The usual creationist suspects are babbling in the comments to my article on textbook stickers, and throwing aside the usual empty apologetics and assertions that they are promoting secular atheism and weird claims about Jefferson and bizarre ideas that Einstein 'proved' Newton wrong, the only interesting argument is that scientists ought not to be distressed at a declaration that our knowledge is provisional and subject to revision, and that students should keep an open mind. The answer is that we aren't distressed at all by that; in fact, our textbooks already say it over and over, and typically have long chapters that introduce the scientific method and describe how it works and what its limitations are.
For instance, Campbell's Biology, fourth edition, has an extensive section on the hypothetico-deductive method, and comes right out and says it explicitly:
Even the most thoroughly tested hypotheses are accepted only conditionally, pending further investigation.
Scott Freeman's Biological Science, second edition, also describes several key theories in some depth, and explains what makes them useful:
This chapter has introduced some of the great ideas in biology. The development of the cell theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection provided cornerstones when the science was young; the tree of life is a relatively recent insight that has revolutionized the way researchers understand the diversity of life on Earth.
These theories are considered great because they explain fundamental aspects of nature, and because they have consistently been shown to be correct. They are considered correct because they have withstood extensive testing. How do biologists test ideas about the way the natural world work? The answer is that they test the predictions made by alternative hypotheses, often by setting up carefully designed experiments.
Then follows several examples of hypothesis testing, one a test of why giraffes have long necks (no, not the Lamarckian idea…but whether it is a result of food competition or sexual competition) and another about the adaptive value of capsaicin in chili peppers. The examples are accompanied by discussion of key concepts like controls, the null hypothesis, repetition, etc.
Life, seventh edition, by Purves et al. also has a general section that discusses the hypothesis-prediction approach to doing science, illustrated with the examples of two hypotheses to explain frog extinctions, the role of UV-B and airborne pesticides. They make this summary statement:
Scientific methods are the most powerful tools that humans have developed to understand how the world works. Their strength is founded on the development of hypotheses that can be tested. The process is self-correcting because if the evidence fails to support a hypothesis, it is either abandoned or modified and subjected to further tests. In addition, because scientists publish detailed descriptions of the methods they use to test hypotheses, other scientists can—and often do—repeat those experiments. Therefore, any error or dishonesty usually is discovered. That is why, in contrast to politicians, scientists around the world usually trust one another's results.
If you understand the methods of science, you can distinguish science from non-science. Art, music, literature, activities that contribute massively to the quality of human life, are not science. They help us understand what it means to live in a complex world. Religion is not science, either. Religious beliefs give us meaning and spiritual guidance, and they form the basis for establishing values. Scientific information helps create the context in which values are discussed and established, but cannot tell us what those values should be.
That's far too charitable to religion for my taste, but it does illustrate a general attitude you'll find in the books: they tend to distance themselves from religious issues (quite appropriately, I think), do not promote any kind of atheism, do not proclaim science infallible, and quite the contrary to what creationists like to imply, are damned quick to explain that science is not above criticism and in fact thrives on testing alternative explanations.
The objections to the textbook sticker approach is that 1) at best, they are redundant, echoing what the book already says, 2) they are narrow, selectively targeting evolution while ignoring all other theories, and thereby giving the false impression that evolution is particularly weak, and 3) they tend to promote weak hypotheses, like Intelligent Design or vague "religious theories", as equivalent to strongly supported theories like evolution. If you actually read the introductory chapters to these textbooks, you'll discover that Intelligent Design creationism fails to meet the criteria for a legitimate scientific hypothesis, lacking observations in support and failing to make any predictions that can be tested.
That says that school boards must be in a sorry state, when it's obvious from their scribblings that the people who write these textbook stickers haven't even bothered to read the first chapter of the books they want to label.
107 Comments
Grand Moff Texan · 21 February 2005
Somewhat OT:
In case you haven't seen this, apparently there's an explanation for these people:
Title: Handedness and Religious Beliefs
Authors: Douglas Degelman, Denee Heinrichs, and Hisashi Ishitobi
Affiliation: Vanguard University of Southern California
Introduction: Niebauer, Christman, Reid, & Garvey (in press) have found that strongly-handed individuals, whose two cerebral hemispheres may interact less than mixed-handed individuals, were more likely than mixed-handed individuals to believe in Biblical creationist accounts of human origins. Niebauer et al. argue that the two hemispheres are involved differently in how individuals maintain and update their beliefs, with the left hemisphere more involved in maintaining consistency of beliefs and the right hemisphere more involved in monitoring beliefs and registering inconsistencies. If interhemispheric communication underlies the updating of beliefs, and if strongly-handed individuals evidence less interhemispheric interaction than mixed-handed individuals, then strongly-handed individuals may be more likely than mixed-handed individuals to maintain religious beliefs that have been uncritically held.
Hypothesis: The extent to which individuals believe in divine intervention will be associated with degree of handedness, with more strongly-handed individuals believing in divine intervention to a greater extent than mixed-handed individuals.
Steve Reuland · 21 February 2005
Ed Darrell · 21 February 2005
Hmmm. But it does lend a twist to the etymology of the phrase "even-handed," doesn't it?
Empiricist · 21 February 2005
PZ Myers · 21 February 2005
Yes, the Economist was purveying bizarre ideas, and they've been further bizarrified as they pass through the minds of creationists.
Newton was not "wrong". His theories were reasonable and correct in quantifying the phenomena he observed, and are still useful. They were incomplete in that they did not encompass all phenomena and circumstances. Einstein's theories built on them, and extend and refine Newton.
Basically, you have a very naive and primitive view of how science works. As, apparently, does the author of the Economist article.
Similarly, I expect evolutionary theory will be refined and extended in the future, without invalidating our current approximations to how the process works. That's the fatal flaw in the Intelligent Design creationism movement: they think they can prove evolution "wrong", when what scientists anticipate is that replacement theories will more accurately account for the very same stuff biology currently describes.
Russell · 21 February 2005
Jim Harrison · 21 February 2005
Everybody expects that continued research on evolutionary biology will result in new findings, and it would hardly be surprizing if some of the results turn out to be, well, surprizing. What the Creationists and ID folks don't seem to recognize is that the novelties that emerge are quite likely to be even less favorable to a theological view of the world than the current consensus view because only a very narrow and hence very unlikely outcome would match their prejudices.
Defenders of religious traditions are like gamblers who bet on the numbers in roulette, except that there are vastly more possible numbers in the game of science than on a Vegas roulette wheel. It would be a chump's bet in a fair game.
Keanus · 21 February 2005
Andrew Rey · 21 February 2005
I remember in college a professor deriving Newton's Law of Gravity from Einstein's Law of Gravity by manipulating Einstein's equation and dropping off the least significant portion (the part of the equation that only added a small amount to the total). So you can legitimately view Einstein's Law of Gravity as being a slight modification of Newton's law, applicable only in the most precise measurements.
This is why the word "wrong" is too strong in this case. Einstein's Law of Gravity did not invalidate Newton's law. It's more like Einstein's law was closer to the target that Newton's.
Ken Willis · 21 February 2005
Les Lane · 21 February 2005
Empiricist's observation proves that people can be overly literal when it suits their purpose. Scientists are in the habit of interpreting statements at multiple levels of literalness. The "literally handicapped" will find this confusing.
Empiricist · 21 February 2005
Keanus · 21 February 2005
Ken Willis' comment reminds me of Samuel Johnson's old aphorism "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." I've often thought the observation applies eqally well to religion.
Keanus · 21 February 2005
Ken Willis' comment reminds me of Samuel Johnson's old aphorism "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." I've often thought the observation applies eqally well to religion.
Aggie Nostic · 21 February 2005
I believe colleges should require a "History of Science" course for all science majors.
Appreciating science in all of its fits and starts, successes and failures, breakthroughs and setbacks, can do wonders in creating a well-balanced view of the process called the scientific method.
Science is by no means a perfect system of inquiry. It's a human institution, after all. And while science does not pretend to have all the answers, it does try to offer the best explanations for a given phenomenon within the constraints of the knowledge and tools available at the time.
Are such explanations set in stone? No. Could they be wrong or inaccurate? Sure. But, until a better explanation comes along that makes better sense of the data, why should science distract itself with ideas which are at best inferior and at worst un-verifiable?
Aggie Nostic · 21 February 2005
Ethan · 21 February 2005
I think Tony Mezzacappa would feel as uncomfortable with that press release as I do, or as PZ
Meyers does. Of course Newton was "wrong" about gravity in a literal sense. But in the same
way that Einstein is certainly "wrong". In fact, I'd be willing to bet my house that all of physics
is "wrong".
However, it's more or less right as well. Einstein was more right than Newton. A complete quantum
theory of gravity will be more right than Einstein's theory of General Relativity. I'd hesitate to guess
where the process will end. In any case, applied appropriately, Newton's theory is right, and is used
today. General Relativity teaches us where its limits lie and how to do better when we exceed them.
It also has its limits.
Paul Orwin · 21 February 2005
Two responses: 1) You are making a very strange claim - the original claim was that "Einstein proved Newton wrong", which is not, in fact, what Einstein did. If a later group of investigators looks at Newton's and Einstein's work, examines a key difference, and studies it to see which (or neither) is correct, that has no bearing.
2) The article, written clearly by a non-scientist, vastly oversimplifies Newton's work and Einstein's work. You would have to ask Mr. Mezzacappa and his group what they think, but I would suspect they might take a different view of what they were doing. In the part above what you link, there is a summation of the "Newtonian" gravity (action at a distance) and "Einsteinian" gravity (the curvature of space time). General Relativity supplanted Newtonian mechanics, but Newtonian mechanics is still useful, valuable, and accurate under conditions where the relativistic contribution is vanishingly small. Anyone (including, I'm sure, the physicists at ORNL) with training in science understands what this means. If you want to calculate, for example, the escape velocity of a rocket leaving Earth, or the period and velocity of an orbiting satellite, Newton is your guy.
I think you (and other critics) are confused very deeply about the nature of science (and your pseudonym just has to be ironic). "This provides a fascinating perspective on the philosophy of science and on evaluating the truth of scientific theories." The end of that sentence gives the game away.
Mike · 21 February 2005
Aggie Nostic · 21 February 2005
Aggie Nostic · 21 February 2005
plunge · 21 February 2005
"I'm currently reading Dr. Ken Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God." Dr. Miller, who is quite cogent in his defense of evolution against IDists, has decided to view Heisenberg's uncertainty and indeterminism as an opening for God's role in nature. When you really want to believe something, you will find a "gap" somewhere, even if it is a "gap" that science itself has discovered."
Hey, that's fine with me. Why should non-believers care if people want to further theologize about God as long as their science is good. I enjoyed both the anti-ID part of the Millers book and his quite reasonable argument that atheists have wrongly co-opted evolution to present it as disproving god altogether, which goes beyond humble and reasonable science, not to mention pointlessly making the layman view science with deep hostility.
Uber · 21 February 2005
keller · 21 February 2005
Jim Harrison · 21 February 2005
I don't think that religious belief declined because of advancements in biology---other factors had more to do with the advance of secularism. But I expect it would have made a difference if 19th Century biology had discovered genuine evidence for design. Remember, most of the scientists of that period were believers. Most of them, at least the geologists, were aware that the chronology of Genesis had to be interpreted very broadly to make any sense at all; but they probably thought that the facts would turn out to justify some reasonable allegorical interpretation of scripture and thus vindicate theism if not Christianity.
What we have here is an instance of a dog that didn't bark. Things would surely look very different today if the science had yielded evidence of a creator. It didn't, even though many of the scientists at the time surely thought that it would.
Jeff Low · 21 February 2005
Maybe 19th century biology didn't, but what about 21st century biology?
Superior design?
plunge · 21 February 2005
"Which you would expect. I also suspect he is troubled internally to some degree but only he could say."
See, but this is the sort of sot bigotry of which I think Miller rightly complains. Too many of us atheists seem to have a faith in our heart of hearts that religious believers on our side are jsut faking it, or going with the tide. That's just as meanspirited as believers who think that atheists are just in denial over a spat with god.
Miller is utterly sincere when he argues that he sees a universe of evolution as far BETTER for Christian theology than one where God micromanages everything. He's not trying to fool anyone, certianly not himself. And as someone who cares a lot more about good science and good arguments than atheism, that's the sort of honest thinking I want to endore and celebrate rather than scoff at. Miller has ever right to his beliefs, and every right for people to NOT assume that being a biologist and a Catholic are somehow mutually exclusive, or that his Catholicism has to be "watered down" because of it.
Empiricist · 21 February 2005
This community is truly intriguing! It seems that some of you think that anyone questioning you must be a "religious fanatic", and so you adopt rather curious positions about the nature of scientific theories.
In my opinion, "classical physics" yields incorrect predictions that clash with observations. For that reason I would say that it is wrong. But based on the comments here it seems that many of you disagree. I am interested in your positions because they illuminate the philosophy of science. I have been told rather harshly that I have a "very naive and primitive view of how science works."
I admit that I really did believe while taking physics courses that the theories of classical physics were wrong. In fact, I even thought that this fact was widely known, obvious, and unobjectionable. When I learned the equations for the "Special Theory of Relativity" I thought that the theory of Newtonian mechanics was wrong. I could see that for large velocities the predictions from Newtonian mechanics differed from the prediction generated by "The Special Theory of Relativity." The equations showed that Newtonian mechanics provides only an approximation, and it becomes increasingly inaccurate as the velocity grows. Now, PZ Myers and others insist that "Newton was not "wrong"."
So I would like to know what forum members think about the status of classical physics. Here is a link to a course lecture at the University of Texas at Austin that discusses "The breakdown of classical physics." Here are the topic headers and details:
1) The anomalous stability of atoms and molecules
2) The anomalously low specific heats of atoms and molecules
3) The ultraviolet catastrophe
4) Wave-particle duality:
(1) The anomalous stability of atoms and molecules: According to classical mechanics an electron orbiting a nucleus should lose energy by emission of synchrotron radiation and gradually spiral in towards the nucleus. Experimentally, this is not observed to happen.
(2) The anomalously low specific heats of atoms and molecules: According to the equipartition theorem of classical physics each degree of freedom of an atomic or molecular system should contribute to its specific heat. In fact, only the translational and some rotational degrees of freedom seem to contribute. The vibrational degrees of freedom appear to make no contribution at all (except at high temperatures). Incidentally, this fundamental problem with classical physics was known and appreciated in the middle of the last century. Stories that physicists at the turn of the century thought that classical physics explained everything and that there was nothing left to discover are largely apocryphal (see Feynman, Vol. I, Chap. 40).
(3) The ultraviolet catastrophe: According to classical physics the energy density of an electromagnetic field in vacuum is infinite due to a divergence of energy carried by short wavelength modes. Experimentally, there is no such divergence and the total energy density is quite finite.
(4) Wave-particle duality: Classical physics can deal with waves or particles. However, various experiments (interference, the photo-electric effect, electron diffraction) show quite clearly that waves sometimes act as if they were streams of particles and streams of particles sometimes act as if they were waves. This is completely inexplicable within the framework of classical physics.
One response to information like this is to state that "Classical physics" has broken down. "Classical physics" yields incorrect predictions that clash with observations and it is wrong. The CP theory has been superseded by theories such as Quantum Mechanics and general relativity. Of course, CP is still useful because it provides correct and approximately correct answers in many applications. Also, CP should of course still be taught and used.
When I read the responses on this website it seems that most of you favor another strategy. You wish to redefine the CP theory so that it applies to a restricted subset and then to maintain that CP was really "correct" all along. To assure that CP is "correct" all you have to do is be certain to apply it only in the carefully limited situations where it provides a correct or approximately correct answer. If anyone points out that CP as originally formulated yields incorrect predictions and has been superseded then you apparently would disagree. If someone says that CP is wrong then it appears some of you would sneer. Indeed, some might claim the person has "bizarre ideas" and a "naive and primitive view of how science works." But, maybe I have misjudged some of you?
plunge · 21 February 2005
Sorry, I meant "soft" not "sot." Geez!
Uber · 21 February 2005
Rupert Goodwins · 21 February 2005
JK · 21 February 2005
Paul Orwin · 21 February 2005
Empiricist, you are, I think, using words in a way that most people don't. When you say "wrong", what you mean is "incomplete". As in "classical mechanics is wrong because it doesn't explain the behavior of electrons orbiting the nucleus(or rather, moving in an uncertain path around the nucleus)" vs. "classical mechanics is incomplete, because it does not explain the behavior of electrons moving around the nucleus of an atom". To call Newton's laws incomplete, or valid only on a limited set, is fine. To call them wrong is, at best, naive.
Here's a simple question for you; If classical mechanics is wrong, why do physics courses (all intro courses, not just non-majors ones) spend so much time on it?
darwinfinch · 21 February 2005
In the current wave of religious maniacs (and I do not feel I exaggerate) we can see here how selected honesty coupled with smugness - that smirk that distorts the tone of every one of these self-centered, science-hating posts for the weeks I have stayed out (due to sheer disgust, as well as in deference to the skill of the trained responders) of the fray - proves that arrogance is the defining canon of their so-called religion.
I do wish the reasonable among the religious would engage them with more frequency. My faith in the basic humanity of humankind is all but destroyed by them and those they follow.
Flint · 21 February 2005
Ed Darrell · 21 February 2005
Is it not accurate to say that we sent a dozen men to the surface of the Moon, using Newtonian physics? Even at the amazing velocity of 25,000 miles per hour (approximately), Newtonian physics works well enough to send objects to the Moon and get them safely back to Earth.
But at 25,000 mph, it still takes a couple of days to get from the Earth to the Moon. Einsteinian units, like photons of light, make the trip in a few seconds. The difference in velocity is great enough to account for much of the difference.
One could look at the empirical data, Empiricist . . .
gav · 21 February 2005
Following on Rupert Goodwins' remark about fundamentalists and absolute correctness, I remember being puzzled as a child at the amount of time and effort that went into handling errors in experimental data. Errors? Why not just do the experiment right?
Hey ho.
Backtracking further to Empiricist's bizarre idea, what seems most bizarre about the Economist article is the idea that a single experiment can disprove a well-attested theory. Galileo dropping his balls off the leaning tower of Pisa, that kind of thing. Theory of relativity relies not on a single experiment but on a cumulative mass of data from all over the place. Bit like the theory of - oh never mind.
steve · 21 February 2005
steve · 21 February 2005
I had to change to the word DOT just to be allowed to post the error message
Sarg · 21 February 2005
Here is another (working) link to that essay, Steve:
http://home.earthlink.net/~dayvdanls/relativity.htm
Very nice essay, as almost all of Asimov's work.
Steve · 21 February 2005
my link worked. why didn't it let me post? the hyphens?
Jon Fleming · 21 February 2005
plunge · 21 February 2005
Uber, I'm sorry, but there is no way to erad your comments that isn't basically dismissive of the man's religious beliefs, regardless of whether you've had conversations with him or not. Claiming that he basically just argues that he was raised that way, or that you "suspect" that he doesn't really believe are exactly what I'm talking about. Miller does, in fact, believe as much of Catholic doctrine as most Catholics do (but then, I'm not sure you mean the same thing by that word as Catholics do), and he has written countless times about how much he is bothered by people who "expect" (as you do) him to basically be some sort of sliding deist who doesn't "really" believe in miracles and so forth.
Put aside whether or not I read you wrong and you are guilty of this: wouldn't you agree that this perception is very very common among both believers and the more outspoken non-believers? (that believing evolution pretty much means giving up most of the core beliefs about Christianity). Isn't that a bad perception to have out there?
jeff-perado · 21 February 2005
Don T. Know · 21 February 2005
Don T. Know · 21 February 2005
Empiricist · 21 February 2005
Buridan · 21 February 2005
I'm not a big fan of Kuhn, but I think there's more than a kernel of truth in his notion of paradigm shifts. So it seems somewhat of a non sequitur to make one to one comparisons between Einstein and Newton. The paradigms (I hate that word by the way) are different and thus incommensurable according to Kuhn. It's like comparing apples and oranges. In other words, while it may appear that concepts within Newtonian physics are capable of crossing over into an Einsteinian framework, the concepts involved mean very different things when located, e.g., in the theory of relativity.
The conceptual apparatus underlying any set of statements depends upon the theoretical base from which they are derived. Change the base and you change the meaning of the statements. Certainly, Kuhn's claims are not uncontroversial, but I think they serve, at the very least, as a useful heuristic for understanding scientific "progress" or better yet change.
By contrast, the conceptual impetus for religious belief is the preservation of "absolute truth." Religious beliefs certainly change, but only in an ad hoc fashion and they usually result in schisms and not paradigm shifts as Kuhn suggests. Religious paradigms or belief systems simply multiply (e.g., the rise of denominationalism in America) or fade away as their adherents die off or lose interest (e.g., religious sects and new religious movements). They don't change in the same way that science does. The only possible exception, oddly enough, is Catholicism. But even here change proceeds in an ad hoc fashion -- hence, the various Papal bulls and church councils over the centuries.
That ought to raise the hackles of the religionists out there.
The Messenger · 21 February 2005
In the original post here, the comment was made,
"our textbooks already say it over and over, and typically have long chapters that introduce the scientific method and describe how it works and what its limitations are.
May I ask who the "our" refers to? I am new here and while I know that this is an evolution blog, I did not know it was owned by a textbook company. Is it and if so, which company?
Thanks,
paperwight · 21 February 2005
PZ Myers · 21 February 2005
Correct. And when the article cites three different specific textbooks by title and author, I think it's clear that "The Messenger" is being deliberately obtuse.
Scott Simmons · 21 February 2005
May I give it a try, empiricist?
The real question is, what does it mean to say that a theory is wrong? If the answer is that it makes predictions that are not confirmed by the evidence, then Newtonian theory is wrong. The ORNL team's experiments do demonstrate that Newton's theory of gravity is wrong in this sense, while failing to demonstrate that Einstein's theory is wrong. And in fact, it's been made quite clear over the past hundred years that, in the range of measurement where Newton's theories diverge from the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, the predictions of the latter theories are consistently more accurate than those of the former. So Newton's theory has been demonstrated to be wrong in this sense, while quantum theory and relativity have not.
BUT-as formulated today, quantum theory and relativity are not consistent with each other. (Most notably, quantum theory includes non-local effects, which are not able to be consistently modeled in current formulations of relativity.) Various theories of quantum gravity and relativistic QM are in play; but the current theories are, without a doubt, wrong, in the sense given above. And, given that definition, it is fundamentally impossible to be certain that any given theory is right (one would have to make all possible observations first, after all). Which leads me, at least, to question the utility of that concept ...
It is an indisputable fact that current data shows that Newton's theories are wrong, in that sense. But it is equally true that that fact has little or no significance. More interesting facts include the points of overlap of classical and modern physics, and that classical physics is so well established in its area of proper application as to be virtually immune to overthrow. Witness Bohr's famous correspondence principle, that quantum theory predictions in simple aggregate over large numbers of particles ought always to conform to classical predictions. Or the exhortations of an old physics teacher of mine, that if you've found a system in which momentum is not conserved, you've misunderstood the system. A principle which not only led to the discovery of the neutrino, but also helped me ace an exam in advanced classical E&M a few years later. ("Given an infinitely long solenoid with radius r and current i, crossed perpendicularly through its center at intervals a by infinitely long wires carrying current j; what is the force per unit distance exerted by the magnetic fields of the wires on the current in the solenoid?" I wasted a page of scratch paper on calculus before I realized that Newton's Second Law of Motion made that an arithmetic problem ...)
Theories are, perhaps, right or wrong, true or false; but in that sense, they're all (all but one, which we'll probably never know) false. More interestingly, they're broad or narrow in application, more or less useful. And in this sense, Newton's theory is and will always be of interest, being extremely useful in a narrow (but extremely common, from our point of view) range of circumstances-those involving objects much larger than atomic nuclei, moving at speeds much less than that of light. And while I'm not nearly as familiar with biology as with physics, I'm fairly confident that, while new theories of the origins of biodiversity will likely arise in the future-probably even radically different theories-it will remain the case that, for the purposes of understanding the existence of the vast majority of current Earthly species, the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinian theory will always be an important part of our explanations.
-Scott Simmons
Air Bear · 21 February 2005
Aggie wrote:
"I believe colleges should require a "History of Science" course for all science majors."
"Appreciating science in all of its fits and starts, successes and failures, breakthroughs and setbacks, can do wonders in creating a well-balanced view of the process called the scientific method."
Having majored in History of Science as an undergraduate (thesis advisor was Thomas Kuhn) and done several years of graduate study in it before dropping out, I certainly would agree in the abstract. Science classes only show the bare bones of the nature of scientific study, and barely hint at the philosophy of science.
However, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The emphasis on extra-rational elements in the development of scientific ideas - e.g. neo-Platonic sun worship as an inspiration for Copernicus' heliocentric model - can lead to the notion that scientific ideas, including Darwinian Evolution, are mere opinion. In my own studies I noticed how objective standards of scientific evidence were given rather short shrift by professional historians and philosophers of science.
The results of study of history of science are not always what we would wish. Steven Meyer's bio says he has a PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge, and Paul Nelson apparently has a PhD in Philosophy of Science. How these learned philosophers of science could embrace Intelligent Design is beyond me, as it is so patently outside the realm of modern science.
~DS~ · 21 February 2005
Empiricist,
If you happen to actually have a scientific Theory of non-human, Intelligent Design, that explains biodiversity and which 'proves' evolutionary biology 'wrong', you could always just, you know, say what it is. Instead of this silly dancing around.
As matters stand now, you seem to be arguing that scientists should seriously consider a theory that has never been stated, as if it were in fact in existence. That's pretty much an impossible task you've set yourself up with. Just state the theory, write it up, along with the testable predictions it makes and any data supporting those predictions, and it'll be most welcome to the same scrutiny all of science enjoys. Anything is else is pointless gum slapping on your part.
RBH · 22 February 2005
How soon they forget.
RBH
Cubist · 22 February 2005
Empiricist, your use of the words "right" and "wrong" carries with it the implication that the "right" thing is 100% Right, and the "wrong" thing is 100% Wrong. This implication isn't really valid for scientific theories, because science doesn't go from 100% Wrong to 100% Right. Instead, science goes from N% Right to (N+X)% Right -- that is, from one theory which yields good results over a particular range of conditions, to a different theory which yields good results over a wider range of conditions. Creationists tend to see Truth as an absolute, black-and-white, Fully-Wrong-versus-Fully-Right kind of deal, in which you're either 100% Right or 100% Wrong and that's it; scientists tend to see Truth as a shades-of-grey kind of deal, in which it's possible for people to be partially right.
Randall · 22 February 2005
An important thing to remember about science is that by the 100%-right-or-100%-wrong definition, all science is and will always be wrong. Period. This is sort of like the epistemological perspective that since you can't trust the knowledge of your own senses, you can never be sure of anything beyond your own existence; thus, you should assume that only you exist. Yes, if you want to interpret things narrowly, all of science is wrong. But more importantly, most of science is useful, in that it makes predictions about the results of experiments/observations made after the predictions themselves. In this regard, Newtonian physics is "less useful" than Einsteinian or quantum physics, since it predicts the results of fewer experiments. However, for most practical purposes, Newtonian is "useful enough." To flatly say "Newton was wrong" is to miss this crucial shading; it's just as valid to say "All of science is wrong," and that's not a particularly useful statement.
As a side note, if this crucial fact about science was not taught in one's primary school science courses, one's teachers failed. The fact that all science is tentative and uncertain is perhaps the most important thing one could know about the field, far more than any scientific theory.
DaveScot · 22 February 2005
Some biologists evidently need a sticker on their foreheads warning of the hubris therein.
So Dr. Myers, did you come up with any examples for me of the new information created inside a chicken egg while it's going from egg to chick, or are you prepared to concede that ontogeny is the expression of preformed information?
DaveScot · 22 February 2005
RBH
No "scientific" alternatives to mutation/selection? Hardly. You're laboring under an incorrect definition of science. Does science ignore the possibility of design when something that appears like a hand ax is found? Of course not. Nothing else should be an exception!
To presume a materialist explanation no matter what the evidence is anthropocenticity, pure and simple. It presumes that humans are a special creation, the only entity in the universe capable of design, while in fact it's simply the only known entity. To conclude no others exist or have ever existed is a logical fallacy - an appeal to ignorance. Shame on you.
The enlightenment began long before Darwin came along. The enlightenment, and modern science, owes its debt of thanks to Nicholas Copernicus who demonstrated that the earth is not the center of the universe. The Copernican Principle of Mediocrity, which any honest scientist should embrace, states that there is nothing special about the earth, which includes life on the earth and by definition human life. Therefore, if there is design on the earth, then as good scientists we must presume, until proven otherwise, that design is common in the universe. To presume otherwise is to presume that humans are a special creation uniquely possessing the power to intelligently design.
Genetic engineering is a reality today. Therefore, the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity, the TRUE underpinning of modern science, directs us to presume that genetic engineering is a common thing in the universe.
Dogmatic materialists are every bit as guilty of anthropocentricity as the bible thumpers. Both camps are unscientific. Both camps are irrational and illogical.
So there.
Grey Wolf · 22 February 2005
The moment the chick-to-be goes from undifferientiated cells to slight specialization there is an increase in the information, according to Shannon's Information Theory.
For example: given this sequence: aaaaaaaa
Getting another a gives little information
Gewtting a b gives much more information
Likewise, suddenly having a differentiated cell is an increase in information.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
DaveScot · 22 February 2005
DaveScot · 22 February 2005
Uber · 22 February 2005
Chance · 22 February 2005
Russell · 22 February 2005
Chance · 22 February 2005
PZ Myers · 22 February 2005
Grey Wolf · 22 February 2005
DaveScot · 22 February 2005
Grey Wolf
So you see, what we have in a chicken egg is a cell, which is composed of a recipe and self-replicating organic factory, plus a suitable chemical environment containing raw materials to be made into more organic machinery according to the recipe.
Now imagine a first, common ancestor cell for all the life on earth we see. Most scientists agree there's a common ancestor, right? But instead of imagining its genome going from less to more complex, assume the complexity was already there just like the complexity is already there in the chicken egg. Now the process of ontogeny and phylogeny are extremely similar except for the timescale.
Further, there's an very complex timing/trigger sequence in the expression of different cell types and organization from chicken egg to chicken. No more or less complex timing/trigger sequence need be operating over geologic timescales in phylogenesis as are operating in ontogenesis.
What we might better be trying to figure out is what cues are used in phylogeny to time the specialization and diversification based on the assumption that little of it was due to any random process just like little in the way of random process is required to make a chicken egg into a chicken.
A perfectly good explanation for phylogeny is right there in ontogeny.
The only thing different is it becomes harder to explain abiogenesis if you start from an information rich genome instead of an information poor genome in the universal ancestor. Ostensibly, evolution is the origin of species, not the origin of life. When it becomes the origin of life it crosses the border from fact based science to faith based philosophy.
Jim Harrison · 22 February 2005
Genomes obviously became larger and more complex in the transition from the earliest prokaryotes to single-celled and then multi-celled eukaryotes. Ecosystems also became more complex, with many more forms occupying many more niches---even such basic life styles as herbivory appear fairly late in the geological record (see G. Vermeij's recent book, Nature: an Economic History). The notion that all the complexity was present to begin with is simply empirically false.
Grey Wolf · 22 February 2005
DaveScot, you have changed the goalposts. You asked for an example of increased information inside an egg, and I gave you one. All the hand waving in your last post doesn't stop my example from being correct, as you asked for.
It's interesting how you start by assuming your conclussion, by the way, in the best pseudoscience practice.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf, who isn't interested in discussing biology with someone who doesn't even have passing knowledge of his own field
Andrea Bottaro · 22 February 2005
Buridan · 22 February 2005
Andrea, I benefit greatly from your posts - good stuff. Thanks!
Henry J · 22 February 2005
Re "Newtonian physics works well enough to send objects to the Moon and get them safely back to Earth. "
Interesting. At roughly 1/25000 of the speed of light, I guess Newton's rules give enough decimal places? But still I'd hope they double checked it by at least estimating the amount of variance, to make sure they had enough decimal places.
Re "Theory of relativity relies not on a single experiment but on a cumulative mass of data from all over the place. Bit like the theory of - oh never mind."
Theory of oh never mind? I've never heard of that one. :)
Henry
Bill Ware · 22 February 2005
As an exercise, in one of my graduate level courses is astronomics, we spend the semester writing the computer programs for the flight path of the Apollo missions: liftoff to orbit, trans lunar trajectory, and so on. We used Newton's second law of motion and his gravity equation the whole way. Einstein's work was not used and never even mentioned.
Since we got our Astronauts to the moon and back safely, I'd say that Newton's work was useful indeed.
~DS~ · 22 February 2005
Naw Grey Wolf I think you seriously underestimate the level of expertise in Shannon Theory and K-C metrics, or any topological metric for that matter, available to you in this community. I'd be careful assuming you're in possession of some kind of special knowledge in that regard no one else here has. You might just make an ass out of yourself.
Anyone can show that a mutation can increase information, regardless of the metric employed, simply be reversing the mutation. It's a trivial proof.
And if a Creator can build a universe in which simple systems produce complex behavior, a fact known to anyone who has even a cursory understanding of Chaos Theory, and if in such a universe a chicken can develop from a simple single cell embryo, then obviously that same universe can handle a single cell going to a complex organism over billions of years.
It's a pretty big order to go prattling on about what God can, and cannot do, in order to accommodate your personal whims of how He ought to go about it. The fact is, the evidence shows any Creator that may exist did indeed employ common descent, just as the evidence shows such an entity, if it does exist, employed geology or chemistry or physics. If you don't like having a common ancestor with a chimp, or a dog, or a turtle, your beef is with God pal, not science. And I doubt God really thinks he should have run any plans by you first and get your OK, before proceeding. That would be my guess anyway.
Grey Wolf · 22 February 2005
~DS~, I wasn't talking to you, or to any of the members of this community at large. I was directing my comments, as I usually do, exclusively at one person, which in this case was DaveScot (unless your acronym hides him, which I rather doubt, in which case yes, I was talking to you). I have not, at any time, claimed to have any special knowledge of any kind, only that I won't discuss with someone who doesn't have it. And by discuss I meant listen to, because I come to PT to listen and learn from such excellent teachers as PZ.
But the first thing in my mind when I read your post is wonderment at why you wrote it. I wonder why you feel the need to insult me because I pointed out that I gave a perfectly valid if simple example to an increase in information which has not been challenged. I have not stated anything about my beliefs, God, creators of the universe or even evolution in this thread or, as far as I can remember, in any other. I have certainly not stated what my whims are re: acts of God, because I have none. I exampled that the moment a cell specialises you increase information inside an egg. If you feel the example is incorrect, please state how. If not, I think I am going to have to ask for an apology, since you have been extremelly rude. If you are unwilling to do so in this place, I would kindly ask you to explain your unprovocked attack by e-mail. You can reach me at my gmail account, name of grey.wolf.c (you should be able to deduce the e-mail address from that).
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf · 22 February 2005
By the way, ~DS~, in your effort to insult me, you seem to have misplaced your brain as well as your basic civility. Neither you nor I have turtles, chimps or dogs as antecessors, since they are all modern creatures. We have common antecessors with all of them, according to the theory of evolution. I admit and am quite proud of having some kind of dented shrew as antecessor, though, unlike you who sound like you evolved directly from an amoeba - although I have met amoebas with better reading comprehension.
Yes, I am quite furious with your attack, DS. I think, however, that it is out of placefor this thread or even for the comunity. I would have written directly to you, but your name in your post doesn't give me an e-mail address, only a webpage.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
G-Do · 22 February 2005
Chaos Theory, yo.
I just blew Mountain Dew out my nose. You know, from all the laughing. Cavalier references to chaos theory are comic gold.
Ruthless · 22 February 2005
Randall · 22 February 2005
One thing to remember about the axe example is that the reason we can theorize about a designer is that we have evidence other than the axe to believe humans exist. Since we already have that evidence, our hypotheses regarding the axe are 1. The axe was designed by a human, or 2. The axe was not designed. However, in the case of the cell, we have no evidence that a superintelligent designer exists. Thus, our two hypotheses must be 1. There exists a superintelligent designer, and (s)he built the cell, or 2. The cell was not designed. While in the axe case, there's plenty of evidence (given what we know about humans) that the axe was designed, in the second case, we haven't even proven the existence of a designer, never mind what elements of the cell might be evidence of design. That's the thing about ID: for hypothesis 1 to make sense, you must first show the designer exists, and then show the cell was designed. Circular reasoning of the form "How do we know the cell was designed? It shows properties of the designer's signature. How do we know the designer exists? Because we know the cell was designed." is meaningless.
Oh, and it's important to note that I'm not saying I have evidence that God doesn't exist. I would suggest that no such evidence could exist. The fact that no current non-circular evidence either proves or disproves the existence of a designer is why "scientific" theories can't rely on the existence of such a designer.
DonkeyKong · 23 February 2005
Why science backs stickers...
There are assertions that most anti-Creationists make that are completely unsupported by evidence.
For example, there is no current support for the evolution from amino acids to cells. They want to believe it. They can tell you what it is they want to believe. But they cannot tell you how it happens. They cannot do it in the lab.
Yet they will tell your kids its a fact that it happened.
Telling kids things unsupported by science is called religion. Evolution requires FAITH.
As such it is your side in general that is teaching the majority of the religion regarding the origins of life.
DISCUSS
Randall · 23 February 2005
If your science teacher ever told you something was a "fact," you should have complained. After all, how do we know? How do we know that electrons exist, or that the earth revolves around the sun? That's just what the evidence suggests; new evidence could suggest something different. This is one of the key points of science: not only is it not just a "book of facts," but it isn't even in part a "book of facts." Science is a "book of currently best guesses" and a method for making better guesses.
Anyway, now that that's done with, I'll point out that there exist hypotheses about how abiogenesis could have happened. But to be honest, the mechanism isn't really known for certain (or even with any large likelyhood). However, we can still say that the evidence suggests that abiogenesis did happen, even if we're not sure how. It's pretty simple: We see that at one point life didn't exist, and at a later point it did. So we say, "OK, something happened to make life start. We're not sure what, exactly, but we'll research it and try to find out." What would you rather have us teach in science classes, "At one point life didn't exist, but then it did, so therefore some Designer (not necessarily God...really!) must have done something, because any process we cannot currently understand could not have happened by natural means. Oh, and don't trust those slimy anti-Creationists; they arrogently assume they can understand anything." Seriously, what alternative would you suggest?
Chance · 23 February 2005
DonkeyKong · 23 February 2005
Randal, Chance
Thank you both for not trying to hide your religious lunacy.
Evolution is not a fact like gravity or electrons are facts in the world of science.
Gravity can make predictions that EVERYONE can verify. Why? Because it makes predictions that everyone has heard of in detail.
Evolution on the other hand makes no predictions related to amino acid to cell that can be confirmed by ANYONE.
Your cult kool-aid is exactly why creationists don't want your religious teachings that are unsupported by science being taught in school.
The basic premis of evolution namely that no external force was involved in the origin of life is completly untested. Untested science is religion.
Enough · 23 February 2005
That is not the basic premise of evolution you moron. I'm not sure how many times that has to be beaten into your skull before you stop repeating it. Apparently you can read, but your comprehension skills are at about the level of a 4 year old.
Randall · 23 February 2005
How is evolution different from, say, the Standard Model of particle physics? Can you personally test the Standard Model? No. You would need a supercollider and appropriate training to understand its use and results. Likewise, you personally can't conduct the ecological, genetic, geological, etc. research that has been done to show that evolution happened. But those who have have independently come to the same conclusion: evolution happened.
And again, the formation of the first cell is not evolution. Even if an alien stopped by earth and said, "Yea, I created the first cells. Sorry for confusing you guys," it still wouldn't disprove evolution, since evolution only claims to explain what happened after the first replicator was formed. If you've got a problem with abiogenesis, I suggest you propose a hypothesis that makes more sense and presupposes fewer unproven entities than the "Something random happened" hypothesis. Postulating that "God did it" does not presuppose fewer unproven entities.
Chance · 23 February 2005
Steve · 23 February 2005
Randall · 23 February 2005
DonkeyKong · 24 February 2005
Hmm.
Evolution is.....
We are all descendants from a common ancestor...
Why was there only one?
That is part of evolution theory you know...Look it up....
I learnt that in fourth grade...
Apparently you did not.
Evolution depends on one and only one common ancestor. As such it depends intimately on the mechanics of that one ancestor. Since the diversity of known life is so large you will need to detail the specifics of how that one ancestor created the first descendant.
You are still probably at the amino acid level. or at least the very very primative single cell level. So the point remains...how did you get from the simpliest to the 2nd simpliest.
Randall · 24 February 2005
Evolution explains how to go from a single self-replicating "thing" (not necessarily a cell) to all the diversity of life on earth. How do we know there was a single common ancestor, rather than a whole bunch? All life that we've seen shares certain idiosyncratic traits (such as having exactly 20 amino acids) which indicate a common origin. So we can validly say that all of life has a common origin.
Evolution does not claim to explain how the first replicator came to be. That's abiogenesis. Evolution's validity doesn't depend on the truth of any particular abiogenesis hypothesis; even if it could be shown that God created the first replicator, that still wouldn't disprove evolution! So evolution does explain how to get from the simplest replicator to all other replicators: mutations and natural selection.
But why do I bother telling you this. In another thread, you claim that the evidence suggests there should only exist one tropic level in any environment, without citing anything resembling evidence. This nice wall over here is more likely to "get it."
DonkeyKong · 24 February 2005
Randal....
The simplest organisms are very very simple and very very different. You are then either faced with a de-evolution which does not violate the common ancestor but violates the spirit of evolution or you are down in the amino acid level.
"So evolution does explain how to get from the simplest replicator to all other replicators: mutations and natural selection."
No try again. To explain how you actually have to EXPLAIN HOW. Not just point at similiarities and jump up and down. The model T and current Ford cars which use similiar bolts... yet did not replicate.
You have to chart out in detail WHAT evolutoin is. And THEN you have to show support from the NEW evidence available.
Tropic doesn't sound like a quote from me BTW.
Randall · 24 February 2005
plunge · 24 February 2005
"Evolution depends on one and only one common ancestor."
No, it doesn't. That just happens to be what we see for all life on THIS planet when we apply the theory of evolution as well as a bit of forensics.
"As such it depends intimately on the mechanics of that one ancestor. Since the diversity of known life is so large you will need to detail the specifics of how that one ancestor created the first descendant."
What do you think the various genome projects are all about? The very fact that we can do them at all bespeaks to the viability of common descent. It ISN'T, as Randall says, enough to simply look and see homologies in all known life. The real clincher is that these homologies show a particular sort of diverging pattern throughout known life: a pattern of similarity and difference that can only be explained by the particular broad outlines of common descent that we have generated from genes, fossils, geographical proximity, and so on. Given that you can triangulate common ancestry from virtually any gene system, there is an unbelievable web of interconnections and cross-confirmin lines of evidence that all validate the overview of common descent.
Ed Darrell · 24 February 2005
ts · 25 February 2005
Randall · 25 February 2005
Well, the point is that in principle we can't actually know anything beyond our own existence. We could be brains in vats, etc. There's really no way to be certain that the rules and patterns that we've noticed in the past will actually affect the future; for all we know, we could be part of some superintelligent alien's doctoral thesis, and as soon as he gets his PhD, we're all gone. Thus, I tend to dislike the word "fact," as it implies we know something for certain, and I believe that this just doesn't make sense.
(Of course, if I'm going to say that the word "certain" is never meaningful, then it might be useful for me to redefine "certain" to include things which other people consider certain for their definitions of certain. After all, I'm not using the word for anything else. That's the problem with philosophical (not scientific!) skepticism: since by construction words like "fact," "true," "knowledge," and "certainty" loose all meaning, it seems tempting to redefine them as they are normally used, but then this deprives the philosophical skeptic of any words.)
That said, I don't actually live my life as though I'm a brain in a vat. I tend to follow Occam's Razor, in that the reality that I think I observe is most likely to be the reality I really live in, and that patterns from the past are most likely to repeat in the future and not change for no good reason. That's why I used examples from physics: I want to make it clear that I'm fully in support of science, evolution, etc. and fully against teaching ID and other creationist ideas in science classes. My debate with you is purely in the realm of epistomology; I'm almost certain we agree on scientific matters (i.e., those which actually make predictions).
DonkeyKong · 25 February 2005
Randal.
Occams razor would put a magical event at the start of evolution causing the first ancestor.
Your whole theory rests on the existance of this first magical ancestor.
As such you either need to acknoledge the magic or accept that the premis of evoultion is unsupported.
The premis being that there existed a single ancestor without verified cause is a lesser magic than there exist many species each with without verified cause.
If you rely on magic to create the first is it really a lesser claim to rely on magic to produce more than one?
Randall · 25 February 2005
DK, the fact that you keep ignoring is that evolution only claims to describe what happened after the first replicator came to exist! Thus, even if abiogenesis happened as a result of magic, evolution would not be disproven! Do you see what I'm saying? For the purposes of arguing about evolution, I really don't care how the first replicator came to exist. Even if it was magical, it doesn't say anything at all about evolution! Please, can you at least grant that if I allow that the first replicator came to exist because of magic, the rest of evolution is supported? (Note that my allowance of this should really only be considered in the context of this specific debate between me and DK; it would in general be wrong to assume that other posters on this forum would grant this.)
Oh, and I'll agree with plunge that evolution doesn't care how many replicators managed to come into existence on their own. It just so happens that by looking at how the different homologies we see are nested, we see that common descent makes more sense than any alternative.
Flint · 25 February 2005
Once again, we have the theological inability of the creationist to distinguish origin of life from origin of species. To the creationist, these were the same event, and the distinction evolutionists are trying to make is without a difference. God created everything POOF all at once, in the present form. Species originated on the day that life originated.
People like Randall don't seem to grasp that the creationist CANNOT permit these two origins to be qualitatively different. Even recognizing that they are different denies their faith. The instant origin of life and origin of species become entirely different issues, creationism is no longer possible. Randall is demanding ground rules no creationist can tolerate. He's demanding that his opponent concede the game as a condition of starting it!
Ed Darrell · 25 February 2005
Still waiting for DonkeyKong to specify which textbooks make the statements he (she? it?) claims biology textbooks make.
Not holding breath, of course, having been this route before.
Randall · 25 February 2005
Flint, you're saying I'm stupid for expecting creationists to abide by any reasonable definitions of evolution and abiogenesis?
I guess I can't really debate that one.
Flint · 25 February 2005
Randall,
I'm pulling your leg, of course. But it really is the case that to a creationist, evolution and abiogenesis are just meaningless words, since both of them are made up by atheists to describe things that didn't happen. For a creationist to admit that those words MEAN anything is to concede before he starts.
DonkeyKong · 27 February 2005
LOL
You kids are silly.
When faced with a simple concept.
Evolution rests 100% on the existance of a first ancestor which it fails to explain. Simple restatement if there were no first common ancestor evolution would be false.
A large part of the practical argument in evolution regarding how and why is that it is more likely that similiar species are descendants of older similiar species because unexplained events are abhorrent to science.
There is not proof that we descended from monkeys, the evidence is that we are similiar to monkeys and that there were life forms that are more similiar to monkeys than we are and yet more similiar to us than monkeys are. This is CONSISTENT with descent but not proof of descent.
You reject magic yet don't reject it here because you are sophists.
But why do you rely on magic for the first ancestor?
Either magic is not a problem and your monkey to man hypothesis although not impossible has no strong claim to reality over magic due to many many many of evoulutions assesments being based on similiar means descended from because spontenous creation is magic.
Or conversly you reject magic, assign a theory for the first ancestor that is inconsistent with other explainations for monkey to man similiarity such as external intelligent influence. Once you do this you are in a world of hurt as the current science doesn't support this very well if at all.
Another way of saying this:
If GOD created the first ancestor with magic then it is MORE likely that GOD created every other species with magic than that they evolved.
This is because evolution relies heavily on the lack of alternate explainations for fossils that are similiar to newer fossils and are consistant with descent. Because evolutoin cannot duplicate the effect they rely on saying there is no other explaination that is as well supported as ours.
But they got that well supported by throwing out all the weakest points of evolutions and claiming that they are not part of the theory.
Ed Darrell · 27 February 2005
DK, you are long on assertion, short on evidence.
Some time ago you alleged biology books teach something that is untrue. I asked you to name the books. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000839.html#c17825
Still waiting.
Or can I just chalk that up as one more creationist fantasy?
And, what are the odds that you have a father and mother? High or low?
Why should you take Darwin to task for assuming living things are descended from other living things? Why do you think that's bizarre?
DonkeyKong · 28 February 2005
Ed
"These theories are considered great because they explain fundamental aspects of nature, and because they have consistently been shown to be correct. They are considered correct because they have withstood extensive testing. How do biologists test ideas about the way the natural world work? The answer is that they test the predictions made by alternative hypotheses, often by setting up carefully designed experiments."
Scott Freeman's Biological Science
This is a lie on several levels.
1) Science doesn't tell us what is correct on any level. Science tells only what has failed to be PROVEN incorrect. To misunderstand this in a textbook is unforgivable.
2) Evolution has consistently had flaws which it has explained after the fact. The fact that Darwins main contribution is not one that all evolutionists are willing to stand behind today is very insightful. Is natural selection the mechanism as you claim it is? Or are you still grasping for a theory of evolution? HINT: geneticists have moved evolution to a competition between genes not species or individuals due to the data not fitting your hypothesis.
3) Key fundemental aspects of nature are not explained by evolution. Evolution ducks the first cause of the first ancestor. If the first ancestor is a result of intelligent interference then the assertion that intelligent interference is not likely in the rest of life is no longer valid. For example, if God magically made the first life then God is a more likely cause of all other life variance than evolution. Failing to nail down the biogenisis question reduces evolution to hand waving and bullying of HS kids who don't yet know you are full of it.
4) How does science prove theories? By disproving OTHER theories???? Any text book that says you prove God created life by picking holes in evolution's theory is silly (or you would already think God was a proven scientific fact as I am killing you guys). The reverse is also silly. To put this in a text book is beyond stupid. To call it science is truely a shame.
5) Evolution is not a theory of numbers. Numbers are inheriently scientific because for every number you claim you disclaim 9 numbers. So for one significan figure of claim say 3 you rule out 0-2.5 and 3.5-10. And not only do you rule out these numbers but you publically state that you ruled them out and the significant figures shows how well you understand the relationship. Evolution is not a numeric theory precisely because it rules things in or out primarily AFTER data as opposed to BEFORE data. Using numbers would make this more clear so they are avoided.
Ed you can see the severe errors caused by evolution blinders.
You and I both know that were I to do more research in your fairy tales of Darwinianism I would find more....
Keys to look for
1) The text book doesn't mention the evolution movement has changed its theory or restricted its claims greatly over time. Not Darwin, the evolution movement.
2) The textbook doesn't mention biogenesis and its key relationship with how likely the first ancestor existing without outside interference is.
3) The text book doesn't mention that evolution cannot predict the HOW or WHY of the similiarities in life. It is only the similiarity that has been confirmed not the cause of that similiarity.
4) The text book resorts to the argument of Authority that evolution is true because a lot of scientists say it is. Or because it is old. Or it is a cornerstone of modern biology.... Science is about evidence and testing not about opinion and degrees.
Please point to a book that doesn't contain these errors now that I have humored you its your turn to humor me...