Sincere question about evolution

[Storm Bay]

Karin, even though it has taken me awhile to get back to you, I have been thinking about this!

 

I have also heard this argument that evolution is not falsifiable. To be honest, I dismissed it without a lot of consideration because it just seems obvious to me that there are tons upon tons of things that we could have discovered or observed in the natural world that would have disproved evolution, but we haven't found such things. Also, this view that a scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable is, as you noted, Popper's claim, it's not one that is universally accepted by philosophers of science. I have always accepted it, but I found this interesting little tidbit on the talkorigins website:

 

A minor quibble should be dealt with - Popper knew that the Falsification Principle could not be falsified. It was openly metaphysical. In this context, it makes sense why a pro-evolutionist like Popper called Darwinism a metaphysical research program. It was no more falsifiable (he thought) than the view that mathematics describes the world, and it was just as basic to modern biology [Popper 1974: sect 37].

 

So I just found that somewhat amusing -- I mean, I've always kind of accepted the Falsification Principle (sadly, I must admit, without thinking about it that deeply) as a basic principle of science, but the Falsification Principle itself is not falsifiable, LOL. That puts a new perspective on things!

 

But anyway, getting back to the point, I want to address this part of your post:

 

 

 

I think I personally need some definition of terms here, because I have always considered ID to be the new name for the same old creationist viewpoint. But you seem to be treating them as two different things. So I would like to know how you are distinguishing them. I think I need clarification on that before I can go on. Are you using one of them to mean "Old Earth Creationism" and the other to mean "Young Earth Creationism" or something else entirely?

 

Since I'm limited on time, I'm just going to stick to your last question. No, ID is not the same as creationism, and NOT all ID proponents are even religious. Some are quite agnostic, and perhaps there are atheists, too. In fact, most creationists are opposed to ID very strongly. I think, and I'm speaking from experience here, not a survey or scientific study, that it's very difficult to sit down and read work by people who disagree with you and see what they're really saying without immediately arguing mentally or slamming a book down in anger (I've done that a couple of times when younger. although not with this subject).

 

Michael Denton, an agnostic ID proponent, wrote a book many evolutionists hate called Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. He doesn't once mention God in that book, at least not so far, and I'm nearly finished it. It's true that many of the more popular ID books that criticize evolution are written by Christians, but these arenot Christians who support creationism as Creationists do. It really is a 3 way debate. In my experience in life, which is limited the the perspective of one, it's common to homogenize groups other than ourselves. Just as there isn't only one current theory of evolution (neo Darwinism seems to be very popular in the US, but internationally there are many other schools of thought that we don't hear about much here, and I wish I could say I've read more of them.)

[Storm Bay]

Nobody's talking about Haeckel's biogentics. That's what you're refering to when you talk about an embryo replaying it's ancestral roots. The comment in question is simply saying that a whale, for example, grows and then reabsorbs legs during it's embryonic stages. It still has all the bones necessary for hind legs even in the adult.

 

But... here, take a look at this...

 

 

1. Haeckel's biogenetic law was never part of Darwin's theory and was challenged even in his own lifetime. Haeckel himself did not necessarily advocate the strict form of recapitulation commonly attributed to him (Richardson and Keuck 2002).

2. Irrespective of biogenetic law, embryological characters are still useful as evidence for evolution (in constructing phylogenies, for example), just as adult characters are. Furthermore, there is some degree of parallelism between ontogeny and phylogeny, especially when applied only to individual characters (Richardson and Keuck 2002). Various causes for this have been proposed. For example, there is selective pressure to retain embryonic structures that are needed for the development of other organs.

Links:

 

Chase, Scott, 1999. Is Haeckel's law of recapitulation a problem? http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb99.html

 

Wilkins, John, 1996. Darwin's precursors and influences: 1. transmutationism. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurstrans.html

 

 

I don't see any problems with homology at all.

 

This is snipped from here.

 

See, this is where we differ, and where we need to agree to disagree on this one--you don't see a problem with homology based on differences in embryonic development and I do. And this is why I said I'm not trying to change your mind, just discuss. If all homologous parts came from the same part of the embryo, I think this would present a stronger argument for evolution. I still recommend you read Gould's book on Ontogeny & Phylogeny because he does have a different spin on this than what you're saying and it's been widely accepted among evolutionary biologists.

 

If you're in this discussion to convince me to change my mind, it's time to end it, because after rejecting evolution on what I continue to believe is its lack of proof I did take on a faith-based outlook that cannot by its very nature be scientifically proved. I am quite happy to agree to disagree about microevolution proving macroevolution. If you're in this discussion with my points because you enjoy discussing different opinions, than continue.

[Phred]

Since I'm limited on time, I'm just going to stick to your last question. No, ID is not the same as creationism, and NOT all ID proponents are even religious. Some are quite agnostic, and perhaps there are atheists, too. In fact, most creationists are opposed to ID very strongly. I think, and I'm speaking from experience here, not a survey or scientific study, that it's very difficult to sit down and read work by people who disagree with you and see what they're really saying without immediately arguing mentally or slamming a book down in anger (I've done that a couple of times when younger. although not with this subject).

I can't help but interject here. Several things that I've been harping on this entire thread. First, ID has no actual substance. A lot of tearing down of science but no actual theory of its own. Second, ID is in fact, creationism 2.0. In 2005 the ID folks were sued by the townspeople of Dover PA for trying to push creationism into public schools. They had their chance to sparkle, a judge and a national stage on which to present their case. Here's the judge's decision.

 

On 20 December 2005, Judge Jones found for the plaintiffs and issued a 139 page decision, in which he wrote:

 

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

 

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

 

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

 

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

 

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching†ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.†In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

 

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

 

"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)

 

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)

 

"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)

 

In his Conclusion on pages 136–138 of 139 of this decision he writes:

 

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]

 

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom

Before the wailing and tearing of cloth can begin ;)

 

Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

 

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

 

Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."[25]

 

Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer.

[Peek a Boo]

I can't help but interject here. Several things that I've been harping on this entire thread. First, ID has no actual substance. A lot of tearing down of science but no actual theory of its own. Second, ID is in fact, creationism 2.0. In 2005 the ID folks were sued by the townspeople of Dover PA for trying to push creationism into public schools. They had their chance to sparkle, a judge and a national stage on which to present their case. Here's the judge's decision.

 

no wailing and tearing of cloth from me, but.......

 

do you really want judges deciding what is science and what is not?

 

That a judge decided what is science and what is not doesn't sit with me as being very.......scientific :D

[Phred]

no wailing and tearing of cloth from me, but.......

 

do you really want judges deciding what is science and what is not?

 

That a judge decided what is science and what is not doesn't sit with me as being very.......scientific :D

He didn't decide what was science, he decided what was religion.

[Greta]

Karin I deeply appreciate you taking the time to answer, so I hate to have to confess that I'm no clearer than I was before. Actually, I shouldn't say *no* clearer. I think I get that you are saying that Creationism is a decidedly Christian POV, where ID includes agnostics and perhaps other religions and not necessarily all Christians. Is that right?

 

But my question then becomes, in what way does one distinguish Creationism from ID other than that the former is claiming that the God of the Bible is behind it all, and the later is saying just that "some higher power"(?) is behind it all? You have implied, if I'm reading you correctly, that the two make different predictions. Could you give me an example? Or given that you are limited on time, certainly something I understand, could you point me to a resource? (Preferably something I could read quickly, not a full book, for the sake of continuing our conversation, and because I'm already reading four really great books at the moment! :).)

 

I hope it's coming across that I am genuinely enjoying the conversation, and I really want to learn more about what you think. I'm not trying to pick on you.

[Peek a Boo]

He didn't decide what was science, he decided what was religion.

 

 

...which is STILL not something you want judges deciding ;)

 

Science AS a religion?

 

too many implications for me.

[Peek a Boo]

But my question then becomes, in what way does one distinguish Creationism from ID other than that the former is claiming that the God of the Bible is behind it all, and the later is saying just that "some higher power"(?) is behind it all? You have implied, if I'm reading you correctly, that the two make different predictions. Could you give me an example?

 

well, my first thought was that ID doesn't really mean "higher power" just "another" power. Kinda like the Star Trek episode about some ancient race that distributed humanoids all over the universe and died out. The biggest point of ID is that there is evidence of a very specific pattern based on an ultimate purpose of orderliness, something we see w/ how an intelligent being sets up something.

 

Phred mentioned the rock carving looking like a designed structure, but that's not the norm in how nature "designs" something: that was a matter of coincidence. If my child spills his macaroni on the floor and it "happens" to resemble the Mona Lisa, that's not design. Design can be better illustrated by the beavers and ants and bees building --designing-- a structure. Design denotes some sort of plan and purpose, unlike the wind randomly beating away a design into a rock.

 

That most life and structure in nature has a specific design to it is the basic premise. All the evidence that ToE uses is the same stuff that supports ID --ToE just comes to a different conclusion of random mutations vs design.

 

Again, as a Christian, I am open to almost any theory of how life ended up on this earth. literal 24-hour days? sure. Millions of years? sure. Aliens? sure, what the heck --but then God created everything in the Universe, so it's all good, lol. But for many Christians, they feel that life on earth has to have been created specifically according to how they interpret the Genesis account, and the open-endedness of ID does NOT fly w/ them.

[Storm Bay]

well, my first thought was that ID doesn't really mean "higher power" just "another" power. Kinda like the Star Trek episode about some ancient race that distributed humanoids all over the universe and died out. The biggest point of ID is that there is evidence of a very specific pattern based on an ultimate purpose of orderliness, something we see w/ how an intelligent being sets up something.

 

Phred mentioned the rock carving looking like a designed structure, but that's not the norm in how nature "designs" something: that was a matter of coincidence. If my child spills his macaroni on the floor and it "happens" to resemble the Mona Lisa, that's not design. Design can be better illustrated by the beavers and ants and bees building --designing-- a structure. Design denotes some sort of plan and purpose, unlike the wind randomly beating away a design into a rock.

 

That most life and structure in nature has a specific design to it is the basic premise. All the evidence that ToE uses is the same stuff that supports ID --ToE just comes to a different conclusion of random mutations vs design.

 

Again, as a Christian, I am open to almost any theory of how life ended up on this earth. literal 24-hour days? sure. Millions of years? sure. Aliens? sure, what the heck --but then God created everything in the Universe, so it's all good, lol. But for many Christians, they feel that life on earth has to have been created specifically according to how they interpret the Genesis account, and the open-endedness of ID does NOT fly w/ them.

 

Thanks, Peek, for answering this for me. I've been having fun with this, but have to bow out for now because once in a while I do small writing assignments, and have just received an email with one with an ASAP deadline. I will come read the posts, but need to get hopping on this.

[monk17]

no wailing and tearing of cloth from me, but.......

 

do you really want judges deciding what is science and what is not?

 

That a judge decided what is science and what is not doesn't sit with me as being very.......scientific :D

 

I do find the logic of the decision very compelling. The courtroom has some rules for how an argument of ideas is waged, not always fair but a framework. An academic debate has rules and will provide a framework to judge.

 

Throwing out the logic of the judge because he is a judge isn't real scientific. :001_smile:

[Greta]

Thanks Peek. When I first read your post, I was thinking that the whole ID/Creationist argument (and I'm a little clearer on the distinction, but I think there's a whole lot of overlap) boils down to the old argument from personal incredulity (i.e. "I can't believe that evolution happened, so it didn't happen." that kind of thing.) But now I am wondering if what it really boils down to is whether or not you accept Occam's Razor as a valid philosophical principle.

 

Anyway, I appreciate the help, and find this a fascinating topic as always.

[Greta]

Karin, good luck with your writing assignment!

[Phred]

Thanks Peek. When I first read your post, I was thinking that the whole ID/Creationist argument (and I'm a little clearer on the distinction, but I think there's a whole lot of overlap) boils down to the old argument from personal incredulity (i.e. "I can't believe that evolution happened, so it didn't happen." that kind of thing.) But now I am wondering if what it really boils down to is whether or not you accept Occam's Razor as a valid philosophical principle.

 

Anyway, I appreciate the help, and find this a fascinating topic as always.

I'm wondering, do you now feel you know what I.D. is?

[Greta]

I'm wondering, do you now feel you know what I.D. is?

 

No, not really. In my personal experience (with acquaintances and articles I have read online and such) there is absolutely no difference between I.D. and Creationism, except that I.D. is the new politically-motivated term for the view of Creationists. But Karin obviously feels there is a difference, and she is far more educated on this topic than anyone else I've ever met who advocates ID/Creationism, so I am trying to give her the benefit of the doubt and see the difference that she sees. I enjoy conversing with her. (And you too, Peek!) So I want to understand what she's getting at.

 

I'm not really there yet, though. I can see how YE Creationism could be distinguished from OE Creationism, and I could even be generous enough to call them both hypotheses, and say that the two make different predictions, and that the evidence clearly, profoundly, and unequivocally disproves the former (YE). But I can't see any tangible difference between Creationism and ID as hypotheses. Does one make predictions that the other does not? Is there any evidence we could possibly find that would support one and not the other?

[Phred]

Is there any evidence we could possibly find that would support one and not the other?

Only if aliens show up and say they were the ones that started us in a test tube.

[Greta]

Well, I did a little browsing online, and I think I am starting to see the difference. Creationists are making a specific claim that evolution cannot create a new species, and that every species that exists today was created just as it is. ID proponents on the other hand are saying that evolution can/does/did occur (to some extent) but not without some intelligence either directing it, initiating it, or both.

 

Karin and Peek, is that a fair assessment?

[Greta]

Only if aliens show up and say they were the ones that started us in a test tube.

 

But then, we evolutionists would point the aliens as evidence of evolution and the creationists would claim God must have created aliens and just left that little tidbit out of the Bible, and we'd be right back where we started, right?

 

:001_smile:

[Peek a Boo]

I do find the logic of the decision very compelling. The courtroom has some rules for how an argument of ideas is waged, not always fair but a framework. An academic debate has rules and will provide a framework to judge.

 

Throwing out the logic of the judge because he is a judge isn't real scientific. :001_smile:

 

except there's a lot to the reasoning behind wanting a PEER REVIEWED study -- Just because an argument may be logical doesn't make it scientifically credible. Throwing out the decision of the judge because he's a judge actually IS scientific ;)

 

 

Thanks Peek. When I first read your post, I was thinking that the whole ID/Creationist argument (and I'm a little clearer on the distinction, but I think there's a whole lot of overlap) boils down to the old argument from personal incredulity (i.e. "I can't believe that evolution happened, so it didn't happen." that kind of thing.) But now I am wondering if what it really boils down to is whether or not you accept Occam's Razor as a valid philosophical principle.

 

yes, there can be a lot of overlap --like there can be w/ Creationism and evolution too ;)

 

i don't think O's R is the issue though.

The simplicity of the theories isn't what drive my questioning:

it's the assumption needed to line up fossils that bugs me.

 

With ToE, you have to accept the assumption that these transitional fossils are really transitional. Considering the limited extent and specific nature of fossils, basing a good portion of a theory on them is putting all your eggs in a Very Tiny Basket :)

[Peek a Boo]

Well, I did a little browsing online, and I think I am starting to see the difference. Creationists are making a specific claim that evolution cannot create a new species, and that every species that exists today was created just as it is. ID proponents on the other hand are saying that evolution can/does/did occur (to some extent) but not without some intelligence either directing it, initiating it, or both.

 

Karin and Peek, is that a fair assessment?

 

That depends on which Creationists you ask ;)

 

This Creationist can accept [some extents of] evolution, but I'd have to stick w/ birds and ocean animals appearing first :D

 

A die-hard ID'er wouldn't make such distinctions ;)

 

and I think you are right on track w/ the aliens, lol.

[Greta]

i don't think O's R is the issue though.

The simplicity of the theories isn't what drive my questioning:

it's the assumption needed to line up fossils that bugs me.

 

With ToE, you have to accept the assumption that these transitional fossils are really transitional. Considering the limited extent and specific nature of fossils, basing a good portion of a theory on them is putting all your eggs in a Very Tiny Basket :)

 

I see. Thanks for explaining. I agree with Phred on this, though, that even if we'd never discovered a single fossil, there's plenty of evidence for evolution in the life that's currently alive on the planet today. The observations upon which Darwin based his theory didn't depend upon fossils.

[Peek a Boo]

I see. Thanks for explaining. I agree with Phred on this, though, that even if we'd never discovered a single fossil, there's plenty of evidence for evolution in the life that's currently alive on the planet today. The observations upon which Darwin based his theory didn't depend upon fossils.

 

 

i understand --which is why I agree w/ many aspects of evolution and don't completely discount it, and why I can happily sit on the fence :D

[Greta]

That depends on which Creationists you ask ;)

 

This Creationist can accept [some extents of] evolution,

 

Oh! Please tell me what aspects of evolution you can accept. I'm very curious.

[Greta]

i understand --which is why I agree w/ many aspects of evolution and don't completely discount it, and why I can happily sit on the fence :D

 

Wow, I think you're the first person I've met who is happy sitting on that fence! My father is on the fence about this issue, and it absolutely torments him. Any secret you know that I could pass along to him? :D

[Peek a Boo]

Oh! Please tell me what aspects of evolution you can accept. I'm very curious.

 

oh, gosh..... I have to maintain the Biblical account of creation, but His time vs man's time and some of the literary aspect of the Bible allow for a lot of leeway -- there aren't many one-eyed Christians running around out there.

{Peek takes a torpedo from the Biblical literalists and YE'ers}

 

gotta edit: I'd be happy accepting the YE'ers timeline too.....it really doesn't matter too much to me

 

I do believe that man was created as is. where's my shirt that says "I'm Special and Exempt from Evolution"....

{Peek takes a torpedo from the evolutionists}

 

i do accept that many species in the animal realm are open for debate over their evolutionary history. I wouldn't be surprised if the fossils DID line up --but I don't accept the assumption as scientific.

 

Sitting on the fence is pretty easy when you know God is going to catch you wherever you fall ;) i get to have my cake and eat it too, hee hee...

[dragons in the flower bed]

Are we the end road - the hierarchy, supreme being - to those who believe in evolution?

 

Hey Janna,

 

There's a book (told from the perspective of a gorilla) that very thoroughly explores the anthropocentric view of evolution which most people these days espouse. Usually we do tell the story as

 

big bang

stars

earth

cells

fish

dinos

mammals

people

 

and stop there, making it seem that all things lead to people, and the story ends there. It's a kind of modern mythology. In reality, fish kept evolving, so did dinosaurs, so do stars, and they all have their paths to the present and beyond.

 

Your question points out how this way of telling the story makes it seem like the purpose of all things has been to produce humankind. In the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, the other implications of this idea are explored, and they're thoroughly fascinating. It's on my required reading list.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

Your question points out how this way of telling the story makes it seem like the purpose of all things has been to produce humankind. In the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, the other implications of this idea are explored, and they're thoroughly fascinating. It's on my required reading list.

 

Dd(15) just finished this for her humanities/lit/ancient history class in which they finished a year-long exploration of the question, "What does it mean to be human?" She found the book absolutely brilliant.

 

Stephen Jay Gould's Full House was the first book I ever read that got through to me the fact that evolution was not concerned in making a better and better human, the pinnacle of evolution. I saw humanity as a tiny little twig on the evolutionary bush. It was a huge light bulb moment for me.

[dragons in the flower bed]

Stephen Jay Gould's Full House was the first book I ever read that got through to me the fact that evolution was not concerned in making a better and better human, the pinnacle of evolution. I saw humanity as a tiny little twig on the evolutionary bush. It was a huge light bulb moment for me.

 

I have not read any Gould. I should, shouldn't I?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I have not read any Gould. I should, shouldn't I?

 

That book was an amazing wake-up call to my brain. And it was respectful of my misconceptions about the theory of evolution, so that was a plus. :) I've read some of his articles (didn't he write for Scientific American?), but no other books.

[SnowWhite]

o

I do believe that man was created as is. where's my shirt that says "I'm Special and Exempt from Evolution"....

{Peek takes a torpedo from the evolutionists}

 

 

 

Really? What about the races developing as they have? Wouldn't you consider this a form of "micro-evolution"? (if you distinguish between evolution *within* species and evolution from one species *into* another species).

 

My version of "fence sitting" is that I believe there could have been a length of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 and I believe the "day" of Genesis 1 could have been "as 1000 years" according to God's definition of "day". I also believe the species change (evolve) but continue to reproduce "after their kind", IOW I don't believe a bird came from a reptilian life form.

[monk17]

except there's a lot to the reasoning behind wanting a PEER REVIEWED study -- Just because an argument may be logical doesn't make it scientifically credible. Throwing out the decision of the judge because he's a judge actually IS scientific ;)

 

 

 

At some point you put the peer reviewed arguments to a test, in this case a judge reviewed peer-reviewed evidence. The judge did present a clear and compelling case based on what he was presented. It's pretty easy to keep stringing an argument along if you never decide what it is you are truly trying to decide. Since it had a clear logical path based on scientifically peer reviewed evidence I would call it scientific.

 

Not all judges are evil. :D

[Phred]

except there's a lot to the reasoning behind wanting a PEER REVIEWED study -- Just because an argument may be logical doesn't make it scientifically credible. Throwing out the decision of the judge because he's a judge actually IS scientific ;)

 

At some point you put the peer reviewed arguments to a test, in this case a judge reviewed peer-reviewed evidence. The judge did present a clear and compelling case based on what he was presented. It's pretty easy to keep stringing an argument along if you never decide what it is you are truly trying to decide. Since it had a clear logical path based on scientifically peer reviewed evidence I would call it scientific.

 

Not all judges are evil. :D

Both sides had their chance to show what evidence they had. They had a chance to do what we can't do here... take time to educate a neutral party about the evidence. Both sides had as much time as they needed, the chance to call all the experts they wanted and a forum where they would not be interrupted as they presented.

 

Over the course of a couple of weeks the judge received an education in evolutionary biology. Then the ID folks had their turn and I have no idea what they did. After Micheal Behe presented (and admitted that in order for ID to be considered science the definition of science would have to stretched to the point that astrology would be considered science too) the ID experts began to withdraw...) not much of a case was made.

 

Could it be because there isn't much of a case to be made? The dance had been paid for...

 

Anyway... a judge isn't deciding what science is or isn't. The judge was deciding whether ID belonged in a public school setting. In the course of making this decision he needed to be educated about what he was deciding. The details of what was presented in this case are an excellent summary of evolutionary biology today... in layman's terms.

[Phred]

Really? What about the races developing as they have? Wouldn't you consider this a form of "micro-evolution"? (if you distinguish between evolution *within* species and evolution from one species *into* another species).

Yes, a change in skin color is micro-evolution.

 

My version of "fence sitting" is that I believe there could have been a length of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 and I believe the "day" of Genesis 1 could have been "as 1000 years" according to God's definition of "day". I also believe the species change (evolve) but continue to reproduce "after their kind", IOW I don't believe a bird came from a reptilian life form.

Birds didn't come from a reptilian life form. They evolved from dinosaurs. There's still some controversy over this but in general most scientists agree. Birds are dinosaurs.

 

As to the rest of your statement... Let's just say that I can't agree with any of it.

[homeschool2boys]

I have not read all of the replies, I did read quite a few of them though. I guess my thoughts on this is, has evolution been proven or is it just a theory. In my opinion, it has not been proven and I frankly, dont believe it. For it to be scientific, it has to be proven and so far they have came up with nothing that proves anything to me. I guess I just dont have that much faith in these scientists, its not like they have never been wrong before.

 

As for the things they call proof, they find a couple bone fragments and make a whole ape "person" out of it. I think its stretching it a bit far, too far for me to put any faith in or build a belief system around. When you take everything for what its worth, really, I have seen nothing yet that screams proof or the missing link. IMHO I dont think there is a missing link, more of a missing whole chain. They need a chain first before they can worry about what the missing link might be.

[Peek a Boo]

At some point you put the peer reviewed arguments to a test, in this case a judge reviewed peer-reviewed evidence. The judge did present a clear and compelling case based on what he was presented. It's pretty easy to keep stringing an argument along if you never decide what it is you are truly trying to decide. Since it had a clear logical path based on scientifically peer reviewed evidence I would call it scientific.

 

Not all judges are evil. :D

 

oh, i'm sure that not all judges are evil ;) But neither do they possess the years of scientific experience that can really equate w/ a truly scientific process. As Phred mentioned, the judge got a crash course in evolutionary evidence. No professional --in any field-- would accept that short a time frame as enough peer wisdom on which to base ANY scientific decision.

It was a Constitutional issue, not a scientific one. He chose to err on the side of exclude vs include --which is par for the course when it comes to Constitutional judging: look how long it took to get basic civil rights for all people ;) Judges don't necessarily rule on scientific evidence alone --they rule on culture too. And they have been wrong at least a couple times.

 

Really? What about the races developing as they have? Wouldn't you consider this a form of "micro-evolution"? (if you distinguish between evolution *within* species and evolution from one species *into* another species).

 

My version of "fence sitting" is that I believe there could have been a length of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 and I believe the "day" of Genesis 1 could have been "as 1000 years" according to God's definition of "day". I also believe the species change (evolve) but continue to reproduce "after their kind", IOW I don't believe a bird came from a reptilian life form.

 

i agree w/ both your statements :)

and as i linked earlier, Berkeley has a pretty good micro vs macro thing.

the birds from dinosaurs thing has to line up w/ scripture for me: land animals were created/evolved after water/ air animals. i can wait for science to catch up ;)

 

But as far as Gen 1 -- we have statements that PEOPLE were created, and then we have a story about a specific man and woman in Gen 2. Lots of room for diversity in orginal creation as well as genetics. That people/ animals are related doesn't mean they had to have been something different before. That change CAN happen doesn't mean that is DOES happen on a set course.

 

But as far as my opinion of how people in general fit into the ToE? different situation.

[Phred]

I have not read all of the replies, I did read quite a few of them though. I guess my thoughts on this is, has evolution been proven or is it just a theory.

Evolution is a theory and a fact. It's a fact that life evolves. The theory is not a theory in the terms you use it in. Science doesn't get promoted from theory to proven. It's always tentative. But a theory takes in evidence from many different lines of investigation and brings them together. The Theory of Evolution has been examined and tested by many different lines of science and has yet to be found wanting.

 

In my opinion, it has not been proven and I frankly, dont believe it. For it to be scientific, it has to be proven and so far they have came up with nothing that proves anything to me. I guess I just dont have that much faith in these scientists, its not like they have never been wrong before.

Nothing in science is ever proven. And of course you don't have much faith in scientists. The operative word being faith. Nobody's asking you for faith. Science deals in data, in facts. If you would take the time to actually understand evolution you'd know that. But you want something you can just put your faith in. Sadly, the people who are lying to you aren't scientists.

 

As for the things they call proof, they find a couple bone fragments and make a whole ape "person" out of it.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

Ardipithecus ramidus

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus afarensis

Kenyanthropus platyops

Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecus garhi

Australopithecus aethiopicus

Australopithecus robustus

Australopithecus boisei

Homo habilis

Homo georgicus

Homo erectus

Homo ergaster

Homo antecessor

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo neanderthalensis

Homo floresiensis

 

Yeah, just a few bits. And we have more than one fossil of most of those.

 

I think its stretching it a bit far, too far for me to put any faith in or build a belief system around. When you take everything for what its worth, really, I have seen nothing yet that screams proof or the missing link.

Nothing that screams proof? You mean like all other primate species have 24 chromosomes but we have 23... if we are related to them, we should have 24 too. So evolution predicts that we should find we have 24. Turns out our chromosome 2 is two chromosomes fused together. You mean proof like that?

 

IMHO I dont think there is a missing link, more of a missing whole chain. They need a chain first before they can worry about what the missing link might be.

There is a chain. The evidence is overwhelming. You don't get to learn about it because creationists work so hard to keep it out of our schools. That's why you get to post on boards like this one and sound like you don't know anything about evolution. It's because you don't know anything about evolution but what you hear from creationists trying to poison you against science. They do a good job too... I have yet to hear an argument from a creationist that is actually based upon science and not upon a strawman.

[Phred]

oh, i'm sure that not all judges are evil ;) But neither do they possess the years of scientific experience that can really equate w/ a truly scientific process. As Phred mentioned, the judge got a crash course in evolutionary evidence. No professional --in any field-- would accept that short a time frame as enough peer wisdom on which to base ANY scientific decision.

It was a Constitutional issue, not a scientific one. He chose to err on the side of exclude vs include --which is par for the course when it comes to Constitutional judging: look how long it took to get basic civil rights for all people ;) Judges don't necessarily rule on scientific evidence alone --they rule on culture too. And they have been wrong at least a couple times.

No, he was also asked to rule on whether or not ID was science. He ruled not. I'm sorry Peek, you're not going to talk me down from this one. I just watched the Nova special on it again. It was hardly a crash course. This time he got it right.

 

i agree w/ both your statements :)

and as i linked earlier, Berkeley has a pretty good micro vs macro thing.

the birds from dinosaurs thing has to line up w/ scripture for me: land animals were created/evolved after water/ air animals. i can wait for science to catch up ;)

 

But as far as Gen 1 -- we have statements that PEOPLE were created, and then we have a story about a specific man and woman in Gen 2. Lots of room for diversity in orginal creation as well as genetics. That people/ animals are related doesn't mean they had to have been something different before. That change CAN happen doesn't mean that is DOES happen on a set course.

 

But as far as my opinion of how people in general fit into the ToE? different situation.

 

So you believe the Bible is to be used as evidence in a scientific context? Really?:001_huh:

[Peek a Boo]

No, he was also asked to rule on whether or not ID was science. He ruled not. I'm sorry Peek, you're not going to talk me down from this one. I just watched the Nova special on it again. It was hardly a crash course. This time he got it right.

 

...and you won't be able to talk ME down either -- unless the judge was a scientific PEER, it was not a peer reviewed decision, and his job doesn't extend to ruling whether something is science or not -Constitutionally speaking :)

Now i do understand that the ToE *has* been peer reviewed, and that's fine. But that a judge ruled on it holds little scientific credibility.

I'm glad you watched the NOVA special. They are pretty cool. Not definitive or always right, but cool anyway.

 

 

So you believe the Bible is to be used as evidence in a scientific context? Really?:001_huh:

 

Nope.

not the evidence, but the guide.

kinda like --the evidence needs to line up w/ the crime scene:

If the evidence doesn't line up w/ the scene, the evidence is being incorrectly interpreted or the scientists are missing something.

 

You offer a string of fossils, but those are simply evidence that those fossils exist-- it is NOT evidence that each fossil descended from the previous one. You are now dealing w/ assumption: faith. The way the evidence is being manipulated could be wrong. Or it could be right --i happen to think that string of evidence is incorrect. Some other strings may be spot on. Fortunately, at least a few of the people who are Creationists/ID'ers ARE scientists. The rest of the scientific community just doesn't agree w/ them. Back to that post about new ideas being embraced....

 

But since you are not looking at the same scene I am, we'll never come to an agreement. And that's fine: I'm happy in my understanding of it, whether you agree w/ me or not. Unlike the life thread, i don't have a passionate interest in the discussion. ;)

[Phred]

Nope.

not the evidence, but the guide.

kinda like --the evidence needs to line up w/ the crime scene:

If the evidence doesn't line up w/ the scene, the evidence is being incorrectly interpreted or the scientists are missing something.

 

You offer a string of fossils, but those are simply evidence that those fossils exist-- it is NOT evidence that each fossil descended from the previous one. You are now dealing w/ assumption: faith. The way the evidence is being manipulated could be wrong. Or it could be right --i happen to think that string of evidence is incorrect. Some other strings may be spot on. Fortunately, at least a few of the people who are Creationists/ID'ers ARE scientists. The rest of the scientific community just doesn't agree w/ them. Back to that post about new ideas being embraced....

 

But since you are not looking at the same scene I am, we'll never come to an agreement. And that's fine: I'm happy in my understanding of it, whether you agree w/ me or not. Unlike the life thread, i don't have a passionate interest in the discussion. ;)

But that's just it... we're not looking at the same scene. What you happen to think is incorrect IS incorrect. It's incorrect because you're only looking at a few bits and pieces here and there, holding them up and proclaiming they're incomplete. Well of course they're incomplete. Of course we can't say for certain that one fossil definitively descends from another directly. What we can say is that one fossil descends from another fossil 'eventually'. We may not have all the intermediate steps... but we don't need to.

 

In its simplest form, if I build a lego tower of a hundred bricks and I show you twenty snapshots of the progression from 1 to 100. Do you need to see all 100 snapshots to infer that the tower was built up to 100? Maybe by adding one at a time, maybe by adding two or a few at a time but one way or another you get the progression, do you not?

 

And you keep going back to the fossils. While they are a vast source of knowledge, we could toss them out and still be certain of evolution from other sources.

 

I used to wonder how thrilling it would be if we could go way back in time and place a marker into the genes of an early primate. Like with a sharpie marker... so that today we could find that marker and know that we descended from that primate. Well, there are such markers. They're called ERVs or Endogenous Retroviruses. They're rare. Very much so. At some point in the far distant past a virus invaded a sperm or an egg and placed its DNA into our own. We have quite a few of these retroviral insertions in our genetic code and we pass them down from generation to generation. They appear in the same place in our DNA. We've marked them.

 

Funny thing is, now that we've mapped the genome of the chimpanzee... they have them too. In exactly the same places. Since we share about 95% of our DNA with chimps and all... but here's the interesting part. Evolution makes a prediction. We share common ancestors with all primates. But we split off from chimps last. So we should share ERVs with chimps that we don't share with other primates. And that's true. Gorillas are the next closest relative. Chimps and humans should share ERVs with gorillas that we don't share with other primates... and that's true too. The ERV mapping works out to exactly what evolution predicts based upon when our common ancestors split in the family tree.

 

It's the smoking gun of evolution. All primates descend from a common ancestor.

[Peek a Boo]

In its simplest form, if I build a lego tower of a hundred bricks and I show you twenty snapshots of the progression from 1 to 100. Do you need to see all 100 snapshots to infer that the tower was built up to 100? Maybe by adding one at a time, maybe by adding two or a few at a time but one way or another you get the progression, do you not?

 

but if i see 20 snapshots that appear to belong to the same lego structure, but in fact belong to twenty DIFFERENT lego structures designed by one person using similar techniques, the similarities are as easily explained by ID as your snapshot/ markers evidence.

 

i don't discount the evidence and similarities and genetics and biology and the other evidences of evolution, i discount the assumptions that are needed for historical wide-scale evolution. for now, anyway ;)

 

and THAT is the smoking gun of ID --discounting those assumptions and making a prediction based on what we HAVE observed: an intelligent being using similar patterns and markers to produce an array of creations.

 

Creations appearing in a related-tree-pattern are nothing new, and don't insist on a common descent to share common markers: they could very well be that way because of a common creator.

[Perry]

 

and THAT is the smoking gun of ID --discounting those assumptions and making a prediction based on what we HAVE observed: an intelligent being using similar patterns and markers to produce an array of creations.

 

 

How do you observe that? How do others observe it? How could it be replicated?

[Laurie in CA]

This is an excellent book I read around 20 years ago. It gives

all of the background on the theory of evolution. This book is

now in its entirety online. (It is anti-evolution by the way if

that was what you were looking for.) The author's approach is

extremely "scientific" and makes many historical connections

beginning with Plato and going through the Roman empire and

the church age to modern times. It delves into many of the

philosophic/religious/scientific minds of the past.

 

Hope this helps.

Laurie in CA

 

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm

[Peek a Boo]

How do you observe that? How do others observe it? How could it be replicated?

 

we observe it in our dealings w/ intelligent beings. Intelligent design is replicated everyday. Many scientists have already observed that many biological /genetic information resembles complicated computer programming. Even the "bug" of which Phred speaks can be communicated not necessarily only by being passed in descent from one organism to another, but by using a similar pattern in programming: the same creator. Considering how patterns work, it wouldn't surprise me to see that we have accurately found a predictable bug. The programming experiments being run on computers offer some interesting info for both ID and evolution.

 

We observe evolution too. We can't replicate what the history span shows us, and we can't say for a fact that there is a common ancestor. As was mentioned, seeing macro evolution actually HAPPEN would pretty much ruin the theory of needing millions of years for the theory to be accurate. How convenient ;) But it makes sense to many.

[Phred]

Well then, I've just become an advocate of the "Theory of Intelligent Attraction." After all, The Theory of Gravity has never been proved. I believe that there are tiny beings who live in the center of each and every mass. They cast out tendrils, invisible tendrils, that attach themselves to other masses. These tendrils are infinitely strong and cannot be broken, they stretch and can be infinitely long. But as they stretch their power to pull back in becomes less and less. Also, the being is relative in size to the object that it lives within. They are called "Charismites". Now, when you jump up in the air, a Charismite already has a tendril on you. It senses that you have jumped and pulls you back down to the ground.

 

There is no need to write any scientific, peer-reviewed papers. This is just as good an idea as gravity.

 

Right?

[sweetbaby]

I realize I am on extremely thin ice that is cracking even as I type. This is a sincere question and I beg you to see it as such with no flames and with the intense desire that this does not become threatening.

 

*deep breath*...OK...here I go...

 

If humans evolved from apes or monkeys...why are there still apes and monkeys? Wouldn't they no longer be around because they became us? Why are they not evolving? Why are *we* as humans not evolving into another being or animal? Are we the end road - the hierarchy, supreme being - to those who believe in evolution?

 

This article is what has me wondering.

 

Thank you.

 

 

This is a very good question. We are creationist obviously but we have had discussions about evolution in our home. My children have asked "If we came from monkeys and apes then why are we different colors?". Another question was "If we came from apes then who made the apes?". I'm so glad that my children are able to have this insight.:)

[Phred]

 

This is a very good question. We are creationist obviously but we have had discussions about evolution in our home. My children have asked "If we came from monkeys and apes then why are we different colors?". Another question was "If we came from apes then who made the apes?". I'm so glad that my children are able to have this insight.:)

So after you told them God made the apes did they ask who made God? What did you tell them?

[Storm Bay]

So after you told them God made the apes did they ask who made God? What did you tell them?

 

That's the question I asked my mother when I was 4. My mother had trouble with that question, but really this is a religious/philosophical/metaphysical question, right? Of course, I've just broken my self-imposed rule of no posts until my article is finished, so I'm out of here until I've submitted it.

[monk17]

This is a very good question. We are creationist obviously but we have had discussions about evolution in our home. My children have asked "If we came from monkeys and apes then why are we different colors?". Another question was "If we came from apes then who made the apes?". I'm so glad that my children are able to have this insight.:)

 

to the beginning of this thread, I thought it was answered quite nicely.:001_smile:

[Perry]

My children have asked "If we came from monkeys and apes then why are we different colors?".

 

Because of natural selection.

The evolution of human skin color

Human evolution

Human skin color (wiki)

[monk17]

This is an excellent book I read around 20 years ago. It gives

all of the background on the theory of evolution. This book is

now in its entirety online. (It is anti-evolution by the way if

that was what you were looking for.) The author's approach is

extremely "scientific" and makes many historical connections

beginning with Plato and going through the Roman empire and

the church age to modern times. It delves into many of the

philosophic/religious/scientific minds of the past.

 

Hope this helps.

Laurie in CA

 

http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/index.htm

 

Laurie,

 

I'd have to disagree with you on it giving the background on evolution and Darwin. The book starts with a premise and fills in events to fit that premise. It's a book that's written to give a one-sided opinion. It's probably the worst background book I've read, it gives people of religion and faith a bad name. I think Behe's book is much better written and closer to scientific thinking.

[Peek a Boo]

Well then, I've just become an advocate of the "Theory of Intelligent Attraction." After all, The Theory of Gravity has never been proved. I believe that there are tiny beings who live in the center of each and every mass. They cast out tendrils, invisible tendrils, that attach themselves to other masses. These tendrils are infinitely strong and cannot be broken, they stretch and can be infinitely long. But as they stretch their power to pull back in becomes less and less. Also, the being is relative in size to the object that it lives within. They are called "Charismites". Now, when you jump up in the air, a Charismite already has a tendril on you. It senses that you have jumped and pulls you back down to the ground.

 

There is no need to write any scientific, peer-reviewed papers. This is just as good an idea as gravity.

 

Right?

 

You're close!! We call that the Holy Spirit ;)