have not stopped? How does ID explain changes in microbes based on a Designer?

of what use is ID if the only test one can make is "was it designed intelliegntly or not"?? If it can make no testable predictions (ie, of things that HAVE NOT YET COME TO BE), thenh its utterly useless as science.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by The diplomat
It does have testable predictions. As the article I linked to explained, we can measure the complexity of a system, the amound of information it carries, etc... With that data, we can determine the probability that the system is the result of chance or the result of intelligence.

Shot yourself in the foot, right there.

Probability only applies to future events, not past ones. Doesn't matter if the probability that the universe unfolded by chance was only 1 in 10 bazillion. If it did unfold by chance and here we are today, then that's how it happened. Saying that the other course was more likely doesn't make it true.

Sorta like saying the day after you got hit by lightning that you couldn't possibly have been hit by lightning because the probability was only 1 in a million. It still happened.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Not at all. My argument is that the definition of speciation based solely on reproduction is too narrow. The author also recognizes this problem.

The example is mostly anecdotal and (again) defines species based solely on reproduction. BSC is a good starting point to test for speciation but IMO speciation based on BSC alone is not enough to 'prove' evolution.

EDIT: the other examples are similar to the one quoted and have similar problems

But you haven't given a definition of speciation you find to be acceptable. Please provide. Note that Boxhorn provides examples of several different kinds of speciation, so he does not rely solely on BSC.

As for the examples, I don't see why you'd say they are "anecdotal." Do you think people are making them up?

Creationists are also notoriously slippery when trying to pin down their definition of "species." Why isnt' the scientifically accepted consensus for things being different species acceptable to them? What drives their opinion of the definition of species being problematic? I wager it isn't a scientific controversy.

And to go back a bit, why is the observed evolution of micro-organisms not adequate as proof that evolution occurs? As scientists are quick to point out, the only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is one of degree, not in its nature. Small evolutionary changes compoud to big ones, over time.

Yet again, we have to also qualify what science means by "observed." We observe a fossil record which clearly shows evolution of species over time and the change into different species (such as "transitional" forms). Why is this observational evidence invalid?

We can also "observe" evolution as told by our DNA. It is a veritable recorded history of evolution.

The notion that macroevolution isn't proven because we might not have seen a universally agreed upon case of speciation at a level high enough to suit some nitpickers is silly, considering the abundant amount of evidence there is.

[Sava]

Boris is my hero

[Dinner]

Originally posted by The diplomat
It does have testable predictions. As the article I linked to explained, we can measure the complexity of a system, the amound of information it carries, etc... With that data, we can determine the probability that the system is the result of chance or the result of intelligence. So, it is very testable. In fact, DNA can be shown to be the result of intelligence because of the level of complexity, the degree of organized information, the functionality and the fact that there exists no natural mechanisms to produce DNA by chance.

I might be pissing in the wind but I will give this a chance. Your contention is that due to the complexity of DNA you believe that proves a God created all life. Is that correct?

If I am able to show that DNA and other complex biological systems can be created without the help of the supernatural then will you admite that you are wrong?

[Boris Godunov]

Here's a rather lovely example of speciation in process:

http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm

[Boris Godunov]

The problem with the "complexity" argument is that is purely Argument from Incredulity. Namely, "I personally don't believe it's possible for something so complex as such-and-such to evolve naturally, ergo it was designed." That's not science, that's just making an assumption based on a premade conclusion.

Besides, pretty much every example Behe gave for IC has been shredded to bits by scientists with very plausible scenarios of how they occured naturally. Even the tough nut of the immune system is cracking:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000715.html

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Here's a rather lovely example of speciation in process:

http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm

I used to go hiking in the mountains east of San Diego back in my school days when I had lots of time to kill. I've actually seen those salamanders on several occations or atleast the one local species. They are fairly common in the streams and rivers in these parts.

[Whaleboy]

They're beautiful