Why must intelligent design be stopped

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Very interesting and typical.

You havn't read the book, nor will you.

No, won't say I will. However, if Mr Denton has found real evidence, he would have published it in a scientific journal. You know, publications that have knowledgable people in various fields to guard the gate? So, people writing a book instead are automatically suspect of attempting to circumvent these measures.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Then you chose the reviews that support your predeterminied opinion. (I notice you even admitted MOST were critical. We all know the scientific majority has never been wrong)

I am not a biologist. I surmise you are not, either. How do you evaluate the information in the book without proper knowledge? How can you tell if he is telling the truth or lying?

It appears that you can't, and don't like it a bit when real biologists came along to poke the book full of holes. Why?

Not that the "scientific majority" (whatever that is) has never been wrong - but tell me, what did Einstein do with his papers? Did he get them published, or did he write a (few) book(s)?

This bit about whether the majority in the scientific community has never been wrong or not is getting really old. People who brandish them around are either willfully lying or those who believed them. Either way you are not in a good position.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Then you took selected quotes from someone elses review of a book you never read and changed the emphasis.

I am still waiting to see you establish the case of misquoting. Go on, I even linked to the original.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Is that an open examination of an opposing point of view or a quick attempt to silence it.

So, you are going round and round, not even bothering to point out what went wrong in the critical reviews.

It appears that you haven't read any of them, either.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Me I'm just a believer. (In evolution that is )

Philip Johnson also claimed he wasn't a Creationist in his first book.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Well its getting a little repetitive here, but as I stated earlier, throughout history that established scientific facts or theories were later proven wrong or partially wrong. Those who initially proposed the new theory were either an individual or in the minority.

That's true.

However you failed to note the differences between these pioneers and IDers.

The former group were backed by a) observations and ingenious experiments (van Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, Galileo) b) rigiorous treatment of theories (Newton, Einstein) or c) both.

IDers are backed by misinterpretation of facts and "god-in-the-gaps" argument.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's true.

However you failed to note the differences between these pioneers and IDers.

The former group were backed by a) observations and ingenious experiments (van Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, Galileo) b) rigiorous treatment of theories (Newton, Einstein) or c) both.

IDers are backed by misinterpretation of facts and "god-in-the-gaps" argument.

Have you read my posts? I am not an ID'er or creationist. I am not even religious. The author was not either. The first Chapter of the Book is titled "Genesis Rejected" As a microbiologist and MD, he pointed out what he saw as flaws in the existing theory. He never proposed an alternative theory, including ID or creationism.

Here is a quote from the author from a radio show:

"There are various forms of teleological theories, extending from Creationist intervention theories to nature mysticism. But these theories are (I don't want to be derogatory) an occultist type of theory. You can't really find any evidence that such phenomena are operating in nature, but you can see that natural selection can operate. This is a great strength of Darwinism. Although I think it is totally incapable of accounting for the broad picture, the complex adaptations required by the tree of life, it's certainly capable of generating a certain degree of evolutionary change. That is its great strength."

As I said he rejects Creationism and ID.

Is the theory of Evolution so sacred that it can't be questioned by other scientists? That reminds me of the past, when religion would demand that scientists not question issues. Now you propose that science demand that scientists not questions issues. Or if they do, they be considered scientific heretics.

But lets be a little more specific. What you really propose is that scientists not question ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE. If I told you about a Physicist who was questioning elements of quantum mechanics, would you demand that no one hear his findings and that anyone who did listen to or discuss them was a religious whacko. I doubt it. That is why I refer to people with that attitude as Evolution Fundamentalists.

If you choose to read his book, you can determine for yourself whether or not you consider his arguments/findings valid or not. All he is doing is saying "Hey, here are some things that don't fit". He never says they don't fit because God did it, he just says they don't fit.

I agree that Creationism vs Evolution is Religion vs Science. I agree ID is pretty close to Religion vs Science. But a scientist who pokes holes in the theory of evolution is a scientific issue. So please stop referring to creationism, ID or religion when responding to my posts because my posts have nothing to do with that.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger



It appears that you can't, and don't like it a bit when real biologists came along to poke the book full of holes. Why?

I don't mind that at all. I prefer a discussion which represents all scientific points of view. What is apparent is that you don't like it 1 bit when real biologists come along and pokes wholes in the theory of evolution.

Are you aware that in the Georgia case, numerous PhD's filed an amicus brief? Here's a little of info for you:

according to the academics who signed the amicus brief, among them 12 Ph.D.s who teach at the University of Georgia and 6 PhD's at the Georgia Institute of Technology. They say in their brief that there is growing skepticism that evolution as first elucidated by Charles Darwin in his "On the Origin of the Species" can "account for the complexity of life we see today."

Most of the amici are scientists with doctoral degrees in fields such as biology, biochemistry and other scientific fields.

They include Russell W. Carlson, technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at UGA; Henry F. Schaefer, director of UGA's Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry; Eugene C. Ashby, a professor at Georgia Tech's School of Chemistry and Biochemistry; Leon L. Combs, chair of Kennesaw State University's department of chemistry and biochemistry; and Dr. James A. Tumlin, an associate professor of medicine at Emory University.

The brief notes that its signatories "represent a sampling of a growing number of scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinism's claim that the undirected mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic variations can account for the complexity of life. Amici also represent a number of scientists who are skeptical of chemical evolutionary theory's ability to account for the origin of life."

The brief states, "[S]tandard high-school and college biology textbooks routinely ignore scientific data challenging neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories. ... Furthermore, many textbooks contain purported evidence for neo-Darwinian theory that have long been discredited by scientists, including neo-Darwinists."

The brief acknowledges that this view represents "a minority position within the scientific community."

Earlier I believe someone said there was NO debate among accredited scientist in the appropriate fields on Darwinism. I guess this isn't debate.

Again their brief isn't in support of ID per se,

However, it suggests that when debates such as the one over evolution "are raging, students need to know about them," and school boards "should be able to take reasonable steps to ensure that students are fully informed."

Again, there is a minority consensus amongst many accredited scientists, that there are problems with the theory. I see no reason why these concerns should not be discussed, so long as it doesn't lead to ID or Creationism be proposed as alternative scientific theory.

I am still waiting to see you establish the case of misquoting. Go on, I even linked to the original.

I never said you misquoted. I said you cherry picked quotes and then changed their emphasis. Probably because you were more interested in supporting your predetermined position than actually learning about the issue.

So, you are going round and round, not even bothering to point out what went wrong in the critical reviews. It appears that you haven't read any of them, either.

Apparently, unlike you, I have read reviews, both critical and complimentary. Maybe you should do the same. I havn't seen you point out specifically what went wrong with Denton's book or complimentary reviews of it. If you'd like I could, since I have researched BOTH sides of the argument

Personally, I feel the scientific majority is probably correct and that someday the questions pointed out will be answered. Until then, I think it is very appropriate to hear BOTH qualified viewpoints and have them openly discussed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Have you read my posts?

What I am not sure about is the relevance of your reply. It appears to me a complete non sequitur.

While I did post messages wrt Denton, the one you replied to isn't one of them.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
The author was not either. The first Chapter of the Book is titled "Genesis Rejected"

Anybody who made a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" and rejected the latter is fundamentally a Creationist. It says the person refuses to accept that new species can arise from existing ones. So, from where did they come? Lo, a creator.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
As a microbiologist and MD, he pointed out what he saw as flaws in the existing theory. He never proposed an alternative theory, including ID or creationism.

Denton is said to have converted to evolution. Interesting fact.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
But lets be a little more specific. What you really propose is that scientists not question ONE SPECIFIC ISSUE.

That's a strawman.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
If you choose to read his book, you can determine for yourself whether or not you consider his arguments/findings valid or not. All he is doing is saying "Hey, here are some things that don't fit". He never says they don't fit because God did it, he just says they don't fit.

I could, but a 1985 book pointing out the supposedly gaps in evolution is likely irrelevant now. A lot of progress took place in 20 years.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
But a scientist who pokes holes in the theory of evolution is a scientific issue.

Not necessary. It depends on how. Look at Behe.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I don't mind that at all. I prefer a discussion which represents all scientific points of view. What is apparent is that you don't like it 1 bit when real biologists come along and pokes wholes in the theory of evolution.

None of these so called "holes" stood up to scrutiny. If you look at the whole Creationist movement, how many real biologists are there? You can count them on one hand with fingers to spare.

OTOH, are you aware of "Project Steve?"

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Are you aware that in the Georgia case, numerous PhD's filed an amicus brief?

12 is numerous? As of today there are 649 Ph.D. named "Stephen" (or a variant thereof) support evolution.

I won't call that a knockout. That's a total and complete annihilation.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
The brief notes that its signatories "represent a sampling of a growing number of scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinism's claim that the undirected mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic variations can account for the complexity of life.

Let me guess. You got that from one of DI's press releases?

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Earlier I believe someone said there was NO debate among accredited scientist in the appropriate fields on Darwinism. I guess this isn't debate.

You are right, this isn't debate. It isn't a debate when the evolutionist side has all the cards as the ID side gets thoroughly discredited every time. It's happening in Dover, PA now.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Again, there is a minority consensus amongst many accredited scientists, that there are problems with the theory. I see no reason why these concerns should not be discussed, so long as it doesn't lead to ID or Creationism be proposed as alternative scientific theory.

Hm, I am not sure if this is getting through to you. Let me repeat it once more: evolution is a fact. End of story. There are debates, but only with regards to specific mechanisms.

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I never said you misquoted. I said you cherry picked quotes and then changed their emphasis. Probably because you were more interested in supporting your predetermined position than actually learning about the issue.

So, what was the original emphasis?

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Apparently, unlike you, I have read reviews, both critical and complimentary.

You did? Good. So what mistakes did the critical reviewers made?

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I havn't seen you point out specifically what went wrong with Denton's book or complimentary reviews of it.

I don't think I can cover anything real biologists didn't. OTOH, you seem to think they based their reviews on some sort of blind belief instead of facts? Perhaps you could be so kind as to point them out?

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Personally, I feel the scientific majority is probably correct and that someday the questions pointed out will be answered. Until then, I think it is very appropriate to hear BOTH qualified viewpoints and have them openly discussed.

I don't see two "qualified" viewpoints. ID has no theory, no evidence to back it up, nada.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I don't mind that at all. I prefer a discussion which represents all scientific points of view. What is apparent is that you don't like it 1 bit when real biologists come along and pokes wholes in the theory of evolution.

Are you aware that in the Georgia case, numerous PhD's filed an amicus brief? Here's a little of info for you:

according to the academics who signed the amicus brief, among them 12 Ph.D.s who teach at the University of Georgia and 6 PhD's at the Georgia Institute of Technology. They say in their brief that there is growing skepticism that evolution as first elucidated by Charles Darwin in his "On the Origin of the Species" can "account for the complexity of life we see today."

Most of the amici are scientists with doctoral degrees in fields such as biology, biochemistry and other scientific fields.

They include Russell W. Carlson, technical director of the Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at UGA; Henry F. Schaefer, director of UGA's Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry; Eugene C. Ashby, a professor at Georgia Tech's School of Chemistry and Biochemistry; Leon L. Combs, chair of Kennesaw State University's department of chemistry and biochemistry; and Dr. James A. Tumlin, an associate professor of medicine at Emory University.

The brief notes that its signatories "represent a sampling of a growing number of scientists who are skeptical of neo-Darwinism's claim that the undirected mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic variations can account for the complexity of life. Amici also represent a number of scientists who are skeptical of chemical evolutionary theory's ability to account for the origin of life."

The brief states, "[S]tandard high-school and college biology textbooks routinely ignore scientific data challenging neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories. ... Furthermore, many textbooks contain purported evidence for neo-Darwinian theory that have long been discredited by scientists, including neo-Darwinists."

The brief acknowledges that this view represents "a minority position within the scientific community."

Earlier I believe someone said there was NO debate among accredited scientist in the appropriate fields on Darwinism. I guess this isn't debate.

Again their brief isn't in support of ID per se,

However, it suggests that when debates such as the one over evolution "are raging, students need to know about them," and school boards "should be able to take reasonable steps to ensure that students are fully informed."

Again, there is a minority consensus amongst many accredited scientists, that there are problems with the theory. I see no reason why these concerns should not be discussed, so long as it doesn't lead to ID or Creationism be proposed as alternative scientific theory.

I am still waiting to see you establish the case of misquoting. Go on, I even linked to the original.

I never said you misquoted. I said you cherry picked quotes and then changed their emphasis. Probably because you were more interested in supporting your predetermined position than actually learning about the issue.

So, you are going round and round, not even bothering to point out what went wrong in the critical reviews. It appears that you haven't read any of them, either.

Apparently, unlike you, I have read reviews, both critical and complimentary. Maybe you should do the same. I havn't seen you point out specifically what went wrong with Denton's book or complimentary reviews of it. If you'd like I could, since I have researched BOTH sides of the argument

Personally, I feel the scientific majority is probably correct and that someday the questions pointed out will be answered. Until then, I think it is very appropriate to hear BOTH qualified viewpoints and have them openly discussed.

There are geologists who think there is no continetal drift, but good luck in getting those "objections" into a geology textbook. If you take your nonsense to it's ultimate conclusion you smother science in a glut of skepticism (in the negitive, nihilistic sense of the word).

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Earlier I believe someone said there was NO debate among accredited scientist in the appropriate fields on Darwinism. I guess this isn't debate.

The simply is no debate.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/2638_the_elusive_scientific_basis_o_12_30_1899.asp

In 20 years not single peer reviewed and testable scientific paper being published in support of intelligent design. Not a single one.

The only debate in active scientific circles, the ones conducting research and actually working as scientists, is about specific details of how evolution worked in any given species or how important any one detail is over another detail. "Intelligent Design" for all the blather hasn't produced a single scientific paper.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So that is the entirety of evolution, the fact that genetics will produce mutations from time to time?

Can't recall stating that.

Can recall you stating (without evidence) that:

The current biological theories with evolution aren't working very well.

I show evidence for evolution, you show evidence you haven't read or understood Darwin.


Seems a fair exchange to me.

[binTravkin]

Originally posted by Sava


there is no changing their minds...

these people don't listen to reason...

they are like the TERMINATOR

"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead!!!"




nothing will ever change their minds... no proof... nothing... it is pure ignorance

and absolutely we should come out and call ignorance by its name

and we should fight TO THE DEATH to prevent these IDIOTS from corrupting our educational system

QFT

Those people never fail to surprise me.
If you compare them to computers, you could say that their faith is not even hardcoded but built in BIOS or something deeper than that.

Sometimes there's a feeling that it's more use of arguing with a tree or a stone than them.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I don't see two "qualified" viewpoints. ID has no theory, no evidence to back it up, nada.

Are you really that stupid or just lazy. In every post, I have said I don't believe in ID or Creationism. And as I have pointed out, alot of qualified people, who don't believe in Creationism or ID have problems with evolution.

I am not even going to bother discussing this issue in this thread because you refuse to even acknowledge what I said.

For the millionth time.

1) I don't believe in ID or Creationism nor do I think they should be taught in schools. I said I believed evolution was probably correct and the flaws brought up would probably be answered.

2) There are many qualified scientists who don't believe in ID or Creationism but have problems with elements of evolution. They include PhD's in molecular biology, biology, chemisty, etc... They also include heads of departments at major universities. (You probably didn't read that because you were too busy typing ID and Creationism, or just refuse to acknowledge)

3) Just because someone has problems with Theory "a" doesn't mean they believe in theory "b". It means they don't have an answer for the problems they see in theory "a"

4) When so many qualified people have similiar doubts about evolution, there is no reason why those doubts shouldn't be raised before our future scientists. THIS DOES NOT MEAN TEACH ID OR CREATIONISM.

5) Your attitude (and by you I mean all the people who have responded similiarly to my posts, by ignoring what I have written and accusing me of supporting ID and Creationism) is typical of the closed minded people who don't want to hear anything other than what they believe.

You are the fundamentalist.

BYE BYE - See you in some other thread that perhaps you will listen to what I say and direct your comments to what I say not what words you want to put in my mouth.

[Whaleboy]

I have, and it confirmed for me that biologists make up lots of things that don't really fit into the idea that natural selection is responsible for most of the traits that people have.

Reference?

There are crackpot biologists, which is why it is dangerous for you to simply say biologists = evolutionists = biologists. I hate to say "evolutionist" because it implies a belief but we've already dealt with that, and it's more etymologically convenient, so when I say "evolutionist", assume it to mean "one who concurs with, and understands evolution".

Evolutionists are saying that there is a natural force which acts contrary to entropy, acting over a large amount of time to increase rather then decrease complexity. They don't postulate the way in which this force works, other then through natural selection.

Which evolutionists

Your idea of that concept, which you oppose to entropy, seems to be that without this "force", TofE would conclude that natural selection would be subject to entropy in the familial sense, and random chance through natural selection would summarily decrease the complexity of life.

It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Whether it is on the part of these "evolutionists" who propose it, or on your or ID-advocate's parts I don't know, but it cannot do any good to misrepresent a position so I shall attempt to clarify.

Evolution by natural selection is anything but random. I find it refreshing to read Dawkin's "The Blind Watchmaker" that I recommended to Sava earlier, since he faced the same arguments that I seem to be. He used the analogy of an airliner. If one takes all the component parts of an airliner, and throws them together in one place, one if not a few of the possible combinations of the resultant arrangement would fly. The odds of achieving such an arrangement are so astronomically small that we can very safely say that if you throw together a bunch of metal sheet, tube, etc, you will end up with a junkyard and not a plane. Similarly, one cannot throw a bunch of cells together and end up with a human.

This, however, is not how evolution works. Each step, each generation, is recursive; a rate of mutation does not equal a rate of evolution, since for the most part, natural selection is destructive. It seems paradoxical to say that of course but the environment will "naturally select" genes that fit it best, it takes a change in the environment be it geological, predators etc, to encourage different traits to be selected. That is what I mean by non-random; that a lifeform will tend to fit its environment is deterministic and quite clear.

Now you mention complexity, and that is a tricky one since there are several senses in which you could be using that word... I shall use it in the way I know you'll default to, and that is the same way the those who believe in "irreducably complexity" use it; that is to say, an increase in "complexity" = increase in "improbability" = increase in difficulty for any hypothetical designer let alone random chance. If you mean it in any other way, then please do let me know.

If we are not to deal with irreducable complexity for the minute, then we msut deal with its predicate, and that is that complexity is in fact consequent. What is it consequent of? The evolutionist would use the concept of a vertical line of DNA and horizontal. A vertical line of DNA is that which has passed down from my ancestors and yours, and will pass through our respective descendants; it is theoretically immortal as you can understand. Horizontal lines of DNA is what happens when we are embryos since it is the DNA that has been vertically passed to us that horizontally (and recursively through cell division) generates what you might call our traits... be they big and obviously complex traits like a working liver, or relatively smallish traits like the colour of ones eye. It is these traits that determine whether or not a lifeform survives and thereby passes on their genes vertically to another generation. The complexity of our bodies is consequent as I have said, of our DNA. As you know, simple causes can have complex or simple consequences; for example apparently simple vegetables have more genetic "complexity" or content, than something that is apparently more complex like a mammal.

I would say of course that none of this means that complexity as you have it is a necessary consequence; it is perfectly reasonable to say that with the evolution of fauna, there has been no order-of-magnitude increase in complexity. It becomes difficult at this point since comparisons between dinosaur-era animals and modern creatures are somewhat arbitrary.... it's a bit of a minefield to say that a T-Rex was more or less complex than you or I. Does complexity as you mean it mean size? That's obviously stupid.

In the first chapter of Dawkins' book he explores the ideas of complexity, I won't plaigerise him much here but he concludes it quite reasonably to mean as you implied "statistically improbably in a direction specified without hindsight". It is a property that biological objects possess on the face of it since they have an obvious function; "to survive". In terms of understanding something as such, it makes sense to understand it in terms of simpler component parts, and reducing the analysis to each cumulative step. I think, therefore, that cumulative or recursive natural selection (which I emphasise again is non-random, contrary to much creationist strawmanning) is all that is required to explain complexity as you have it.

To say that God is responsible for evolution acknowledges the things that biologists assert about how one species changes into another, even as it argues against a natural cause for the process.

How one species changes into another? Consider a street. Every humans genome could be considered to be a "street", and mine is identical in terms of addressing to yours. Another very good analogy is memory addressing but others have used it before so I'll use both. You have the same street as me, an exact copy... houses in the same location etc... the "addressing" system of our genome, all 46 chromosomes of it, is identical for each human; it's what allows sperm to fertilise egg. I say all humans, in a large enough population, given a length of time. The streets may be the same, but the houses are different. Take a genetic "memory address" at a given position, say 23423, and my 23423 will be at exactly the same place as your 23423, though the contents may not be the same; hence individual variation with a species. It is why, if one of us were a man, and one were a woman, we would be able to breed. When that variation becomes sufficiently large, the addressing system changes, and members of two groups cannot interbreed and thus become different species. I think this point follows naturally from the first so I wont repeat what I said about cumulative selection.

Indeed. Look at the history of europe, Whaleboy. Didn't the monks preserve the knowledge of the ancients, such that they could eventually be distributed across the world? To say that Christianity cannot be reconciled with scientific investigation shows a lack of understanding of the contributions in which Christians have provided to the development of science. That's not even talking about all the Jews who have made a significant contribution.

I said that Abrahamic religions, and taken to their logical conclusion if you insist upon taking scripture literally, it causes a natural conflict with anything who's conclusions are in flux, be they technological, moral or scientific progress. If you think you have, in scripture, absolute truth, then any deviation from that is necessarily a regression to you, hence the tendency for the Churches to be opposed to progress.

No-where have I claimed that men of faith like Newton or Einstein have made a lesser contribution because of that faith than they would have if they were atheist, and nowhere have I claimed that individuals of faith have made a lesser scientific contribution. For most of the last 2000 years, atheism was not positively tenable, since one can easily argue "God = false",it's far easier than arguing "God = true" but to argue "no god = true" hasn't really been doable since people like Darwin, still relatively recent, increased our understanding of the world around us. For much of history, this was not the case.

And he is a hypocrite if he believes in ID?

Yes. ID is not a scientific theory. It is a weak hypothesis with no supporting evidence, who's supporting arguments are almost entirely attacks upon evolution no positive evidence in favour. It would be hypocritical for a man of science to believe in ID; it would of course not be hypocritical for a man of faith to believe in ID but St Augustine in his plea to reject nonsense has words for him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationists#Plea_to_reject_nonsense

If he can believe in evolution and not be a hypocrite, then you have refuted your own statement that science and Christianity cannot be reconciled.

Not at all. Conceptually, and assuming literal interpretations of the bible as opposed to what Jesus would have wanted, science and religion as a concept are incompatible as I have said above. As workable concepts for the likes of you and I, it's a different ball game. On the conceptual level of religion, we are dealing with a cosmological fallacy. On the personal, we are dealing with a mechanism by which someone might, for example, find it easier to cope with loss, or perhaps a terminal illness.

What is the scientific method, sava? Is there agreement by those who conduct scientific investigations as to the best way in which it ought to be conducted?

Quantifications/observations, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, theory

In that order.

There is no "fact" stage. The creationists like to say that ID is just a theory, just as evolution is just a theory, thus making the two equable in logical value. This is BS, since a theory is judged on it's strength of evidence and predictions whereupon we might always consider it probationary "fact", and common sense "fact" in our everyday lives where we can't fit a lab in our back pockets.

The current biological theories with evolution aren't working very well.

Really? Do elaborate, this should be good!

I am not trying to convince you, I just want you to accept the obvious that ID and science, while parallel, are seperate and not inerfereing with your faith in the scientific method.

I do agree with this, that ID is faith-based and Evolution is science based, they cannot be opposed unless ID makes scientific pretensions which, unfortunately, it does. Faith in evolution is a self-contradictory, and thus absurd proposition. Concurrence is all that it asks for, faith is unnecessary. Faith in scientific method is a little more complicated and quite pie-in-the-sky philosophical... for now I will take it as a shared assumption for us all that we all have "faith" in our eyesight and senses... at least for the most part . We have faith in our ability to perceive cause -> consequence.

Why not? Is it because it denies that nature and the material world is the only thing with influence in our lives?

WTF?? It is because it is fools science and thereby not fit to be taught in a science lesson. Proper scientific theories have to run a gauntlet of experiment, trials, peer-reviewed journals, studies, field studies, analysis by men of intelligence that dwarfs that of you or I, and only then does it get considered for standardised school texts; and that is the way it should be imo. It took over 20 years for genetics to enter school textbooks in the '70s and that was relatively fast!

By all means, teach ID with religion or philosophy, and teach it objectively not as fact, just as one is taught to be objective about history.

Then it does act contrary to entropy, in that entropy depends upon a closed system.

No. Entropy depends on an open system. If you drop a teacup, and it breaks, obviously that has created disorder. If you glue it back together, in that closed system, you have gained order. In an open system, the process of sticking it back together has created net disorder, since you have created more disorder by causing that localised order. Evolution is no different, just like every other action and reaction in the universe; it creates net disorder. An increase in localised complexity as you have it (as said above) does not break the laws of thermodynamics!

How do you get from molecules to complex organisms?

See above.

I think they shouldn't teach evolution in classrooms until students reach university. That's what I would think as a reasonable assessment. If they do choose to teach evolution, then they should also teach other theories, including ID.

Why? When you teach science, you're teaching on the basis of evidence. History/religious studies/philosophy, and science have one fundamental difference, that is that the former is qualified and subject to opinion, science is quantified. One finds it very difficult to argue with scientific "fact" (by which I mean a theory with such evidence as evolution has).

You seem to be implying that evolution is a dangerous thing to teach? Is there any reason for that?

I personally would like to see ID taught in schools alongside Nazism in critical thinking lessons, as an exercise in flawed logic.

We also got taught, or at least I did, about how they derived the theory from observation. I don't recall them saying the same about evolution, other than that it was an indisputable fact.

If you were taught in science that a given theory was not in fact falsifiable, then you had a bad teacher and I pity you, but you shouldn't project that experience onto the rest of us with a good understanding of scientific method.

[Whaleboy]

The reason we teach the theory of gravity, is because we also get taught where it breaks down, and doesn't work so well. Why should evolution be any different?

Pre DNA Evolution < post DNA Evolution

And the weakest part of evolution is where life came from, it is good at explaining how we get from A to B to C to D, but I have yet to hear a good explanation from science about what the hell we were doing at A to begin with.

What do you need for it at the most fundamental level? Molecules that are capable of replicating themselves. Once you have that, and I am informed that such organic molecules have been observed in the lab, natural selection -> DNA is an obvious route where the environment demands "cooperation" between such molecules. That is to say, those that dont cooperate die out.

I don't see them questioning biology or evolution, because it is the current reigning theory, and thus, indisputably correct.

It's questioned all the time in schools, a good teacher knows that this is the best way for kids to learn .

Secondly, regarding Darwin's observation, he went to Galapagos, and saw differences between different birds of the same species, in their adaptation to their natural habitat on the islands. That's all. From that we get the whole theory that man came from apes, and further down the line, that we grew from organic molecules in a soup. Yet none of this has been directly observed.

The theory is natural selection, that we share a common ancester with the primates was a hypothesis based upon evolution, and since we have supporting evidence for that it is a very strong theory. Where is the supporting evidence for Genesis?

I would again like to emphasis that we shouldn't be dealing with the evolution that Darwin created, we've had 150 years of frankly awesome scientific advances since then, most notably the discovery of DNA, and all of those advances support Darwin!

Reductionism denies the existance of free will, while materialism, the influence of a spiritual world. In removing both from understanding people, I would think you lose a great deal of understanding why we are the way we are.

It's only hierarchically reductionist... you can't simply band that term about as though it's a blanket for everything remotely explanatory! You take this a priori attachment to free will and work backwards, that's not a good approach IMO since, like ID itself, you are taking a pre-fabricated conclusion and cherry-picking what you like and rejecting what you dislike to create an artifical argument.

It's as though you're opposed to evolution because, true or not, it's upsetting to you.

I think to discuss this further you would need a knowledge of the remits of scientific method but you thus far seem to have this very ephermeral view of it so I don't know what it would be worth to pursue this line of reasoning.

With regards to spiritualism, I think it's a case of pointing, laughing, and having spasms of l33t .

Interesting, as it is the science crowd that brings his name out like an idol.

Only as the consummate scientist. In terms of adherence to scientific method, I rate Darwin with Newton. I rate Einstein as relatively low because of his unreasonably rejection of quantum mechanics and the cosmological constant... again, he was using an a priori conclusion and working backwards, ****ing up his work in the process .

there are a fair number of physicists who only believe in reductionism

of course, there are others that argue for emergence

True, but again reductionism is a difficult one because there are like 40 types you could work with! I think we'd probably use ontological, methodological or hierarchic, but then those are just fancy terms for common sense anyway! I don't think they can be compared to etymological reductionism.

If we are all determined by natural selection, then what choices do people have? How can they exercise free will?

All you are really saying by that is that evolution denies us the freedom to hate our parents. It's a case of ad absurdum because you are self-evidently conscious, people who tend to think that their actions are not their own should be seeking help. I'm a determinist yet I consider myself to be an individual and to have the ability to make my own decisions. Why? Because "free will" is a model. Love does not empirically exist as a tactile substance, but it's a model for us in our lives. Ditto faith/God. Ditto "family". Likewise a sailor might use a geocentric model of the universe to navigate. It shouldn't matter to him whether it's fact or not, if he can get from A - B. For an astronaught on the other hand, it's a different matter. You shouldn't be so black and white about these things BK.

I never read the bible until I was 19, and in university. Yet the bible opened things that had already been there, that I had already known about. That is what I mean by a spiritual world, in that there are things that do not have a material presence, yet can influence us.

You believe this is somehow threatened by evolution?

Would that disprove evolution, though? Couldn't an evolutionist simply say that the reason we find these dinosaurs then, and not later, is because a massive extinction occured, wiping out the 'higher' organisms, and leaving only the microbes?

It would certainly **** things up, but it wouldn't disprove evolution since we might re-evolve traits we have lost, for example, to be single-celled lifeforms. It hasn't happened because the intermediaries would lose out through natural selection.

Physiological, looks at how the monkeys are like, and noting similarities between them and men. Sure, they are more similar to us then jelly fish, but that doesn't mean we descend from them.

Mitochrondrial DNA? Yes, parallel evolution does occur, to such an extent that you can seriously propose the theory that we descend from apes to be weaker than the theory that we descent from any other creature?

The controversy includes more then just 1 percent of biologists dissenting with the 'accepted consensus' of biology, at least from articles I have seen. They are biologists, who when they compare their own disciplines to the rigour of others, particularly physics and chemistry, prefer greater evidence in support of evolution.

Example? Reference?

First of all, abiogenesis is an essential link to evolution. I'm surprised you claim that it has nothing to do with evolution at all. It is an important step to the process, because it allows all of the animal kingdom to be related to each other. If we only have a certain number of species that are related to each other, and they all spawn from a certain number of other species that existed before them, that sounds an awful lot like creationism to me.

Evolutions sounds a lot like creationism to you? Classic!

Abiogenesis is only important because it asks the question of where DNA came from. Once you have DNA, the rest is, as they say, history!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid

Fair enough. His theory then fails to be scientific because it doesn't make any verifiable predictions that can be tested.

No, because that statement there is unfair, you're asking him to change 2 variables where he only needs to change one. If he has control over the environment then he can predict the traits and results of his experiment.

In explaining and demonstrating how one species becomes another.

They had that sussed in the 60's See above.

So that is the entirety of evolution, the fact that genetics will produce mutations from time to time?

Is evolution anything more than applied genetics though? Of course not. I remember using the analogy on you before but you obviously haven't taken it in.... if I fire a cannon ball, letting it draw a trajectory and land, if, given the initial velocity and angle of launch, I can calculate that trajectory. If now I fire a rocket, the equations that I used with the cannon ball wouldn't work. The laws of motion would apply nontheless would they not?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Is evolution anything more than applied genetics though?

Only if you are a hardcore gene selectionist (like Dawkins), which I am not. My ideas on selection are closer to Gould and Mayr (selection on the organism is dominant in sexually reproducing species; group selection occurs, but only in species whose individuals occur in tightly knit social groups; species selection occurs, but not as often as Gould thinks).