The fundamental (and wrong) religious argument of the IDists in Kansas

I think the science community misses a critical aspect of the entire debate, and that is the importance of the imagination. Many "regular folks" who support ID do so not because they are frothing-at-the-mouth wackos like the more vocal supporters but because, to them, ID "makes sense" and engages their sense of rightness and beauty. Certainly their leaders and peers have a huge impact, but ultimately it's the individual that must be swayed. Pro-science rational people fail to engage the public at that emotional level, but instead insult them with statements along the line of "You are wrong and must be stupid or at best uneducated. WE have the answer".

I am only marginally knowledgeable about evolutionary principles, yet I embrace that view completely. But since I'm not an expert, my attempts to convince the ID people can only come across as Belief, not as knowledge. This supports Conservativeman's argument.

There is an emotional resonance to ideas about Purpose and Self, even if those are merely anthropomorphic projections onto the universe. People will not willingly abandon those concepts without satisfying alternatives.

To me, the concept of evolution - both biological and the bigger scale of the evolution of the universe, is more beautiful than any religion. Injecting a God into the process cheapens it and turns the universe into a toy-like gizmo or Vegas magic show.

I once heard on the radio (Science Friday, I think) a scientist claim "all children are creationists". Of course, they grow out of it. I notice this process in my own understanding; I naturally accepted New Age ideas like Higher Mind or goal-directed evolution. Only later in my 30s and 40s did those concepts become unsatisfying.

Certainly, people who decide the content of school curricula are not children - at least in terms of age. But they ARE children intellectually.

People who are trying to keep evolution on the table and ID off need to keep this in mind - that without a gut-level agreement, there will be resistance.

This is where scientists and educators can make a difference in "the controversy"; they need to argue not only the science, but also the beauty of the concepts and the process. There must be a satisfying - not merely correct - replacement to the ultimately bankrupt ID argument.

C.J. Colucci,

Your post granted me a large sigh of relief. For some time now, I'd been questioning my own sanity -- just couldn't understand the blitheness of some folks who reconcile strongly apparent directionlessness with a metaphysically allowable directedness. The force of actual experience dilutes, to my thinking, the wishes for a purposeful (yet quantumly hidden) biological process. As you say, one is not logically exclusive of the other, but sometimes even logic must bend toward the worldview most conforming to actual data on the ground.

May I impose on you to comment about a thought experiment?

What would be wrong, given the ingrained nature of religion in the general culture, to allow three types of classes in K-12:

1. comparative religion (absent any scientific methodology)

2 science, including biological evolution (absent any religious methodology)

3. philosophy, wherein criteria for critical thinking are introduced and emphasized (from which, the question of reconciling religion and science is left to the students' application of philosophical methodology).

k.e.

The only long-term solution I see is good education, starting at birth. By the time the battle has become one of faith vs. evidence, belief vs. logic, no hearts or minds are any longer being reached. I suspect very very few hearts and minds are reached even by the age most people start public school; the die has been cast. The final product may not yet have been formed, but I think that's something different. By the 9th grade, almost nobody "finds Jesus" who comes from a culture where exposure to "Jesusness" is unknown.

And there seems little doubt that creationists are well aware of this - the younger we can reach people, the more control we have over what eventually sets up and becomes immutable in their minds. Creationists already control a great many parents, and have institutionalized church attendance, Sunday school, bible school, and regular daily prayer as often as possible. But government ratification of religion is still really beneficial, because it broadens the environment of "Jesus exposure."

It's said that we don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't a fish. For fish, water is simply reality. There's nothing with which to contrast it. The same goes for religious exposure, I think. It's the constant cultural background noise, taken for granted. So it's important to make sure it doesn't fade out, because the silence would be a contrast that might wake people up. So we KEEP "taking god for granted" on our currency, in our pledge, in our government-granted official holidays, and in our media. (Driving through Arkansas, I'm able to find six preacher stations and often nothing else).

I think the ratio was 60-40 with the 40 being theists or deists among scientists, and shrinking. Life scientists had few Believers, maybe single digits, last I read. The NAS was also 90% or more atheists/agnostics. And those scientists who ARE theists are rarely biblical literalists. I conjecture that most children of scientists grow up in households where religion is simply not present, less by design than because it just doesn't have occasion to cross the minds of the parents.

Hopefully, this situation can snowball. But I'm arguing that we need to recognize that the battle is really waged over the training of very young children. We need to keep government from reinforcing exposure (and yes, there is an official government religion, Newdow is spot-on correct and will never get anywhere!) We also need to keep (and encourage) evolution in public school biology. Currently, if I read Jack Krebs and others correctly, most states have evolution in the official curriculum, and most biology teachers somehow never get to that subject, because it causes irate parents to hassle the administration.

I don't see any legal way to address the systematic non-mention of evolution nationwide in high school science classes, except by chipping away at the obvious offenses (like Dover and maybe Kansas) and mostly improving the quality of our educational system. Statistically, education is a good remedy for literalistic religious belief. But nobody can reach Conservativeman. All we have is evidence, and faith is explicitly belief without or despite evidence.

Ok. seems I have to re-write my post.

The point that everyone here seems to be missing is this:

Conservativeman does not equate good science with evolution. He believes himself to love science, in fact. What he trusts is not the process, necessarily, but the conclusions of the individual scientists, because they are supposedly biased by their pevelant atheism and find what they sought in the first place.

This misconception needs to be addressed by demonstrating that the scientific method and the peer review process are indeed excellent filters for personal biases and even conspiracy attempts. Many people who are against evolution almost by necessity must believe in a conspiracy theory within the leading scientific bodies. My suggestion is that we put emphasis on why scientific method and peer review are immune to personal biases, religions, and conspiracies.

Flint:

Excellent, thoughtful posts -- thank you.

However, your explanation of the point of view of someone who is an adherent to a revealed religion left out an alternative.

That is, assume for the moment rational inquiry is, correctly, if incompletely, explaining nature. In so doing, rational inquiry is showing us the hand of God (something, IIRC, St Augustine assured us we would find).

That doesn't make scientists in general, or evolutionary biologists in particular, anti-theist.

But it does make revealed religion adherents idolators.

Yes, Flint, you're right: Conservativeman's viewpoint IS shared by a large political body. And I fully understand what you are saying, in that we ought to make an effort to understand what his viewpoint is. And believe it or not, I do understand that point of view, although I don't agree with it.

Quoting the dictionary is not "ostrich-speech" (whatever that means) when a major point of your previous post was predicated on the notion that "the word evolution REALLY means...rejecting God." Now, you are entitled to a belief that the theory of evolution requires someone to reject God. However, you are NOT entitled to redefine the meaning of a word (unless you work for the Kansas BoE and the word is "science.").
"Evolution is a code-word for denying God. Creationists all know this as deep in their brains as possible." Not true. Evolution isn't a "code-word" for anything. It's just a word. Period. Again, you are entitled to a belief that all scientists are evil, brainwashing devils, but you're NOT allowed to redefine words to suit your religion.

"Creationist reading of scripture says nothing about microwave ovens or cars, computers or printing presses. It says, very explicitly, that God created Man in His own image, from clay, all at once, as we are today. This is TRUTH. It is not open to discussion. Period. Unless evolution agrees with Truth, it is DENYING GOD!"
Ah yes, truth with a capital T.

Science does not deny you the right to believe in a creationist reading of scriptures (although I'm still curious as to WHICH PARTICULAR version of the scripture you're insisting is God's word). If you want to ignore evidence that God created, that's fine, and that's your right. And if you want to think that scientists deny God because they study His creation using the tools and capacities that He gave them, then that's your right too.

And, interestingly enough, since we live in America: guess what? If you don't believe in evolution, if you think that God's only way of communicating with people is a very old, self-conflicting book, and you want to make sure that that's all your kids learn too: You can TAKE THEM OUT OF PUBLIC SCHOOL. Or, even, just take them out of the classes that offend your "sensitive religious doctrines." That's your right. But it's NOT your right to make sure that MY kid gets brainwashed into believing you're particular brand of dogma.

The problem is that religion is inherently personal. Even if two people go to the same church, read the same version of the Bible, their experiences with religion and their beliefs will be different. And there's no way to "prove" that one is right or that one is wrong (unless you claim, as it seems many people do, to be able to read the mind of God). Religion is a personal thing. Which is probably why we have this problem at all.

Russell, I'm perplexed at your consternation about by sentence. Should I have said "some scientists" or have Googled the comments of an actual scientist? Are generalities taboo?

I seem to recall having read that a goodly number of research biologists are theistic evolutionists. And I seem to (again, generally) recall that a goodly number of atheist biologists consider science as neutral about religious issues, therefore not in contradiction.

By the way, what do you think would qualify as a non-stupid religion?

I think what often confuses 'non-scientists' is the variability of predictive power in theories...

— Rilke's Granddaughter

What does "science" mean? It's coming up with theories and models to explain the observations. Why do you think I have trouble with the observations themselves rather than the narrow minded intellectually arrogant way of interpretation of some evolutionists. and in a subsequent comment: The crux of it is one's interpretive framework derived from one's world view--either exclusively materialistic/naturalistic or willing to consider a creator. As a model, ID/creationism is no more inconsistent with the physical observations than evolution. Of course personally I'd submit that it fits better than evolution.

— fool, commenting on In The Pipeline,

As far as fool was concerned, science is only about explanations and interpretations of what we already know. By his definition, creationism/ID is science. His last point is also quite correct. Given an all-powerful deity, ID/creationism can absolutely fit the facts better than evolution.

Out of curiosity, do you include in 'prediction' the ability to explain new observations? Or simply the ability to generate potential 'future' events?

For example: given the MS and observation, one could have predicted that whale precursors would be found with certain characteristics.

But can one predict what an evolutionary descendent of a whale will look like?

What's interesting to me is the fixation on "purposeless" or "undirected" processes.

The strong theist sees atheist implications of the idea of natural selection, that the fantastic web of biodiversity we see is the product of a process that simply cannot
"see ahead." So, long-term Purpose would seem to be absent. But what makes these people so sure that Divine Purpose would be so easy to detect, were it in fact operative?

Presumably strong theists believe that God's purpose is active and ongoing, so why do they not see a problem with our "undirected" economy, in which a large and dynamic construct is the product of short-term decisions made in the interest of individual gain, without top-down oversight? Where is God amidst all this activity by the "Invisible Hand"? If this seemingly purposeless process can be the instrument of providence, why not the short term reproductive advantage of competing lineages?

To layer on the final bit of irony, I feel sure that someone using the moniker "Conservativeman" is a firm believer in free market principles.

Greg H asked about a Citizens for Science group in Iowa. Tara is organizing one. See here.

RBH

Qetzal's emphasis on science's predictive ability is a good approach.

From qetzal's comment, fool's comments illustrate well the point that I made earlier. Creationists say "we don't trust the conclusions that scientists draw from the science," rather than, "we don't trust science itself." They point to the fact that PEOPLE are doing science, and people are prone to bias.

This is a valid point, unless one understands what is really involved in the scientific process. It is huge, it is international, and it does not depend on one group of people with a conspiracy. It is the best filter of bias that we know.

Sir Toe_Jam,

Which thread did Judy post in? I too live in Indiana.

What's interesting to me is the fixation on "purposeless" or "undirected" processes. The strong theist sees atheist implications of the idea of natural selection, that the fantastic web of biodiversity we see is the product of a process that simply cannot "see ahead." So, long-term Purpose would seem to be absent. But what makes these people so sure that Divine Purpose would be so easy to detect, were it in fact operative?

Presumably strong theists believe that God's purpose is active and ongoing, so why do they not see a problem with our "undirected" economy, in which a large and dynamic construct is the product of short-term decisions made in the interest of individual gain, without top-down oversight? Where is God amidst all this activity by the "Invisible Hand"? If this seemingly purposeless process can be the instrument of providence, why not the short term reproductive advantage of competing lineages?

To layer on the final bit of irony, I feel sure that someone using the moniker "Conservativeman" is a firm believer in free market principles.

What would be wrong, given the ingrained nature of religion in the general culture, to allow three types of classes in K-12: 1. comparative religion (absent any scientific methodology) 2 science, including biological evolution (absent any religious methodology) 3. philosophy, wherein criteria for critical thinking are introduced and emphasized (from which, the question of reconciling religion and science is left to the students' application of philosophical methodology).

— Tim B.

Posted by Katarina on November 15, 2005 01:32 PM (e) (s) Sir Toe_Jam, Which thread did Judy post in? I too live in Indiana.

Do you really think so? Given the nature of the PoE, I would think that a 'deity-free' universe with undirected evolution is a better fit to observation.

— Rilke's Granddaughter

Free will. Most Christian theists dissociate the 'events' of their lives - which occur on the basis of free-will, with the 'value' of their lives - which depends on God.

Stephen Elliott, very kind of you.

That is, assume for the moment rational inquiry is, correctly, if incompletely, explaining nature. In so doing, rational inquiry is showing us the hand of God (something, IIRC, St Augustine assured us we would find). That doesn't make scientists in general, or evolutionary biologists in particular, anti-theist. But it does make revealed religion adherents idolators.

Quoting the dictionary is not "ostrich-speech" (whatever that means) when a major point of your previous post was predicated on the notion that "the word evolution REALLY means...rejecting God." Now, you are entitled to a belief that the theory of evolution requires someone to reject God. However, you are NOT entitled to redefine the meaning of a word

Evolution isn't a "code-word" for anything. It's just a word. Period. Again, you are entitled to a belief that all scientists are evil, brainwashing devils, but you're NOT allowed to redefine words to suit your religion.

...Or, even, just take them out of the classes that offend your "sensitive religious doctrines." That's your right. But it's NOT your right to make sure that MY kid gets brainwashed into believing you're particular brand of dogma.

Doesn't Darwin's modification through natural selection include the strong inference that nature's unfolding is a blind, directionless process? This is where I'm sincerely confused. It seems either odd or disingenuous to me when scientists assert no contradiction between evolution and religion. Further, I'm left scratching my head when theistic evolutionists posit a similar claim. Am I wrong in thinking that a blind process is unreconcilable with any notion of final cause or any kind of spiritual eschatology?

— Tim

Don't Newton's Laws of Motion include the strong inference that the universe's unfolding is a blind, directionless process?

— improvius

you can always play the deity card to have an explicit explanation of them.

It's predictively useless, but it is a very complete explanation. Even if it fails to explain God.

Personally I disagree with both sides of the argument. I trust science and the scientific method. So I will not be attacking science, instead I will attack the theory using Science only. First, in the scientific method you have to do an experiment to test a theory however what experiment can you do to disprove evolution? you can't for the problem is in the theory it self for it is circular reasoning. The only experiments possible are attempts to prove the theory which unfortunately it is impossible for science to prove anything. Circular reasoning is a logic flaw in the theory thus the theory does not have to be accepted. It is quite apparent that adaptation occurs and quite frequently however in recorded history with people observing there has been no species that has truly evolved. The closest would be the dog however a some dogs are still able to breed with wolves and the offspring is viable therefore while adapted it has not evolved and even if it did it was not natural and therefore not in accord with the theory. While there is fossil evidence that proves nothing, because it is just assumed that one species evolved into another but there is no way to test that.
These same arguments can be made against the creationists. It is a circular reasoning as well with no way to test scientifically if it is true or not.
I understand that the theory of evolution is very useful in understanding biology but it is not fact just a theory and an untestable one at that.
As for challenging religion, to me the theory does not challenge religion. We do not know how god made the earth. In the bible god does not give moses a specific and detailed account of how he did it. Also Moses was not equipped with either the scientific or language skills to give a detailed account nor was it his intent to do so. However the account is surprisingly accurate if you do not force the time periods to be specifically days. If you take them to be periods instead then they fit pretty well with the accepted scientific viewpoint of how the earth was created and how/when the various species arose, the difference being of course birds.
As for a solution to the problem of what is taught in schools, if this were the only problem I would be happy and we could work on it, but don't the school systems have bigger problems to work on that should be solved first? However since we are forced to deal with this subject, why not let the parents and students decided?

Doesn't Darwin's modification through natural selection include the strong inference that nature's unfolding is a blind, directionless process?

Am I wrong in thinking that a blind process is unreconcilable with any notion of final cause or any kind of spiritual eschatology?

Don't Newton's Laws of Motion include the strong inference that the universe's unfolding is a blind, directionless process?

— Caledonian

No, they don't.

First, in the scientific method you have to do an experiment to test a theory however what experiment can you do to disprove evolution? you can't for the problem is in the theory it self for it is circular reasoning. The only experiments possible are attempts to prove the theory which unfortunately it is impossible for science to prove anything. Circular reasoning is a logic flaw in the theory thus the theory does not have to be accepted.

in recorded history with people observing there has been no species that has truly evolved

Differentviewpoint again demonstrates the point I made earlier:

The creationist thinks that he/she embraces and loves science! But if this is so, why not believe the most respected scientific bodies in the world when they put their support behind evolution?

Is there a conspiracy theory?

In what way does the scientific method sheild against personal bias (presumably atheistic), and conspiracies?

I prefer to think of religion as providing answers to philosophical and semantic issues that otherwise bother people or make them feel insecure.

In what way does the scientific method sheild against personal bias (presumably atheistic), and conspiracies?

Is there a conspiracy theory?

— Katarina

Do you really think so? Given the nature of the PoE, I would think that a 'deity-free' universe with undirected evolution is a better fit to observation.

— Rilke's Granddaughter

Out of curiosity, do you include in 'prediction' the ability to explain new observations? Or simply the ability to generate potential 'future' events? For example: given the MS and observation, one could have predicted that whale precursors would be found with certain characteristics. But can one predict what an evolutionary descendent of a whale will look like?

How is this any different than providing answers to empirical problems? In both cases, the "answers", i.e., "explanations", have the same question begging nature.

P.S.

I don't understand the parenthetical; it's empirical bias that the scientific method filters out. Theistic scientists do just as good science as atheistic scientists.

Science simply can't help you answer questions like "What is the purpose of life? Why am I here? Where will the "me" be after I die? Am I a good person?"

The important thing is, there is no right answer to these questions,

However since we are forced to deal with this subject, why not let the parents and students decided?

— Differentviewpoint

Nor can religion. It can make claims, but it can't justify them. That's question begging.

Where will the "me" be after I die?

Flint:

Once again, full points on your postings.

You wrote:

"This is a disturbing notion, at least to me. You seem to be saying that there are two basic approaches to religious belief: wrong (idolators) and irrelevant (layering an unnecessary god onto a natural process to accomplish nothing useful). And of course, 'rational inquiry' basically means relegating any gods to the back burner, as vestigial anachronisms suffered by those who have managed to overcome their religious toilet training."

I must not have made my point clearly -- it wouldn't be the first time.

The Bible makes specific statements about the natural world, statements that, within the Creationist universe must be true in order for the Bible, and the particular version of God Creationists worship, to be true. (Their formulation, not mine.)

The option they exclude is that God exists, but, as demonstrated by Nature itself through rational inquiry, is not the one they worship.

In other words, they are so busy condemning the messenger that they haven't taken the message on board -- they are idolators; rational inquiry has shown the God they worship isn't the God that is. Their mistake is making their core spiritual values dependent upon physical implementation details.

Nor does rational inquiry relegate God to a back burner. It may well be that we could find some element in natural history that is in fact unbridgable by anything other than a miracle (anyone remember the cartoon about a student doing a mathematical proof, with "Then a miracle occurs" as one of the steps?).

That would bring God, or some proxy thereof, very much to the front burner, making assertions that science is somehow atheistic complete nonsense.

Ah, but that's the point. It still answers the questions.

First, in the scientific method you have to do an experiment to test a theory however what experiment can you do to disprove evolution? you can't for the problem is in the theory it self for it is circular reasoning.

Morbius,

I am not sure where you are unclear, but theism or atheism are irrelevant to scientific method. The next question is, are personal theistic MOTIVES relevant? So the creationists would say. What my creationist friends would tell you is that most scientists are in fact motivated by their atheism and are looking for conclusions that support their atheism. That this is what drives them to do science in the first place, and that in turn, this has an effect on their results and their conclusions.

My specific observation is that this is the accusation that we have not addressed thoroughly enough. We need to systematically answer such questions. I am not a scientist, but I have a vague familiarity with the process of sending out one's work to scientific journals, getting papers published, and corresponding with other researchers on methods, hypotheses, conclusions, further research, etc., through my breif experience as a research assistant in college. Those doing the research may be better able to explain to lay people just how rigorous peer review is, and whether any kind of conspiracy could withstand it.

It may well be that we could find some element in natural history that is in fact unbridgable by anything other than a miracle

anyone remember the cartoon about a student doing a mathematical proof, with "Then a miracle occurs" as one of the steps?

I am not sure where you are unclear

This 'conservativeman' is a complete (oxy)moron.

How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when they give themselves away with phrases like 'non-theistic religions'?

A 'non-theistic belief system' might be a viable phrase but 'non-theistic religion' is simply an oxymoron. Only someone anxious to suggest that there is no difference between 'believing' in God and 'believing' in natural selection could seriously use such a phrase.

Maybe I am unclear. Unclear about what? I agreed with your comments. Maybe I mis-worded my comments, earlier. I don't know. The point?

So does goddidit. Which was my point, as you'll note if you follow along closely.

I am not a scientist, but I have a vague familiarity with the process of sending out one's work to scientific journals, getting papers published, and corresponding with other researchers on methods, hypotheses, conclusions, further research, etc., through my breif experience as a research assistant in college. Those doing the research may be better able to explain to lay people just how rigorous peer review is, and whether any kind of conspiracy could withstand it.

— Katarina

Ah, but that's the point. It still answers the questions. What you don't seem to like is that it doesn't answer them rationally. But then, it never claims to, does it? It's based on faith, not reason. Faith is like the invisible boat you jump onto when you reach the end of reason's pier.

The Bible makes specific statements about the natural world, statements that, within the Creationist universe must be true in order for the Bible, and the particular version of God Creationists worship, to be true. (Their formulation, not mine.) The option they exclude is that God exists, but, as demonstrated by Nature itself through rational inquiry, is not the one they worship.

What my creationist friends would tell you is that most scientists are in fact motivated by their atheism and are looking for conclusions that support their atheism...My specific observation is that this is the accusation that we have not addressed thoroughly enough. We need to systematically answer such questions.

The irony is that DifferentPointOfView may have a legitimate concern: evolution the theory is devilishly hard to falsify. After all, the two key mechanisms are observations: replication of living organisms is imperfect, introducing variants in a population; and variation affects reproductive success. Even if exceptions were found, that wouldn't change the observations.

At this point, even if we found the legendary Pre-Cambrian Rabbit (PCR), it would not 'falsify' the observations mentioned above. All a given observation might do is indicate that, for a specific population or individual, certain features were not produced by variation+selection (+drift, etc. - I'm simplifying).

Like any good theory, it's a collection of strongly supported hypotheses - falsifying one doesn't necessarily invalidate the others.

Can we really falsify evolution?

Katarina: You asked

"In what way does the scientific method sheild against personal bias (presumably atheistic), and conspiracies?"

Now you say "I am not sure where you are unclear, but theism or atheism are irrelevant to scientific method."
Which is exactly what I said (emphasis added): "it's empirical bias that the scientific method filters out".

I gave an answer to your question about how the scientific method guards against bias -- the scientific method rewards results, it's built upon what works; unlike with psychics and prophets, predictions have to actually be borne out. Peer review is not a part of the scientific method proper -- Galileo wasn't peer reviewed. Peer review is a filter that forces scientists to carefully validate their work before it is submitted to a wider audience. It's an efficiency measure, but science can be done without it. Note that not just science is peer reviewed; many philosophy journals are also peer reviewed, but that doesn't get the content of philosophy journals any closer to the truth (at least not discernably).

As for disabusing creationists of their false beliefs about science and scientists, we aren't likely to be able to do that when we can't disabuse them of far more obvious false beliefs; the problem lies deeper than that.

The irony is that DifferentPointOfView may have a legitimate concern: evolution the theory is devilishly hard to falsify.

Can we really falsify evolution?

However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections--if he has any--against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief.

How can anyone expect to be taken seriously when they give themselves away with phrases like 'non-theistic religions'? A 'non-theistic belief system' might be a viable phrase but 'non-theistic religion' is simply an oxymoron

But Morbius, that's my point - can the theory of evolution actually be falsified? I would claim no - some mechanism can be shown to be unecessary or not present, but the theory cannot be shown to be false.

Bingo. There really ARE no right answers to ill-formed or meaningless questions, there are only satisfying or unsatisfying answers. Religion provides satisfying answers. Satisfying answers are not non-answers, regardless of how UNsafisfying Morbious himself finds them. If he found them satisfying, he'd be religious. Indeed, if he found the questions themselves meaningful, he'd be well along that path.

But Morbius, that's my point - can the theory of evolution actually be falsified? I would claim no - some mechanism can be shown to be unecessary or not present, but the theory cannot be shown to be false.

I guess I'm not making my point clear. I'm not arguing about a detached version of reality; and I agree that the Modern Synthesis does consist of those mechanisms and hypotheses that have not been eliminated. But can the Modern Synthesis be 'disproved'? Can the Modern Synthesis be falsified? In a very real and critical sense, it can't be - no matter how many PCRs we might find.

Well thanks for not really looking at what I was saying that was cool
"No, because it isn't false. But if it were, that would have become evident."
That is a classic example of circular reasoning.
"No, experiments are not "attempts to prove the theory". You say you "trust" the scientific method --- stop trusting and start investigating, because you seem to have no idea what the scientific method is."
that's cool, you misquote me. I did not say that the experiments were to prove but to disprove. Like I said it is impossible to prove anything. For a theory to be acceptable it has to be disprovable and not provable. As was pointed out the question is if even if you find human tracks with that of dinosaurs or a rabbit fossil in another period the theory would still hold simply because it is circular or whatever evidence can be used to support the theory. Don't try telling me about the scientific method if you don't know it yourself.
Also in finding DNA of a earthworm like that of a monkey. That's just stupid to ask. It is like trying to find the same computer coding in mspaint as is in the apple os. However you can find a lot of the similar coding in the apple os and the windows os or a Linux os. In a way you could apply the theory to evolution to computers and it would fit perfectly.

In a very real and critical sense, it can't be

Morbius,

Oh, I get it.

You're right, the problem is deeper for some, but not all. How well do you understand creationists? I am surrounded by them. My friends, my neighbors, even my husband, to some extent, though he's coming around. They believe creationists because they were raised to dis-trust scientists, in particular evolutionary scientists.

I talk to them every day, deal with them every day. Believe me, talking about what science is and is not (as Eugenie Scott and others have already advocated) goes a long way. Going into more detail with that discussion does reach people, especially if they view scientists as elitists in "ivory towers."

As was pointed out the question is if even if you find human tracks with that of dinosaurs or a rabbit fossil in another period the theory would still hold simply because it is circular or whatever evidence can be used to support the theory.

As I noted, there are rational reasons to find the questions meaningless, malformed, or based on erroneous or hidden assumptions. It isn't just a matter of personal levels of satisfaction or unsatisfaction.

I understand that the theory of evolution is very useful in understanding biology but it is not fact just a theory and an untestable one at that.

A point to clarify: "evolution" is a class of phenomena. Instances in that class are identified by the diagnostic characteristic of allele frequency [or association] change in populations over time. (Mayr pumps for "changes in adaptation and diversity", but I prefer an objectively quantifiable definition.) Allele frequencies have been observed to change in populations over time, which establishes instances in the class of phenomena called "evolution". Because the class "evolution" has instances, it exists. The *only* way to disprove "evolution" per se is to show that *every* *single* *one* of the studies that document the diagnostic characteristic of the phenomenon to somehow have been wrong. *Each* one, one by one and separately. Nothing else will suffice. There are many separate (and separable) theories which attempt to explain how the phenomena identified as evolutionary occur. These I term "evolutionary mechanism theories", which has some degree of useful redundancy.

"No, because it isn't false. But if it were, that would have become evident." That is a classic example of circular reasoning.

that's cool, you misquote me. I did not say that the experiments were to prove but to disprove.

The only experiments possible are attempts to prove the theory which unfortunately it is impossible for science to prove anything.

In the same way it is hypothetically possible to find mountains of evidence to disprove that God created the world. What about the second law of Thermo Dynamics? that is evidence against ToE.
This is another example of why it is a circle:
"Right, it isn't possible to show that, because it isn't true."

I will agree that many religions are irrational and do indeed worship false gods. Religion like science should be a search for truth. In my religion all truth is accepted wether religious or scientific.

A proof for the creation would go something like this:
If God created the world, then the fossil evidence would support the way it is written in the bible (assuming of course that the bible is translated correctly and/or is the word of god).
I would venture to say that discounting the days part the evidence is in favor of the biblical record.

We aren't communicating.

I agree with all you say.

You contemptuously wave them all away.

Yeah, that looks like a 100% accurate direct quote to me, too.

What about the second law of Thermo Dynamics? that is evidence against ToE

As you mischaracterize what I have said.

When in doubt, go ad hominem.

A point to clarify: "evolution" is a class of phenomena. Instances in that class are identified by the diagnostic characteristic of allele frequency [or association] change in populations over time.

just in case you weren't, I'm not even going to bother going into why that is so wrong. I just refer you to here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

if you actually wish to discuss why you are wrong after reading that, please start a thread in the ABC area where you can demonstrate more clearly why you think any law of thermodynamics refutes TOE.

no ad hominem either

I don't even know where to begin to address all of the incorrect statements in post 57782. At this point, I am afraid that DVP is a True Believerâ„¢, and any further discussion on my part (or on the part of anyone else here, for that matter) would be futile.

I am not a scientist, but I have a vague familiarity with the process of sending out one's work to scientific journals, getting papers published, and corresponding with other researchers on methods, hypotheses, conclusions, further research, etc., through my breif experience as a research assistant in college. Those doing the research may be better able to explain to lay people just how rigorous peer review is, and whether any kind of conspiracy could withstand it.

Morbius: Take chip off shoulder. Try again.

M. We all have a chip on our shoulder of some kind, but yours appears inordinately large.

uh, the point is, Morbius, that your constant ascerbic attitude is taking away from the substantive points you are making, and forcing the rest of us to spend energy responding to them.

If you don't want to acknowlege that, then you all you do is make that chip on your shoulder even bigger.

I tried to take this OT because i didn't want to waste any more time OT with it, but your continuing attitude forces the issue.

deal with it.

Stop being such an ass. This is a board about evolution and ID, not about me.

hell, at least tend to reserve your scorn for those that really deserve it, rather than, well EVERYBODY.

This is a board about evolution and ID, not about me

i think you missed my point, you ARE making it about you.

If you can't admit your own character flaws, it will degrade your own performance on more substantive issues.

As was pointed out the question is if even if you find human tracks with that of dinosaurs or a rabbit fossil in another period the theory would still hold simply because it is circular or whatever evidence can be used to support the theory.

Don't try telling me about the scientific method if you don't know it yourself. Also in finding DNA of a earthworm like that of a monkey. That's just stupid to ask. It is like trying to find the same computer coding in mspaint as is in the apple os. However you can find a lot of the similar coding in the apple os and the windows os or a Linux os. In a way you could apply the theory to evolution to computers and it would fit perfectly.

Tim B.:
To respond to your question, the only objection I would have to your proposed three K-12 courses is that whoever we got to teach them would probably make a hash of it. If we could get past that, fine.
But a comparative religion course, which I would favor given competent instructors, would be a political disaster. The last thing any religiously zealous parent would want is a course that treats his or her religion as one set of beliefs among others with no privileged claim to truth and either explicitly or implicitly encourages the kiddies to compare and evaluate their competing claims and rules.

"ALL theories are inherently untestable."
No I will give you an example, Gravity- if mass atracts mass when you drop something it will fall if you are on earth. try that test. If it doesn't work the perhaps Gravity doesn't exist.

It seems really easy for you guys to just give someone a label and dismiss, not even consider for one moment if something is right or not. not even put it to the test. you call your selfs supporters of science but you do not even use science in the answering of simple questions to your theory. instead you label, make fun of, scorn or simply ignore any attempt at discussion by the other side. I will admit that many religous do the same thing however that does not make them right either. If there is no room for dissent then science stops and it becomes just dogma. A dogma that is as much a religion as any other religion. Where is the evidence that what I said is wrong? And while you guys are in the mood of talking bad about religions, you just give the conservitaves so much more reason to think that they are right. In this simple discussion board you have shown that in a small way the Conservativeman was complettly and utterly right to have his views. Not because they are right but because of the beating up of those that would impose thier world view on others. You guys are worse then the worst JW or Mormon that ever existed if you are like that because you would use the law to force what has become apparent to be your belief system on others. Interestingly the JW just try to show you are wrong and the Mormons just want you to read a book and then do a test, pray about it.

What about the second law of Thermo Dynamics? that is evidence against ToE

sorry Russell I was responding to someone else. Thanks for your reply

"ALL theories are inherently untestable."

After posting, I realize I used the phrase "more interesting state." To clarify, I am referring to the macroscopic state, which encompasses many possible states in the sense needed to determine entropy.

Julie,

Thank you. Your description demonstrates a very straight-forward process which demands evidence and extensive fact-checking.

Self-organization includes easily repeatable phenomena such as snowflake formation; if these don't contradict the 2nd law, then why would evolution?

"Differentpointofview" would more aptly be call it/her/himself "Sameoldbu--sh--".

It seems really easy for you guys to just give someone a label and dismiss, not even consider for one moment if something is right or not. not even put it to the test. you call your selfs supporters of science but you do not even use science in the answering of simple questions to your theory.

— DVP

Morbius merely provides valuable quality feedback to keep our discussion precise and intellectually honest. Sometimes he provides valuable meta-quality feedback to keep us from personalizing things or spending inordinate time accusing other posters of expressing hostility, having a chip on their shoulder, etc. Morbius would never do this himself. As anyone can see, his only ambition is to maintain quality at all levels spanning from content to level of discourse. Think of him as Mr. Quality.

Differentviewpoint:

This is a discussion, not science. Everyone and anyone is free to say whatever they please. And you are perfect for venting their anger with creationists in general, or even with each other. They will take it out on you, they are human, and it has nothing to do with evolution in general.

Now that you have been labeled a troll, it will be very difficult for you to get into a discussion with any desirable results. Take my advice, don't expose yourself to abuse, leave while your dignity is still intact.

It's not that we haven't considered your point, it's that we've already researched it extensively.

Morbius merely ...

— PaulC

Morbius,
Quick question.
Do you post elsewhere as "Ghost of Paley"?

Now that you have been labeled a troll

by the logic presented in your post, ALL theories are inherently untestable.

"ALL theories are inherently untestable."

Thanks for the meta-quality feedback, Morbius. My fingertips are quivering with my newly enhanced level of discourse. Somehow taking it to ABC wouldn't do this announcement justice.

Morbius-
As good as you have stated the posistion on scientific vs. ID, doesn't it come down to the challenges and what slant a court puts on the decision? I don't mean to throw it on you soley to answer, but I have taken alot of what you said as better than I could have ever put it.

I can only sit from the back and know that I don't like ID as science, in a world religion class I could accept some of the ID theories.

Do you post elsewhere as "Ghost of Paley"?

As good as you have stated the posistion on scientific vs. ID, doesn't it come down to the challenges and what slant a court puts on the decision?

I can only sit from the back and know that I don't like ID as science, in a world religion class I could accept some of the ID theories.

Once again with feeling: There is no neutral. Those not FOR God are AGAINST God. Period.

Rilke's Granddaughter: ... to somehow find an experiment to test for God. But they've yet to develop one.

But can one predict what an evolutionary descendent of a whale will look like?

can the theory of evolution actually be falsified?

Personally, I have no problem with escalating the culture wars. The sooner we go head to head with the fundies on their issues, the better.

Yeah, from time to time you'll get some clown popping up saying, "Oh, that guy morbius and Lenny Flank are the nastiest anti-religion bullies that's why I'll never be convinced that evolution is real."

(sigh)

Are we gonna have another religious war?

What the hell good will that do?

But can one predict what an evolutionary descendent of a whale will look like?

If God created the world, then the fossil evidence would support the way it is written in the bible (assuming of course that the bible is translated correctly and/or is the word of god). I would venture to say that discounting the days part the evidence is in favor of the biblical record.

I see no need to make nice-nice with the nutters. My strategy for dealing with them is simple ------ I kick them, kick them again, kick them till they're down, kick them in the head as they lie there, then run them over with a truck just to make sure.

(sigh) Are we gonna have another religious war?

A few people take positions that, when all of their output is considered together, parse out as near as I can tell to something like "religion, considered generally, is an irrational crutch offering nothing substantive of value, that people once leaned on until science came along with the capability of (at least in principle) answering every well-formed, meaningful question the human mind can imagine." So if you have a question science can't answer, either it's a meaningless question or you aren't phrasing it correctly, or else perhaps it's stupid.

This isn't to say that ID per se is valid; it's basically a legalistic but transparent attempt to get creationism into courts and classrooms. But Conservativeman isn't arguing that ID is not religion, he's arguing that evolution IS religion, in this general sense of addressing questions of the meaning and purpose of life. He sees evolution as a matter not of a correct explanation of evidence, but as a matter of right and wrong.

It's not going to help anyone to claim that the "right" answer to "what is the purpose of life?" is "Sorry, [gongggg], question does not parse, based on incorrect assumption." Contrary to the pseudorationalists, religion is NOT just simply incompetent science, anymore than True Believers are correct in regarding evolution as a false faith. Religion serves very necessary purposes fully satisfying to perhaps most people.

Most of the rational critiques of Conservativeman are much like telling a child overcome with grief when his pet dies, "snap out of it. Bawling won't help anything!" We might all recognize that grief is a waste of effort. Snapping out of it doesn't become any easier because we recognize this, though. It's not on the same wavelength.

But asking to draw a picture is a bit like asking a physicist who will live and who will die from a nuclear bomb blast.

sorry lenny, i just had too! it was just too obvious.

But evolution in that sense is not what either creationists or RGD say isn't falsifiable.

So if you have a question science can't answer, either it's a meaningless question or you aren't phrasing it correctly, or else perhaps it's stupid.

Flint, your last comment is right on the money. I couldn't agree with you more.

So, what's the next step? Answer creationists in a kind tone, as you would a child? Or put emphasis on why evolution is not religion? Or just sit back and wait for the creationism balloon to over-inflate and pop on its own?

Flint:

I second what Katarina said -- your discussion of the Creationist mind set is very insightful.

In response to Katarina, I would suggest spending less time on why the naturalistic theory of evolution is true, and more time on making these points:

1. Science is a process
2. All scientific theories share certain characteristics -- they are induction from first order knowledge and possess deductive consequences.
3. Naturalistic evolution is no different than any other scientific theory (most Americans admire science in general, go for the halo effect)
4. Presently, ID/Creationism does not qualify; however, should it propose an evidence based theory with constraining deductive consequences, then by all means it belongs in the realm of scientific inquiry.

Nothing like putting the ball in their court.

"If the bible were an accurate account of the history of the world (discounting the time frame), the evidence and fossil record should show that seeded plants and trees existed before the ever sun ignited, and that birds existed before any other land animal."

Interesting that you say that, the bible is not meant to be an account of the history of the world. I already stated about the birds. You will note that it says that first there was light and that there were day and night. In the early stages of the earths formation the stars would not have been vi sable even when the first recorded fossils are dated to be. Even not necessarily being plants these single cell organisms would not have been considered by moses writing 5000 years ago to be animals. To him anything that is not an animal would be a plant. Also to the Hebrews the difference between birds and fish as well as between the atmosphere and the ocean was not very well defined. In Portuguese by the way it says Reptile. You would force on moses the responsibility of saying everything perfectly. When he as I said had neither the language skills nor the science to give a perfect and detailed account. It was not his intent to give such an account but instead explain in a way that people could understand at that time the start of the human race.

I have an theory. Here is my theory Computers are evolving. They suffer from natural selection, survival of the fit est if you will. Therefore going back in time they get simpler and going forward they get more complex. Also a "proof" that computers are evolving is that the programs get more complex. I in fact can predict as was predicted about the whale that the next evolutionary step of the operating system will look much like the systems currently in use with some difference but much of the basic coding will be used. Even if not it just means that another species of programing was more fit for survival. A way to disprove my theory would be if a supercomputer could be found in the time of the slide rule or if the program notepad had the same coding as Microsoft windows. I now think that in 10,000 years when computers have evolved to have a complex society they will debate over wet her in the history programs given to new computers they should included the idea that man created them which is obviously obsurd or whether they evolved. Since by this time man will be ignored by the computers it will be almost certain that the idea of evolution will win.

Are you actually suggesting that every living thing needs to be manufactured individually like inanimate objects? No? Then drop the "obsurd" analogy.

Or maybe you were implying that god had to blunder through trial and error and lacked the omnicience to directly design living creatures as finished products?

Either way, terrible argument and terrible theology.

satire my friend satire.

Whether it was trial and error or not, I want to see you create a man on mars as man is now and mars is now, from basic elements.

obsurd? what then is childbirth if not individually manufacturing every living creature?

Also to the Hebrews the difference between birds and fish as well as between the atmosphere and the ocean was not very well defined.

satire my friend satire.

Whether it was trial and error or not, I want to see you create a man on mars as man is now and mars is now, from basic elements.

obsurd? what then is childbirth if not individually manufacturing every living creature?

Stomping people who are on OUR side (like, say, theistic evolutionists), doesn't, uh, help us very much.

You jest, surely you realise that the new testment was written in a differnt period and in different langueges then the old testament. Greek doesnt have that problem and a greek influened culture wouldn't either.

satire my friend satire.

So if you have a question science can't answer, either it's a meaningless question or you aren't phrasing it correctly, or else perhaps it's stupid

Oh, I never jest where sacred texts are concerned.

Heaven forfend!

I would have assumed that the observation would have been fairly apparent, thanks for the spell check I have a disability in basic English skills so if spell check doesn't get it I won't. You are really taking the theory too literally. Lets say, assuming god, that god wants to make mars and earth like this one is. He could not make man right off, assuming he works through natural causes. So he would have to terraform mars. How? well first he would have to get more water there, heat it up, take bacteria to start forming O2 so forth. Very long process that would leave a fossil record similar to that found in evolution. If it were evolution or not would be relatively unclear.

By the way, I realize this may sound stupid but, what exactly is this great difference between manufacture and birth, especially if a self producing machine were created?

By the way, I realize this may sound stupid but, what exactly is this great difference between manufacture and birth, especially if a self producing machine were created?

— Differentviewpoint

He could not make man right off, assuming he works through natural causes.

simply not aware that ID is in direct opposition to theistic evolution. Also If god revealed that he used evolution as his tool I would accept it, however as that has not been revealed at present time will with hold judgment. Natural selection, adaptation so forth is not the problem, indeed for me evolution is not necessarily the problem however might be, the problem is when a person uses evolution and science in general as a argument against god or rather as a dogma or religion and would impose forcefully that idea on students. It is more a problem of bias then science in schools. If a teacher would or wants to use evolution as an attack against religion that is a violation of the first , and therefore should not be done. If teachers were unbiased everything would be fine, unfortunately for as much as one may try it is impossible to be unbiased your worldview will seep into the teaching. In such case simply telling or teaching that other people, even some scientist think otherwise would be a way to combat that bias. It is apparent from this board that to many here evolution is for them a religion which they unquestionably accept and react in exactly the same way as most people in any religion when the dogma is challenged in the search for truth. In other words name calling (troll, True Believer instead of heretic, witch), circular reasoning (I am right because I am right), anger leading to action (kicking them or whatever instead of burning at a stake or crucifying). Science does not have emotions only ideas. If Evolution is correct and everything else is wrong as claimed here then the evolutionist have no reason to get upset over someone wanting to present other information, rather they should accept it as it breeds discovery. Allowing teachers to teach evolution but to also teach something else whatever it may be it should become obvious from the use fullness, the creditability, and the logic to the students which is right and which is wrong. Also there are still somethings which current evolutionary theory can not explain perfectly, such as the very start of life on earth. One other comment that was made, if you found a species that lived to benefit others, economics can explain that even altruistic people are acting out of self-interest even faith based altruism, so finding such a species would prove nothing. Microcrondia, Chlorophyll are some things that could in theory be considered species that live for the good of other species. So if in economics there can be no true altruism how can one expect that of biology? Therefore that test of evolution is a circular reasoning, something that proves itself to be true.

however might be, the problem is when a person uses evolution and science in general as a argument against god or rather as a dogma or religion and would impose forcefully that idea on students

also, could you please break up your posting into paragraphs so it isn't one big block of text; makes it very hard to read.

I attended a high school biology class, fairly recently actually and that is how the theory was presented in some of the classes. For some of the other classes not the teacher I took, Intelligent design was presented but after the class was over with the teacher closing the door and telling the students one of which was my brother to not tell the other biology teachers what he was saying.

Very long process that would leave a fossil record similar to that found in evolution. If it were evolution or not would be relatively unclear.

I attended a high school biology class, fairly recently actually and that is how the theory was presented in some of the classes.

If Evolution is correct and everything else is wrong as claimed here then the evolutionist have no reason to get upset over someone wanting to present other information, rather they should accept it as it breeds discovery. Allowing teachers to teach evolution but to also teach something else whatever it may be it should become obvious from the use fullness, the creditability, and the logic to the students which is right and which is wrong.

If a teacher would or wants to use evolution as an attack against religion that is a violation of the first , and therefore should not be done.

I attended a high school biology class, fairly recently actually and that is how the theory was presented in some of the classes.

For some of the other classes not the teacher I took, Intelligent design was presented but after the class was over with the teacher closing the door and telling the students one of which was my brother to not tell the other biology teachers what he was saying.

uh, given the posters apparent difficulty with the english language, would it be a far stretch to assume he hadn't actually attended any high school in the US?

after all, he never said so.

It was in the US, my disability is registered. AS I said there are things far more important for the school boards to be worried about. It seems kinda interesting to me that I am in the third year of collage and have been cheated out of a proper education. Interesting how one moment you guys are quite happy to discredit god and religion quite happy to want the courts to intervene in previous posts but now when confronted with what really was done and what a lot of you really are you try to buy face to cover up.
Really cool guys. You assume even in your cover up that I am wrong.

It is also quite interesting that there are many references in early US literature and in court cases to god, I guess that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington didn't know much about the first amendment or they probably wouldn't have said those things.

I am in the third year of collage and have been cheated out of a proper education

how one moment you guys are quite happy to discredit god and religion

Differentviewpoint, it is clear that it isn't evolution you have a problem with, but with atheism. I'm sorry if it bothers you that evolution allows some people to be emotionally fulfilled atheists. I'm sorry that science cannot provide empirical evidence for the god you believe in. But that's the way it is, and no amount of evolution-denial is going to bring kids to Jesus, no matter what you've been told. All it can do is spread ignorance.

Comment #57673 Posted by Differentviewpoint on November 15, 2005 02:37 PM (e) (s) Personally I disagree with both sides of the argument. I trust science and the scientific method. So I will not be attacking science, instead I will attack the theory using Science only. First, in the scientific method you have to do an experiment to test a theory however what experiment can you do to disprove evolution? you can't for the problem is in the theory it self for it is circular reasoning. The only experiments possible are attempts to prove the theory which unfortunately it is impossible for science to prove anything. Circular reasoning is a logic flaw in the theory thus the theory does not have to be accepted. It is quite apparent that adaptation occurs and quite frequently however in recorded history with people observing there has been no species that has truly evolved. The closest would be the dog however a some dogs are still able to breed with wolves and the offspring is viable therefore while adapted it has not evolved and even if it did it was not natural and therefore not in accord with the theory. While there is fossil evidence that proves nothing, because it is just assumed that one species evolved into another but there is no way to test that. These same arguments can be made against the creationists. It is a circular reasoning as well with no way to test scientifically if it is true or not. I understand that the theory of evolution is very useful in understanding biology but it is not fact just a theory and an untestable one at that. As for challenging religion, to me the theory does not challenge religion. We do not know how god made the earth. In the bible god does not give moses a specific and detailed account of how he did it. Also Moses was not equipped with either the scientific or language skills to give a detailed account nor was it his intent to do so. However the account is surprisingly accurate if you do not force the time periods to be specifically days. If you take them to be periods instead then they fit pretty well with the accepted scientific viewpoint of how the earth was created and how/when the various species arose, the difference being of course birds. As for a solution to the problem of what is taught in schools, if this were the only problem I would be happy and we could work on it, but don't the school systems have bigger problems to work on that should be solved first? However since we are forced to deal with this subject, why not let the parents and students decided?

— Differentviewpoint

My 2c worth: I am from a different country and I used to be a fanatical fundie for many years. I used to think evolution implies God is not needed, and I fought it wherever I could. Ignorance was my biggest mistake. I would quote anti-evolution things from hear-say sources as if it was all proven facts. To me it was. I had biology at school, but evolution was never mentioned. The school itself was a state school, but 100% Christian. As I said, I was very ignorant on what evolution really was. I understood the "random change over time" concept, but could for the life of me not understand how people thought it all just happened. I might not be the smartest bloke on the block, but I could see the RELATION between species, genus. So it was clear that there was some form of evolution or adaptation. My understanding was simple. God started it, things evolved or adapted (within species) and humans had no relation to apes. All my arguments against evolution were the usual hear-say stuff you still find these days.

During a faith crisis (never hearing from God) I decided to start clean with the whole religion thing. A fresh start from the beginning! Then I started reading. Pseudo-genes, Vitamin C error genes in humans and apes, Genetics, RNA replication, mutation, fossil record and atomic half life dating methods. I made a REAL effort to understand BOTH sides of the debate. I read day and night until I thought I knew what was going on. As my knowledge increased, my ignorance decreased. I read up on star formation, quantum mechanics and physics. After about two years I was ready to decide. There was no question left in my mind. Evolution is true. I did not have to believe it, because I KNEW it. Abio-genesis is the most likely explanation for how it all started and all in all there is not the slightest evidence for a God. I stood in total awe at what science was and had achieved. Sub-atomic particles, to me, were more mysterious and intriguing than any mysticism in any religion. Quantum mechanics was like magic. I took a very agnostic stance in the beginning. If there is a god, he is hiding himself very well. If he is hiding, he does not want to be found.

My point is that what people really need is knowledge. The biggest problem is that very few people would take ANY effort to obtain this. People just don't care. If their leaders tell them that evolution is a lie, they will believe it, just like I did. Educate the public. That's what the Idiots did, although with false information, but they had real results. Just the simple argument about the Vitamin C error gene is enough evidence that Evolution is real. How many people from the public know about the Vitamin C gene?

Things are changing here in my country. Only now is evolution being written into school biology. We also have IDiots here, pestering everyone while trying to peddle their lies. Luckily, our minister of education does not tolerate them, so they only preach to the converted.

To Wayne Francis:

Is "Equus quagga" not extinct (VERY recently)? I know there is a project here that tries to breed the Kwagga, a type of mountain zebra from normal zebras. Could you perhaps have swapped the names around, so that the mountain zebra is "Equus quagga" and the one from the plains is "Equus zebra"? Just curious.

STJ 2 above . The Inward Journey.

The Inward Journey

Ur doing fine right....now

the problem is, i keep trying to grab that and keep it, like a snowflake in the palm of my hand.

Excellent post, Renier. Out of curiosity, what country do you hail from?

Contrary to the pseudorationalists, religion is NOT just simply incompetent science

— Flint

Science simply can't help you answer questions like "What is the purpose of life? Why am I here? Where will the "me" be after I die? Am I a good person?"

I stood in total awe at what science was and had achieved.

— Renier

STJ - Chasing off the Vandals is fun but doesn't help.
JC'bell had a corny sounding but easy to see what he meant "Follow your Bliss"

Morbious
?"The Joy of "life's" creation" substitute favorite Deity

Thank you Humbert. I am from South Africa.

I agree with Morbius in the above comment (#58048). Science can make one free, in a certain way. During my religious times, it was always a battle to "do this" and "not do this". Constant strain to try and make sure one stays within God's will. I realised after throwing off the yoke of religion that I can just be myself and do what I want. Guess what? It turns out that I am not a bad person after all. I have more respect for nature, see every person as an individual and appreciate the "here" and the "now" much more.

Science is often seen as cold, clinical and impersonal, and it can be that, to many people. One thing I found in Science was honesty. It can be so very very critical of itself, scrutinising everything, but the results are thorough. It has given us SO much. Religion has also taken so much credit for things that Science did for us. If a new cure is developed by hard working scientists, months of labour and dedication, then the next Sunday the credit is given to God by the pulpit. God had 6000 years (according to the bible) to exterminate some virus, or find a cure for it, but never did it. Why not? Why did He make the virus in the first place? No thank you, I'll stick with science any day. I can see hundreds of the results from science every day of my life and wish I could live for a thousand years to see all the great things it will give us in future.

No pie in the sky for me. I don't worry about heaven and hell (bribery and blackmail). I can just enjoy every day for the wonder that it is. To be blatantly honest and I know some people will take offence, but I can honestly say that I am a more content and a more fulfilled person now. Ingersol had the same experience...

Renier said
....heaven and hell (bribery and blackmail).
JP II actually caught up to the game by saying they are states of mind in the here and now.

Renier said
"
One thing I found in Science was honesty"

That is the one single thing that drives the Fundies(bibliodolators) crazy with envy.

I did find the Iowa Citizens for Science group yesterday (in case anyone else is interested).

The website is at http://www.iowascience.org

Also If god revealed that he used evolution as his tool I would accept it, however as that has not been revealed at present time will with hold judgment.

It can make one swoon and cry. The unaware have no idea of what they are missing.

— morbius

uh, the point is, Morbius, that your constant ascerbic attitude is taking away from the substantive points you are making

— Sir_ToeJam

Anyone want to talk about evolution and ID?

— morbius

I attended a high school biology class, fairly recently actually and that is how the theory was presented in some of the classes. For some of the other classes not the teacher I took, Intelligent design was presented but after the class was over with the teacher closing the door and telling the students one of which was my brother to not tell the other biology teachers what he was saying.

Um, how would God reveal this. An appearence on "Larry King Live"? A thundering voice from the heavens?

I am a more content and a more fulfilled person now

— Renier

when a person uses evolution and science in general as a argument against god

morbius
In your honour I looked up "Samurai Koan" and guess what ?
A link with "Kill Bill" came up. I must say I've never seen it
however

David L. Simmons is a Ph.D. candidate in Religion and Literature at the University of Chicago Divinity School and a Martin Marty Center dissertation fellow.

Has written a review that comes close to what I had in mind.

http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2005/0310.shtml

By the way I DON'T think it means killing other sentient beings ;)

Tim Wrote : It always gets me when I see it said that evolution leads people to atheism. For me, it was the other way round, I was an atheist before I got any real science education. My parents let me make my own mind up, so I did.

It was not just evolution. I think evolution might just have triggered the whole thing because it contradicted my literal understanding of the bible. Just curious, but you say you were an Atheist. What religion did you adopt?

Sorry, should have said 'I was an atheist already'. I became an atheist before I learned any science and I still am an atheist (agnostic atheist to be precise). So, evolution didn't "lead me down the path of atheism", I was there already.

It was not just evolution. I think evolution might just have triggered the whole thing because it contradicted my literal understanding of the bible. Just curious, but you say you were an Atheist. What religion did you adopt?

— Renier

Um, how would God reveal this. An appearence on "Larry King Live"? A thundering voice from the heavens?

The very nature of the Earth, of the heavens, and of life point us to recognition of God.

— Fr. James Thornton

i have never met a scientist who did this, Flint. most scientists are quite comfortable with questions they can't answer - usually it means fertile grounds for future research.

I used to think evolution implies God is not needed, and I fought it wherever I could.

all in all there is not the slightest evidence for a God

My point is that what people really need is knowledge. The biggest problem is that very few people would take ANY effort to obtain this. People just don't care.

This is simply not so --- science can help to answer such questions; it has helped me and many others.

But some people do lose their faith and, through a long and hard process, embrace science; for instance

Morbius,

Last night, you challenged my assertion that natural selection was an undirected process, suggesting that I should justify my claim. I was taken aback, fortunately resisting the urge to lash out with something like: well, the argument against solipsism is also an assertion, but most rational people defer to an intuitive sense of its falsity. I decided to sleep on it.

This morning, I pondered my motivation in proclaiming NS undirected and realized it was based on the opinions of folks such as Dawkins, Mayr, E.O. Wilson, and Dennett (his algorthmic assessment seemed like a pretty blind yet beautiful process). Being too lazy today to research how they might have come to their nonteleological opinions, I will proffer the hunch that it is based more on metaphysical commitment than empirical or logical analysis.

So, thank you for questioning my premature certainty on this issue.

C.J. Colucci,

Thanks for the responses. I think you're right about the strong connection between philosophy and science, especially regarding critical thinking. Your last note is also perspicacious: especially in the US, which is saturated with willful ignorance, roaming brands of religion, cultural degradation, and hair-trigger hotheadedness, to attempt a somewhat objective approach to religious studies in, say, high school would be about as effective as a perforated umbrella.

Flint
I tried to follow your excellent comments for long term goals to reduce creationism on this thread. Too much to get through, skipped last 1/3.

What you have identified is the victim attitude of "Identity Politics" (look it up)
Your early education plan is an ideal but not realizable as you probably realize.

Short of the Govt. restricting religious doctrine (as per Spinoza) or a major revelation and re-Christening by the Evangelicals the only obvious alternative is to keep chopping off the Hydras heads, cauterizing the stumps and burying the preaching in the swamp a la Lenny etc.

The real problem I see is leadership. GWB should have said I'll get my experts to look at ID(mmphf). It would be ironic if it cost the GOP votes.

The major Christian Church's don't seem to be in dialog to remove just plain bad theology no leadership again.

The media are next to useless with their self censorship and equal time stuff.

The beauty is the Fundies are their own worst enemy and by talking to them in their own code which I urge everyone to try to get their minds around plus various motherhood statements to salve their insecurity there may be some erosion. Really you're dealing with something that may never go away.

Probably the best you can get is a truce (court stalemate) and maybe a slight reduction in insanity through education
.

"Its just Human Nature, we need to understand it"

That T shirt someone suggested needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Dr Phil is never going to get a call from a shampoo company, evolution is never going away GET OVER IT.

"Um, how would God reveal this. An appearance on "Larry King Live"? A thundering voice from the heavens?"
through a prophet like was done in the past and is done now in some religions.

"Right now, we're in the unpleasant position of trying to *force* even minimal exposure to science to students, over hidebound determined parental objection"
What ever happened to the US being the land of the free or to liberty? It is fine to teach science but to force it. It is these kinds of statements that get the conservitives in an uproar. If I don't want to study or believe in evolution that should be fine, I don't have to. I can study computer science and economics instead or whatever else. my value to society is not decreased and if I would rather my kids not to learn about the theory of evolution, so what it should be my right to do that.
As for evidence of God in the system, the very fact that there is a system could be an argument for God. If you find a clock in the middle of an field, you know the old argument.
Does not the very science of biology point to a disigner. My anology to computers still holds. If scientists can insert genes or rather reprogram a cell or creature with relative ease could not god? It would explain some things.

Was stated that if there were a monkey that had genes very different to that of man would be evidence against evoulution, what about normal bacteria and the bacteria that lives in hot springs and the like, they are extremely different from what i know. Yet even finding that it does not destory the evolutionary theory, why? because nothing can it is dogma.

Go away, troll.

Does not the very science of biology point to a disigner. My anology to computers still holds. If scientists can insert genes or rather reprogram a cell or creature with relative ease could not god? It would explain some things.

It would explain some things

If I don't want to study or believe in evolution that should be fine, I don't have to. I can study computer science and economics instead or whatever else

Yet even finding that it does not destory the evolutionary theory, why? because nothing can it is dogma.

It is also quite interesting that there are many references in early US literature and in court cases to god, I guess that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington didn't know much about the first amendment or they probably wouldn't have said those things.

k.e.:

On the contrary, I think we're seeing the sort of change I hope to see more of, though we're talking a few percent per generation, nothing overnight. I always felt it was much more dangerous to have creationism as "the environment", taken for granted. When Christian prayer was added to the Pledge, or put on the currency, nobody complained. As a child, I recited prayers to Jesus in public school right along with everyone else - it was part of the ritual of starting the day, along with the Pledge (no "under God" in it then) and the roll call. The current (and IMO rather silly) campaign of the ACLU against crosses in city escutcheons would never have crossed anyone's mind. The Jews in my neighborhood had Christmas trees and exchanged presents. It just WAS.

And similarly, I find the persecution complex the fundies all seem to suffer from, to be a reflection of the perceived loss of a privileged and protected position in government and society. When Judge Roy Moore erected his 5-ton statue of the Ten Commandments, those of other religions immediately demanded equal time. Roy Moore was horrified. Granting equality to other religions was *persecuting Christians*.

So the fairly recent revival of fundamentalism and religious extremism strikes me as a reaction to this loss of privilege. The generic demand to "show me why you should have more rights than your neighbor" has galvanized a previously complacent power structure. They feel threatened much moreso than ever before. And this reaction has the very real benefit of moving them from "just the way it is" to an increasingly well-defined target.

Conservativeman can no longer sit in his private club, discussing with fellow members why the heathen are so morally inferior. Instead, he's in the spotlight, forced to justify WHY AND HOW he is superior. And once his position is articulated, the non-extremists have something to evaluate and find wanting. I have enough faith in people generally to find this polarization encouraging. The US has become too heterogeneous for the extremists to prevail.

Go away, troll.

If you find a clock in the middle of an field, you know the old argument.

I liked Flints comments. pretty good, resolved a doubt I had. Thanks.

Improvius the answer would in fact be yes.

What I am worried about, what I feel to be wrong, is not that we study other cultures, religions ideas or whatever, it is when one is given preference over the others. This one being atheism. I have no problem with secular education the problem is when it is used in the schools to teach religion.

You have not refuted my arguements you ignored them.

"we should just let students pick and choose whatever they want to learn, yes?"
"why have school at all? shouldn't it just be entirely optional, there, ridiculouspointofview?"

I believe in free markets, so for me school being optional and what you learn in school being relativly optional makes sense. There would not be this problem because if you wanted your kid to go to a school where they teach evolution then send him, if you wanted him to go to another school then send him to that school where they don't learn evolution. neither side would be trying to force the other side to conform to their worldview.

Or another take on the watchmaker analogy:

Just as a non-magic artifact implies a non-magical designer, a natural artifact implies an all-powerful magical being that is outside time and without beginning.

Uh, wtf??!!

It always blows my mind that people can earnestly offer such simple-minded and pathetic "proofs" of god.

I believe in free markets, so for me school being optional and what you learn in school being relativly optional makes sense

Once again, the old "atheism is a religion" canard pops up. To the Believer, *everything* is a religion, including the lack of ANY religion. Like if you don't teach plumbing in science class, you are teaching the religion of a-plumbing. The polarization of "those not for me are against me."

An "a-theistic" education is one that takes no sides about religion in any direction. And nearly everything in the public school curricula anywhere are perfectly teachable without any mention of religion.

I doubt there's any possible way to overcome the conviction that "anything that disagrees with my religion, must necessarily be another religion." Sorry, but FORCING your beliefs into schools or science labs doesn't turn them into churches. And finding your efforts to do so ineffective, doesn't make these churches either. Not everything is a church. Some religions just try to horn in where they don't belong and claim persecution when they're resisted.

Please note that the constitution forms a Republic and not a Democracy. What is needed to maintain free markets? that the government do nothing except defend the country and create fair laws.
this a discussion about evolution and how it is taught in school and not about economics or political theory.

H. Humbert has a twisted veiw of what god is to me.

Why do I attend college? because it is in my own self interest.

A active teaching against god is teaching religion. As can clearly be seen on this board, do I need to get all the quotes from here and point out exactly in what way they form a religion or set of beliefs? It is this same set of beliefs that of god does not exist that is sometimes taught in schools. Most of the time it isn't, but it is that some time that it is, that worries me. It is also the extremely harsh reaction to any type of dissident on the so called God neutral that also worries me.

NPR recently ran a story about intelligent design telling how scientists and teachers are persecuted and denied the ability to even study or look at whether or not intelligent design has merit. It appears that the intelligent design scientists are forced to spend all their time defending themselves on a theory that isn't completely formulated. What does the science community have to fear? that god exists? Why not instead have the teachers of schools mention that perhaps evolution is not totally accepted by the whole science community. That is if privatizing the school system is not an option.

this a discussion about evolution and how it is taught in school and not about economics or political theory.

Wow thats cool, I am studying economics and I don't understand it. amazing, good thing my teachers don't know that. Perhaps you should inform them?

I gave the idea of using the market solve the problem but it was more letting the parents have the kids learn what they will. It was not nessarily an attempt to bring free markets into the picture.

This discussion board is about the fundamental and wrong religious argument of the IDist in Kansas if I am not mistaken. while I do not hold all of the views I am cabable of making the arguments. What kind of discussion is it if there is only one side represented?

I admit I have quite a bit of difficulty imagining how to apply the scientific method to "what is the purpose of my life" so as to arrive at a "most likely correct answer" that anyone replicating the experiment will agree with.

A active teaching against god is teaching religion.

As can clearly be seen on this board, do I need to get all the quotes from here and point out exactly in what way they form a religion or set of beliefs?

It is this same set of beliefs that of god does not exist that is sometimes taught in schools.

Most of the time it isn't, but it is that some time that it is, that worries me.

It is also the extremely harsh reaction to any type of dissident on the so called God neutral that also worries me.

NPR recently ran a story about intelligent design telling how scientists and teachers are persecuted and denied the ability to even study or look at whether or not intelligent design has merit.

It appears that the intelligent design scientists are forced to spend all their time defending themselves on a theory that isn't completely formulated.

What does the science community have to fear? that god exists?

Why not instead have the teachers of schools mention that perhaps evolution is not totally accepted by the whole science community.

That is if privatizing the school system is not an option.

Differentviewpoint,

You are just flat out wrong.

Science that does not support Religion is not a religion itself. It's disingenuous to make that argument.

Science is...no more or no less...it's just Science, it has no biased. It travels down the path of research and testability...to where ever that may lead. It does not identify the final destination and then select only the data, or misrepresent the data to support that pre-determined outcome.

ID/Creation/YEC...are all based in the beliefs of Christianity (Thanks to Pat Robertson for confirming this for nation). Scientific data does not support ID or any of it's clones but, yet you all want to force the acceptance of the pseudo-science on our children.

Where is the honesty of the ID crowd?

NPR recently ran a story about intelligent design telling how scientists and teachers are persecuted and denied the ability to even study or look at whether or not intelligent design has merit.

Why not instead have the teachers of schools mention that perhaps evolution is not totally accepted by the whole science community.

Yes we all do. We also like to feel that our opinions - even when they differ from yours - are being respected. You don't show that so don't be surprised if you get no respect back. We want to discuss evolution and ID - however we may get to the point when we don't want to discuss it with you.

Intellectually dishonest strawman goalpost moving. Feh.

Last night, you challenged my assertion that natural selection was an undirected process, suggesting that I should justify my claim.

I was taken aback, fortunately resisting the urge to lash out with something like: well, the argument against solipsism is also an assertion, but most rational people defer to an intuitive sense of its falsity.

This morning, I pondered my motivation in proclaiming NS undirected and realized it was based on the opinions of folks such as Dawkins, Mayr, E.O. Wilson, and Dennett (his algorthmic assessment seemed like a pretty blind yet beautiful process). Being too lazy today to research how they might have come to their nonteleological opinions, I will proffer the hunch that it is based more on metaphysical commitment than empirical or logical analysis.

So, thank you for questioning my premature certainty on this issue.

No, it's a good-faith effort to understand what you are trying to say.

That it can help answer such questions does not mean that it can establish whether murder is wrong as an objective fact

I admit I have quite a bit of difficulty imagining how to apply the scientific method to "what is the purpose of my life" so as to arrive at a "most likely correct answer" that anyone replicating the experiment will agree with.

"Um, how would God reveal this. An appearance on "Larry King Live"? A thundering voice from the heavens?" through a prophet like was done in the past and is done now in some religions.

— DPoV

Since I've slogged through all the posts from MTVland, I feel I've earned the opportunity to ask an evolution question. Can we now identify,(or is anyone working toward identifying) any adaptations in homo sapiens that could be considered evolutionary? I don't mean the presence of vestigial organs; I mean something like the development of stronger teeth or better hearing. Or has our success as a species eliminated the most severe pressures of natural selection?

You're repeating arguments that were refuted years before you were born.

Morbius,

I am glad to see you having a discussion with Flint about undirected, or seemingly undirected events that drive mutations and natural selection, and vhow we can't really tell whether god was involved or not.

I tried a while ago to defend the theistic evolution perspective on PT with a commentor named ts, whom I no longer see here, with this very same argument, incidentally. I felt the blog sorely needed it. It got very heated, personal, etc., and my feeling was that I failed.

However, I am very happy to see you doing a better job than I did. Of course, you have not taken on ts, but Flint can be tough too.

Mr. Elliot,
I am sorry you do not approve of my troll-dismissal. I will attempt to be more devastatingly incisive next time.

I am sure I was pathetically ignorant as a child. The difference, I believe, is that I was interested in learning, not spouting off about my ignorance. Suffice it to say that you and I differ about DPoV's outlook and motivations.

My "terrible response" was a frustrated dismissal of someone who would outright assert that 2LoT refutes evolution, and explicitly refer to Paley's watchmaker argument without acknowledging its obsolescence. Someone responsible for such verbiage should be made aware that they are parroting long-dead lines of fallacious reasoning.

I am glad to see you having a discussion with Flint about undirected, or seemingly undirected events that drive mutations and natural selection, and vhow we can't really tell whether god was involved or not.

I tried a while ago to defend the theistic evolution perspective on PT with a commentor named ts, whom I no longer see here, with this very same argument, incidentally. I felt the blog sorely needed it. It got very heated, personal, etc., and my feeling was that I failed. However, I am very happy to see you doing a better job than I did. Of course, you have not taken on ts, but Flint can be tough too.

I don't mean the presence of vestigial organs...

Can we now identify,(or is anyone working toward identifying) any adaptations in homo sapiens that could be considered evolutionary? I don't mean the presence of vestigial organs; I mean something like the development of stronger teeth or better hearing. Or has our success as a species eliminated the most severe pressures of natural selection?

Mr. Elliot, I am sorry you do not approve of my troll-dismissal. I will attempt to be more devastatingly incisive next time.

ts and morbius

Isn't it unethical to defend one point of view, disappear, then re-appear with a different name, defending the opposite point of view? The funny part is, the discussion with ts got me to seriously re-consider my own "faith." I took his arguments very seriously.

Oh well, forget about it.

Differentviewpoint is no troll. Well on the way to becoming a theistic evolutionist, indeed.

In the spirit of helpfulness I'd suggest that DVP considers the story of Elijah and the prophets of Ba'al. Regarding ID .... where's the fire, chaps?

"Um, how would God reveal this. An appearance on "Larry King Live"? A thundering voice from the heavens?"

through a prophet like was done in the past and is done now in some religions.

This is simply not so --- science can help to answer such questions; it has helped me and many others.

Then I stand corrected.

I admit I have quite a bit of difficulty imagining how to apply the scientific method to "what is the purpose of my life" so as to arrive at a "most likely correct answer" that anyone replicating the experiment will agree with. I understand that science can and does provide meaning for many people. But it doesn't do so by applying the scientific method, but rather by supplying the promose of the kinds of answers certain people have a need for. Not everyone shares that need.

Isn't it unethical to defend one point of view, disappear, then re-appear with a different name, defending the opposite point of view?

The funny part is, the discussion with ts got me to seriously re-consider my own "faith." I took his arguments very seriously.

I share the metaphysical views of Mayr et. al. But you asked the question of how other views can be justified.

Oh well, forget about it.

Those who attempt to turn it into one, are mis-using and abusing science every bit as much as the fundies do who try to force science to fit their religious views.

Morbius,

I have a tendency to enter a discussion by insinuating my opinion through query rather than declamation. At this point, that's neither here nor there.

I had not thought about differentiating between process and event. Your meteor reference, as unprocessed event, went right over my head, so to speak.

I should have provided more context for my entry into the discussion. When I speak of "process," I have in mind a Process, allowing no "room" for anything outside the system. Events would be products of process (no god-hurled projectiles permitted). But this is circular reasoning on my part. Having concluded the way things must be, anything outside my conditions is, de facto, inadmissible.

Nevertheless, I have a sense that your logical slicing and dicing puts too much burden on a metaphysical assessment of natural selection versus teleology, requiring the would-be thinker about such things to always be looking over his shoulder for wrathful cosmic missiles or stampeding invisible pink elephants. A form of probability, I think, accrues through observation and experience. Logical possibility is pretty much a wide-open market.

But I did ask the question, and you simply provided an answer. I appreciate your taking it seriously. I was sincerely confused about how theistic evolutionists project confidence in their commingling of blind process and hovering deity. Less the commingling than the confidence.

Science informs us, and information helps us make all sorts of judgments.

To then stomp one's feet and scream that the judgments themselves aren't objective findings of the scientific method is to willfully miss the point.

I was sincerely confused about how theistic evolutionists project confidence in their commingling of blind process and hovering deity. Less the commingling than the confidence.

I don't claim my perceptions are always correct. I consider corrections.

As I recall, my discussion with ts was about whether the theistic argument was as valid as the atheistic one, not whether it was the correct choice. Morbius' act of arguing in support of theistic evolution implies it is a valid viewpoint. Morbius has a different position than ts did.

This is a happy moment, for it tells me we learned from each other and our past discussion was not a failure.

Nevertheless, I have a sense that your logical slicing and dicing puts too much burden on a metaphysical assessment of natural selection versus teleology, requiring the would-be thinker about such things to always be looking over his shoulder for wrathful cosmic missiles or stampeding invisible pink elephants. A form of probability, I think, accrues through observation and experience. Logical possibility is pretty much a wide-open market.

I was sincerely confused about how theistic evolutionists project confidence in their commingling of blind process and hovering deity.

As I recall, my discussion with ts was about whether the theistic argument was as valid as the atheistic one, not whether it was the correct choice. Morbius' act of arguing in support of theistic evolution implies it is a valid viewpoint. Morbius has a different position than ts did.

If it isn't logically impossible for God to exist and even influence evolution by affecting the inputs to NS, then it isn't disingenuous --- on those grounds, at least --- to say that they are compatible.

Science informs us, and information helps us make all sorts of judgments. Advice from one's grandmother also informs us,

To then stomp one's feet and scream that the judgments themselves aren't objective findings of the scientific method is to willfully miss the point.

— I

Science doesn't make that decision. Science CAN'T make that decision. WE do.

— Lenny

Stomping people who are on OUR side (like, say, theistic evolutionists), doesn't, uh, help us very much.

Those who attempt to turn it into one, are mis-using and abusing science every bit as much as the fundies do who try to force science to fit their religious views.

I have no interest in waving my dick

Do you-all "read before you rant"?

'Kansas reinstated a traditional definition of science which reads: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."'

If so, just what is your personal definition of science? Or is it the "continuing investigation" line (rather than old dogma) which is the problem?

Darwin recognized that his conjecture (that evolution has occurred by random processes with natural selection ALONE) was falsifiable by a single counter example. Several plausible examples have now been well documented. The conjecture that Intelligent Design must have been involved in creating these structures (and not just a genetically engineered Tomato) can be falsified by simply outlining a reasonable process (with selectable advantages at each step) to bring these structures into being. (At some point the question of available time must be addressed in addition to a credible path).

ID DISCUSSIONS WOULD HAVE ALREADY ENDED IF THIS WORK HAD BEEN DONE!

Intelligent Design is not an attractive theory in paleontology (although it is a very important topic in archeology), but if it takes an unattractive theory to shake mindless confidence in a badly flawed one, then that is good for science. The result may be something entirely different which addresses Darwin's failures without undermining people's conviction that humans possess the only intelligence in the universe.

I wasn't specific because I only have snippets of time to write here, and I have to make it short. Three kids under 5, with one of them being a newborn, takes a little higher priority at the moment than sparring with ts.

I will back down because you are right, I have not exhaustively read each of your comments on this topic, nor do I have the time/inclination to, so perhaps I was mistaken that you made a single argument supporting the possibility of theistic evolution.

I lack the essential body part referred to by the good Rev, so good night.

Speck - the little snippet is only a fraction of what was changed.

Several plausible examples have now been well documented.

Do you-all "read before you rant"?

Darwin recognized that his conjecture (that evolution has occurred by random processes with natural selection ALONE)

was falsifiable by a single counter example. Several plausible examples have now been well documented.

The conjecture that Intelligent Design must have been involved in creating these structures (and not just a genetically engineered Tomato) can be falsified by simply outlining a reasonable process (with selectable advantages at each step) to bring these structures into being.

ID DISCUSSIONS WOULD HAVE ALREADY ENDED IF THIS WORK HAD BEEN DONE!

I will back down because you are right, I have not exhaustively read each of your comments on this topic, nor do I have the time/inclination to, so perhaps I was mistaken that you made a single argument supporting the possibility of theistic evolution.

The deity card does not explain anything, any more than "it's magic" explains anything.

The trolls are multiplying :(

Katarina - Did you get your questions answered?

Maybe I could put my answer another way: the scientific method is open to all. Nothing about it is hidden. Nothing about it requires faith or deference to authority.

If you want to know how science handles its mistakes and recovers from them, I recommend The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception, and Human Frailty by Walter B. Gratzer.

Oy. Will bite one more time. I never accused you of reversing your point of view. Point of view is subjective and none of my business. I thanked you for arguing that there is no way for us to know whether god directed a seemingly undirected process or not, a point I made to you in your past identity.

Your dick is bigger. End of story. Use the energy on creationists.

Theistic scientists do just as good science as atheistic scientists.

Ron Zeno,

I don't know if I got my questions answered. I am looking for a way to describe the scientific process as pretty much immune to bias and conspiracies. Hopefully it will help bring at least some evolution-doubters around, at least when they make the accusation that scientists are biased. The book sounds interesting, perhaps it will help me form the argument more specifically.

I wouldn't want to be too vague;)

I never accused you of reversing your point of view.

Isn't it unethical to defend one point of view, disappear, then re-appear with a different name, defending the opposite point of view?

Your dick is bigger.

TS, no that is not the statement I had in mind, just drop it, I withdraw, you win.

YOU WIN!!!!

I thanked you for arguing that there is no way for us to know whether god directed a seemingly undirected process or not, a point I made to you in your past identity.

I merely tried to point out that a certain implication was not self-evident, and needed justification. (Oddly, for that alone I've been accused of reversing my "point of view" as to whether we can "really tell" whether God directs events. My POV has always been that the question is like asking if we can "really tell" whether angels dance on pins --- it rests upon confusions about semantics, epistemology, and ontology.)

YOU WIN!!!!

Some things never change, huh. (sigh)

Some things never change, huh. (sigh)

But, the last time we had this conversation, it led to a big dick-waving contest that didn't help anyone. I have no interest in waving my dick, and no interest in seeing you wave yours again. So I'll drop the matter. You may, if you like, have the last word.

This "snippet" is the one being actually addressed by critics. (If you know of other, more serious changes, these commentators haven't noticed them.)

'Kansas reinstated a traditional definition of science which reads: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."'

[Headline] Philosophers Notwithstanding, Kansas School Board Redefines Science

By DENNIS OVERBYE
Published: November 15, 2005

"The changes in the official state definition are subtle and lawyerly, and involve mainly the removal of two words: "natural explanations." But they are a red flag to scientists, who say the changes obliterate the distinction between the natural and the supernatural that goes back to Galileo and the foundations of science." [end quote]

I take this excitement to mean that "politically correct" explanations are voted in as "natural explanations" while "systematic ... continuing investigation" might lead one to new ideas. (Not that Intelligent Design is a new idea if restricted to recent millenniums, as in archeology.) Not so very long ago, communication at long distances could proceed by no "natural explanation"!

I am aware that that the theory of evolution has moved on to some very novel ideas (the cells want to evolve into something better...), but I don't believe any of them are included in common biology books.

More importantly, if ToE is a falsifiable science, then it will always face new evidence which may challenge its assumptions. That is inherent in widespread definitions of science (including the new Kansas version), not a product of unthinking critics making up interminable challenges. The explanations I have read "evolving" the flagella (as a useful structure) contain a lot of hand waving. They are a far cry from Behe's experimental work showing that if any one of the 40 proteins involved in manufacturing this structure is removed or seriously modified, then this costly biological assembly has no selectable advantages for the cell. Other evolutionary examples show rapid removal of unnecessary structures, not proliferation in a population.

Mr Speck, I have just one simple question for you -------- if ID is science, then why do IDers need to try to use legal methods to change the definition of science. Why can 't they just do science, under the same old definition that everyone ELSE has been doing science.

Or are IDers just lying to us when they claim ID is science . . .

"I don't mean the presence of vestigial organs...

Why not? How is it not "evolutionary" to get rid or reduce the size of features that we no longer need? I don't understand the qualifications you're trying to put on your question."

mprovious-I put that limitation on my question only because I believe I already understand that part of the picture. I'm wondering, basically, if we are still evolving. Someone wanted to know what whales would be like; I'm wondering what we'll be like. What are we learning from studies of the extremely old, or the extremely anything? I'm trying to interest my daughter in studying science, genetics,etc. (as a lawyer, it is the least I can do to point her to something useful). So, what are we finding out?

Speck-

Have you looked at the orginal definition of science?

"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us"

you are quite right on the key point being changed from the original being that of "natural explanations", but quite wrong in thinking it was changed to "systematic ... continuing investigation".

in fact, the key point was that it was changed to:

"logical argument"

the problem with this is, that anybody can argue a subjective but logical argument for just about anything.

I could argue that Astrology is quite logical from a certain perspective.

does that make it science in your mind?

there was and IS a good reason to specify the exact term "natural explanations" in any definition of science. Natural phenomena are simply the things that can be investigated by science, period.

If you'd like I'm sure someone here would be happy to provide you a link to a complete history of how the scientific method was developed the way it was, but I'm sure you can easily see why science can't investigate the supernatural, even though the supernatural might seem "logical", can't you? and thereby see why removing the key concept that defines the entire purview of science would be a bit distressing?

doyle, start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

find something you think might be interesting, then take the topic to your local university library and ask the resident librarian help you do a literature search to check out the most recent work on the topic.

they'll be happy to help.

don't forget to think in terms of behavioral as well as morphological evolution. I meet relatively few people who have a good grasp of behavioral ecology and ethology, so i guess that's why it often gets overlooked. Some of the most interesting studies i have ever read were involving the evolution of animal behavior (like altruism, for example), as well as some of the most controversial (for obvious reasons).

also, it sounds obvious, but I recall that nothing sparked my interest in science more than talking to an actual scientist. Whether it was the animal trainers at Sea World when i was little, or college/university professors as i grew older. when you visit your local university, get a contact list and try to contact the departments your daughter might find the most intersting (like the molecular biology department, or the population genetics department, for example), and tell what interests your daughter has and ask if there is someone she could meet.

good luck.

I'm wondering, basically, if we are still evolving

Doyle in response to

Just a first approximation, but I would say all of the adaptations are evolutionary. That is kind of the point.

Vandalhooch

STJ

You beat me to a response for Doyle!

I'd also like to answer his earlier question: "Can we now identify,(or is anyone working toward identifying) any adaptations in homo sapiens that could be considered evolutionary?"

The short answer is . . . all of them.

Vandalhooch

This "snippet" is the one being actually addressed by critics. (If you know of other, more serious changes, these commentators haven't noticed them.)

morbius great work,
however this is what what I Really had in mind with my last post.
One last time.

Zen and the Way of the Sword: Arming the Samurai Psyche

A soldier named Nobushige came to Hakuin, and asked: "Is there really a paradise and a hell?"
"Who are you?" inquired Hakuin.
"I am a samurai," the warrior replied.
"You, a soldier!" exclaimed Hakuin, "What kind of ruler would have you as his guard? Your face looks like that of a beggar."
Nobushige became so angry that he began to draw his sword, but Hakuin continued: "So you have a sword! Your weapon is probably much too dull to cut off my head."
As Nobushige drew his sword Hakuin remarked: "Here open the gates of hell!"
At these words the samurai, perceiving the master's discipline, sheathed his sword and bowed.
"Here open the gates of paradise," said Hakuin.

Lenny thanks for making the point that science will NOT teach you much/anything about the culture of living. The anything which I think is morbius' point is that a very careful learning of the methods used in science will teach one how to think accurately and incisively. Morbius I think defends accurate thought and takes culture for granted which is fair enough. But in the defensce of the Art we must look outwards or be accused of idolatry ourselves.

The anything which I think is morbius' point is that a very careful learning of the methods used in science will teach one how to think accurately and incisively. Morbius I think defends accurate thought and takes culture for granted which is fair enough.

Kenneth Silber ("Are we really just smart robots?" in Reason, April, 2005) is worried about the encroaching scientific understanding of our brains and behavior. If science shows us to be simply smart biological machines, he believes this undermines liberal democracy, human rights, moral responsibility, and self-worth; all is permitted and authoritarian regimes will flourish.1 Fortunately, he argues, John Searle (Mind: A Brief Introduction) and Jeff Hawkins (On Intelligence) have shown the mechanistic thesis is false, so we needn't worry. Human beings, although part of nature, nevertheless have a special something that grounds our dignity and value. The difficulty is that Silber doesn't quite specify what this special something might be. Is it consciousness? Nothing in Searle's biological naturalism or in Hawkins' account of intelligence requires that our capacity for consciousness couldn't be computable and thus a property of a machine, once we understand the functions of the neural processes subserving consciousness. Could it be free will? But even Searle admits that the experience of free will might be an illusion, perhaps an adaptive illusion at that (although it's more likely the result of not being able to see the causal workings of our own brains). Could it be personhood? But personhood rests on physically instantiated capacities for sentience and self-concern, and complex though these are, there's no reason in principle why intelligent machines might not someday have moral claims on us, were they given such capacities (on this point, see I Robot, and Benjamin Soskis' article "Man and the machines" in Legal Affairs). Although he doesn't establish the existence of a special human something (a soul, perhaps?), Silber needn't worry that the mechanistic thesis poses a threat. Even if it turns out that we're amazingly complex biological machines, we nevertheless remain persons, and our desire to be treated as ends in ourselves won't diminish. After all, that's "hard-wired" into the very neural architecture of our brains, as are the rest of our basic motives and desires. We'd still love and protect our families, fear death, abhor tyranny, enjoy a good meal, and generally life would go on, minus the belief in the soul. So we can relax: there's no moral or political threat stemming from science, should it unmask us as "mere" machines. Even if we are, we'll continue to defend our freedoms with all the resources nature has given us. TWC 4/05 1. This is also Paul Davies' worry about the scientific attack on contra-causal free will, see "Davies' Really Dangerous Idea."

I think is morbius' point is that a very careful learning of the methods used in science will teach one how to think accurately and incisively.

Morbius, exiled Time Lord, greatest criminal mind in the galaxy and long presumed dead, is not entirely dead, and Solon is in the process of bringing him back to life. The only other inhabitants are the ancient sect of the Sisterhood of Karn who are out to avenge themselves against the Time Lords. Can the Doctor prevent the evil Morbius from regaining absolute power or will he be sacrificed by the Sisterhood?

Can the Doctor prevent the evil Morbius from regaining absolute power or will he be sacrificed by the Sisterhood?

"Sacrificed by the Sisterhood" sounds like it could have, uh, interesting possibilities

Morbius/ts wants science to be a worldview/philosophy.

— Lenny

Morbius, exiled Time Lord

Dr. Edward Morbius: "My evil self is at the door, and I have no power to stop it!"

Snore. I guess misrepresenting people's arguments with dishonest innuendo and hyperbole is what you call respecting their opinions: "Some people on here seem to be of the opinion that 'all design hypotheses are bad' and will jump on anyone who suggests otherwise"

— Morbius

There's a lot that I respect, but dishonesty and hypocrisy aren't among them. I didn't say anything about getting respect, let alone being surprised, I said that STJ's comments were OT, ad hominem, and irrelevant. Yours are all of that plus dishonest and pretentious.

— Morbius

I think you're right about the strong connection between philosophy and science, especially regarding critical thinking. Your last note is also perspicacious: especially in the US, which is saturated with willful ignorance, roaming brands of religion, cultural degradation, and hair-trigger hotheadedness, to attempt a somewhat objective approach to religious studies in, say, high school would be about as effective as a perforated umbrella.

— Tim B

Intelligent Design is not an attractive theory in paleontology (although it is a very important topic in archeology)

— Richard Speck

I can't help but feel one of the most effective strategies you could have for 'defending' science would be to lobby for teaching religion at school.

— Tim Hague

By the way, I realize this may sound stupid but, what exactly is this great difference between manufacture and birth, especially if a self producing machine were created?

— DifferentViewpoint

Maybe bible-belters lack a cynicism gene.

— Alan Fox

By the way, I realize this may sound stupid but, what exactly is this great difference between manufacture and birth, especially if a self producing machine were created?

Dr. Edward Morbius: "My evil self is at the door, and I have no power to stop it!"

the claim of natural selection is false.

Indeed, the bottle-neck of gamete formation is necessary for evolution to proceed, which is why Tim Hague's point about why differentiated maternal cells aren't donated to the embryo is academic.

— Alan Fox

One possible reason (maybe, possibly) why we grow from a single cell is that it's an indication of our origins, i.e. we once were a single cell.

Assuming compatability there's no particular reason why the 'building' of the rest of the tissues shouldn't be helped along by a maternal donation.

Assuming compatability there's no particular reason why the 'building' of the rest of the tissues shouldn't be helped along by a maternal donation.

Hey, I'm not suggesting it as a realistic proposition, I know all the objections given the way things actually work. All I'm saying it - if you were starting from scratch and (ahem) 'designing' a system for sexual reproduction - would you do it the way it is? Would growing a new human from a single cell be the most efficient way of doing it?

I'm don't think it would.

And morbius - I know two cells are involved but I did specifically state a 'fertilised human egg cell'. At that point - once the genetic materials of mother and father have merged - there is only the one cell.

The other reason why I make the point is the age old 'mud to man' argument from the IDists and other creatinists. They make sweeping statements like "it's imbecilic to imagine that humans could have come from a single cell" whereas in fact we all do come from (grow from) a single cell. It's not 'imbecelic' therefore to imagine it at all.

Hey, I'm not suggesting it as a realistic proposition, I know all the objections given the way things actually work. All I'm saying it - if you were starting from scratch and (ahem) 'designing' a system for sexual reproduction - would you do it the way it is? Would growing a new human from a single cell be the most efficient way of doing it?

I don't think it would.

And morbius - I know two cells are involved but I did specifically state a 'fertilised human egg cell'. At that point - once the genetic materials of mother and father have merged - there is only the one cell.

The other reason why I make the point is the age old 'mud to man' argument from the IDists and other creatinists. They make sweeping statements like "it's imbecilic to imagine that humans could have come from a single cell" whereas in fact we all do come from (grow from) a single cell. It's not 'imbecelic' therefore to imagine it at all.

The other reason why I make the point is the age old 'mud to man' argument from the IDists and other creatinists. They make sweeping statements like "it's imbecilic to imagine that humans could have come from a single cell" whereas in fact we all do come from (grow from) a single cell. It's not 'imbecelic' therefore to imagine it at all.

And morbius - I know two cells are involved but I did specifically state a 'fertilised human egg cell'. At that point - once the genetic materials of mother and father have merged - there is only the one cell.

How entertaining. I find myself agreeing with both Lenny and morbius.

And yes, your point that, as individuals, we develop from a single cell into human adults is a very good point to throw at those like Blast who say that evolution from single cell organisms isn't plausible. But that's very different from suggesting that the reason we develop from a single cell is because we evolved from a single cell -- that confuses and weakens the force of the good point.

The reason the we develop from a single cell is because anything else would be a mess.

How entertaining. I find myself agreeing with both Lenny and morbius.

Can we rule out what we don't know?

Development of life here seems constrained by evolution, but who knows what lifeforms have arisen on other worlds?

Well actual observable development from a single cell on this planet does happen in most cases. However we have exceptions to that rule for multicellualar organisms even on this planet. For example sponges, which are often hermaphrodites and also can reproduce asexually by splitting. Multiple cells, not single.

And of course we can't rule out what we don't know. Anything else would be a failure of imagination.

The reason the we develop from a single cell is because anything else would be a mess.

Posted by Tim Hague on November 17, 2005 05:07 AM (e) (s) Hey, I'm not suggesting it as a realistic proposition, I know all the objections given the way things actually work. All I'm saying it - if you were starting from scratch and (ahem) 'designing' a system for sexual reproduction - would you do it the way it is? Would growing a new human from a single cell be the most efficient way of doing it? I'm don't think it would. And morbius - I know two cells are involved but I did specifically state a 'fertilised human egg cell'. At that point - once the genetic materials of mother and father have merged - there is only the one cell. The other reason why I make the point is the age old 'mud to man' argument from the IDists and other creatinists. They make sweeping statements like "it's imbecilic to imagine that humans could have come from a single cell" whereas in fact we all do come from (grow from) a single cell. It's not 'imbecelic' therefore to imagine it at all.

However we have exceptions to that rule for multicellualar organisms even on this planet. For example sponges, which are often hermaphrodites and also can reproduce asexually by splitting. Multiple cells, not single.

And of course we can't rule out what we don't know. Anything else would be a failure of imagination.

I don't think we're disagreeing with you morbius. Given the way life has developed on this planet I would agree. It still doesn't rule out other possiblities elsewhere though.

And I think

Tim Hague · 17 November 2005