Cutting-Edge Research in Biology by ID Scientists (CC & ID Content)

[Saddlemomma]

It's always exciting reading about new scientific discoveries, but even more so, for me anyway, when discovered by proponents of ID.  It's such an exciting time for those of us who believe there's more to this world than naturalism and Neo-Darwinism.

• http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/06/peer-reviewed_p_2086201.html
• http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/first_the_genom086111.html

And, finally, the news is getting out that an increasing number of secular scientists are seeking an alternative theory to Neo-Darwinism because of the increasing scientific evidence that refutes its claims:

• http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/a_group_of_darw086231.html

[maize]

Minoring in microbiology convinced me more than ever that there is a God responsible for the incredibly complex processes of life.

[flyingiguana]

A) If DNA doesn't code something, that doesn't mean evolution isn't occurring.  And it doesn't mean a god has to be responsible.  There are other mechanisms that could be operating.  (Like, for example, a "sugar code")

 

B ) If microtubules are lining things up ("not" DNA), then what produces those microtubules?  Not DNA?  And not something else that can evolve?

 

C) mRNA can't evolve?

 

I'm kind of failing to see how this either disproves evolution or proves God.

 

I didn't read this very carefully, so I'm not going to try to refute much, but I'm not reading into it what others seem to be getting out of it.  The problem with using any of this info to disprove evolution is that any one of these things could be set up by a coding process that could evolve.  It may not be based in DNA.  It may not be based in that organism (it might be the mother's DNA, for example).  And it is possible that random processes determine certain things that are NOT coded for (ie, heritable).  But just because there might be environmental influences doesn't mean evolution doesn't occur. 

 

Also, disproving Darwinian evolution is not going to disprove evolution.  Darwin isn't god either.  If you really want to understand cutting edge evolutionary biology, I'd stay off of the website these links are from.  They aren't biologists and don't understand what they're talking about (or maybe they do, but they don't want anyone else to understand biology because that would undermine their "argument").

 

I'm also still failing to understand why evolution has to be disproved in order to prove the existence of a god.  Evolution itself is a pretty neat trick, and it's fairly amazing that our world was set up in such a way that a simple design feature like that would work.

 

[Saddlemomma]

A) If DNA doesn't code something, that doesn't mean evolution isn't occurring.  And it doesn't mean a god has to be responsible.  There are other mechanisms that could be operating.  (Like, for example, a "sugar code")

 

B ) If microtubules are lining things up ("not" DNA), then what produces those microtubules?  Not DNA?  And not something else that can evolve?

 

C) mRNA can't evolve?

 

I'm kind of failing to see how this either disproves evolution or proves God.

 

I didn't read this very carefully, so I'm not going to try to refute much, but I'm not reading into it what others seem to be getting out of it.  The problem with using any of this info to disprove evolution is that any one of these things could be set up by a coding process that could evolve.  It may not be based in DNA.  It may not be based in that organism (it might be the mother's DNA, for example).  And it is possible that random processes determine certain things that are NOT coded for (ie, heritable).  But just because there might be environmental influences doesn't mean evolution doesn't occur. 

 

Also, disproving Darwinian evolution is not going to disprove evolution.  Darwin isn't god either.  If you really want to understand cutting edge evolutionary biology, I'd stay off of the website these links are from.  They aren't biologists and don't understand what they're talking about (or maybe they do, but they don't want anyone else to understand biology because that would undermine their "argument").

 

I'm also still failing to understand why evolution has to be disproved in order to prove the existence of a god.  Evolution itself is a pretty neat trick, and it's fairly amazing that our world was set up in such a way that a simple design feature like that would work.

 

 

 I can tell you didn’t read it closely or you wouldn’t have made the blanket statements I’ve bolded. No one is trying to deny evolution per se.  As a committed Christian, I believe in micro-evolution, but don’t subscribe to neo-Darwinism.  Apparently I’m in good company for many scientists agree; scientists, I might add, who have a far greater understanding of evolution than most anyone on this board or me.

 

I like this site because it most often cites peer-reviewed, published works by secular scientists.  After all, this is the main complaint of most opposed to ID sites.  All I ever hear is….it doesn’t mean anything if it’s not peer-reviewed.  Now it sounds as if it’s worthless if it IS peer-reviewed, even by secular scientists.  So I guess the main point is that if a valid scientific article is published in valid, secular magazines, journals, or websites that’s okay.  But, if that same article is then cited on an ID site, it suddenly becomes invalid?  That’s plainly illogical.

 

As to whether or not these people understand biology, I guess you’d have to decide if a person with graduate degrees in science, which Casey Luskin has, is qualified to write about science.  Secondly, the article he is citing comes from a peer-reviewed paper in the journal, Bio-Complexity.  The author of that paper, Jonathan Wells, studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he earned a PhD in molecular and cellular biology.  Based upon that information, I assume he has a thorough understanding of Biology.  I don’t think Berkeley would have given him these credentials without the requisite knowledge.

 

The second link I provided is citing a report written by several authors including Min-Sik Kim, who holds a M.Sc in Physical Chemistry and others from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Harsha Gowda and others from the Institute of Bioinformatics, and others from several other institutions. It also references work done by Akhilesh Pandey, M.D., Ph.D., a professor at the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine and of biological chemistry, pathology and oncology at The Johns Hopkins University and the founder and director of the Institute of Bioinformatics.

 

The original paper can be found here: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/extensive_cataloging_of_human_proteins_uncovers_193_never_known_to_exist    

I’m relatively sure these people have the knowledge and credentials to understand biology.

 

Lastly the group of secular scientists who have formed The Third Way website: http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/  can in no way be accused of pushing the Christian agenda because they totally disagree with it.  In fact, their rationale, posted on the website states:

 

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way†of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations. (emphasis mine)

 

This can, in no way, be confused with enthusiasm for the Christian position. If you review their "People" page, it's quite enlightening; comprised of microbiologists, physicists, biologists, and geneticists. 

 

In short, I’ve posted these articles to demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief and teaching, the debate over Darwinism and evolution is not closed or settled.  There is a healthy dose of skepticism amongst the scientific community. There are still a lot of questions to be answered and new information being discovered that throws a monkey-wrench in the Darwinian model; no pun intended.

[lea1]

Thank you for posting this information.

[Free]

It's always exciting reading about new scientific discoveries, but even more so, for me anyway, when discovered by proponents of ID.  It's such an exciting time for those of us who believe there's more to this world than naturalism and Neo-Darwinism.

• http://www.evolution..._p_2086201.html
• http://www.evolution...enom086111.html

 

The first link - well, the author writes a "peer reviewed" paper for a journal for which he is also in the editorial board. OK.

 

The second link - it has nothing there which proposes an alternate theory to "Neo Darwinism". Infact it is not a paper on evolution at all.

 

And, finally, the news is getting out that an increasing number of secular scientists are seeking an alternative theory to Neo-Darwinism because of the increasing scientific evidence that refutes its claims:

• http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/a_group_of_darw086231.html

 

ID proponent William Dembski seems to think that the chief scientist in this group James Shapiro is a "Darwinist".

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/is_james_shapir_2055551.html.

[albeto.]

In short, I’ve posted these articles to demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief and teaching, the debate over Darwinism and evolution is not closed or settled.  There is a healthy dose of skepticism amongst the scientific community. There are still a lot of questions to be answered and new information being discovered that throws a monkey-wrench in the Darwinian model; no pun intended.

 

 

The debate is not closed or settled in the same way the debate over the shape of the earth or the rotation of the planets around the sun are not closed or settled.

 

There are still a lot of questions to be answered, but at no time in history has these questions ever been accurately and reliably answered with a religious answer.

[flyingiguana]

Sorry, folks, but that website doesn't prove a thing.

 

Really, if there were any big breakthroughs disproving evolution, we biologists would have been the first to hear about it. It wouldn't be confined to some backwater website that reputable biologists don't bother to visit. (By the way, having a degree in biology is no guarantee the student learned anything. And yes, you can do research that's a complete joke to the rest of the biology world. Just cause you're doing it doesn't mean it's actually done well.)

 

And no, there is no grand conspiracy to keep evolution as the reigning paradigm. If someone had found something that disproved it, this would be getting shouted from the rooftops. It would be that big. It would make careers. Trust me, that's not something people are going to keep under wraps. Not if it would give them tenure and make them famous.

 

When I say I didn't read these carefully, I mean I didn't bother to look up the original papers. Did you? Would you even understand them if you did? Are they actually related to what's being claimed here? It's not worth MY time to look it up, because I can just about guarantee that it was either badly done "research" or actual research that was not done by the ID'ers but is most certainly being misrepresented by them. "Research" that I've seen done by ID'ers before has been pretty pathetic, so I don't waste my time looking at it any more. If they had wanted to be taken seriously, they should have done actual science from the get go. Not the drivel that they claim is science.

 

BTW -- NOTHING in science is closed or settled. NOTHING. That's because it's science. It's a little ridiculous for the ID crowd to claim that they've suddenly proved things are not closed and settled when that's the whole nature of science. ID "research" just seems to be claiming that they've reinvented this particular wheel and saying it's a big deal and that they're special and more insightful than anyone else. It's not and they're not. When they finally figure out what the scientific method is, and that real scientists have been doing this all along, maybe they'll slink away in embarrassment. Or not. Because I think most of the ID thing is all about convincing people who DON'T understand science that the ID people are actually doing science when they're not.

 

Anyone who believes anything from this website is, frankly, being duped.

 

Don't know if you really understand this, but the whole ID crowd is a laughing stock.

 

I would be completely and totally excited to find out that evolution isn't true. Seriously, I would. It would be hugely interesting to have that happen. So, no, I am not part of a big conspiracy to keep the "fiction" of evolution alive. No biologist is. The ID people, however, are never going to convince me, because they aren't doing science, and never have done science.

 

Even if they started now, no real scientist is going to pay any attention to them, because they've given themselves such a terrible name.

 

And yes, this post is a little exasperated and not too nice. Why? Because as a biologist, I'm really kind of sick of seeing people trying to delude folks for some..... reason. A reason I don't really understand.

 

I ask -- again -- what is the POINT of this?

 

I still don't get it. Is it because there are people who can't stand to live in a world where the Bible is not being taken literally by everyone? Who the heck is this website trying to convince? And what do they hope to gain from it? And why do they think it's even going to accomplish their goal?

 

Can anyone explain it to me? Logically?

[flyingiguana]

And I will repeat. Again.

 

Disproving a few of the things Darwin happened to say DOES NOT DISPROVE EVOLUTION.If someone DOES think that, then they are COMPLETELY misinformed about what science is and how it works. So there's no particular reason to believe a single other thing they say about science.

 

For heaven's sakes, Darwin believed all kinds of silly things. He didn't even know about genetics. OF COURSE THERE WILL BE NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT DARWIN COULDN'T HAVE KNOWN ABOUT. BUT DARWIN IS NOT THE INFALLIBLE GOD OF EVOLUTION.

 

Is that clear? Does it make sense then that disproving a couple things that Darwin wrote or thought does not begin to touch the huge body of evidence that currently supports the theory of evolution? And that anyone who says so is either stupid or disingenuous?

 

Or that inheritance outside DNA might not disprove evolution either?

 

 

 

My big problem with this stuff getting posted here is that I thought the main objective of this board was EDUCATION.

[albeto.]

My big problem with this stuff getting posted here is that I thought the main objective of this board was EDUCATION.

 

 

YES!

[eternalsummer]

I dunno, I think evolution makes a lot of sense but I don't see it as incompatible with a religious POV, nor do I see it as necessarily incompatible with some alternate theory of the origin of life itself, although I haven't a clue how life started, nor do I think about it much.

 

I think there's an event horizon of sorts (kind of like a black hole) beyond which we cannot see and thus have a lot of difficulty speculating; I buy the Big Bang and etc.  but I don't think that really answers any where did we come from? questions.

 

I certainly don't think education only means education in a certain way of seeing the world, jeez.  

[Dicentra]

Just something to consider, Saddlemomma - I looked up the first 3 scientists listed at the "Third Way" website linked in your last link and all of them are proponents of natural selection.  They have arguments dealing with some of the details of the evolutionary process but none of them are supporters of anything that resembles an ID view point.  Just didn't want you to be sharing something without realizing it may not help support your beliefs in the way you thought it did. :)

[LucyStoner]

DARWIN IS NOT THE INFALLIBLE GOD OF EVOLUTION.

Best.line.ever.

 

This bears repeating.

 

Thanks for smacking down a couple of great posts. You are now my WTM hero.

[albeto.]

I dunno, I think evolution makes a lot of sense but I don't see it as incompatible with a religious POV, nor do I see it as necessarily incompatible with some alternate theory of the origin of life itself, although I haven't a clue how life started, nor do I think about it much.

 

But other people have thought about it, a great deal even, and religious answers have simply never been verified to be accurate. It's not a matter of compatibility, it's a matter of accuracy. Some explanations are accurate. Not all. 

 

I think there's an event horizon of sorts (kind of like a black hole) beyond which we cannot see and thus have a lot of difficulty speculating; I buy the Big Bang and etc.  but I don't think that really answers any where did we come from? questions.

 

Nevertheless, other people have thought a great deal about this. We have concluded, after centuries of serious effort and collaboration, that the scientific method is the only method by which we can reliably understand the natural world.

 

I certainly don't think education only means education in a certain way of seeing the world, jeez.

 

How do you propose education works? 

[sunnyday]

I ask -- again -- what is the POINT of this?

 

I still don't get it. Is it because there are people who can't stand to live in a world where the Bible is not being taken literally by everyone? Who the heck is this website trying to convince? And what do they hope to gain from it? And why do they think it's even going to accomplish their goal?

 

Can anyone explain it to me? Logically?

 

I'm in the midst of a quasi-interesting book that attempts to answer this. Intelligently Designed: How Creationists Built the Campaign Against Evolution.

[songsparrow]

I like this site because it most often cites peer-reviewed, published works by secular scientists.  After all, this is the main complaint of most opposed to ID sites.  All I ever hear is….it doesn’t mean anything if it’s not peer-reviewed.  Now it sounds as if it’s worthless if it IS peer-reviewed, even by secular scientists.  So I guess the main point is that if a valid scientific article is published in valid, secular magazines, journals, or websites that’s okay.  But, if that same article is then cited on an ID site, it suddenly becomes invalid?  That’s plainly illogical.

 

The article can be legitimate, but it's conclusions can be misconstrued or manipulated by the ID site to claim that it states facts that it does not state, or it supports conclusions that it does not support.  

 

 

Lastly the group of secular scientists who have formed The Third Way website: http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/  can in no way be accused of pushing the Christian agenda because they totally disagree with it.  In fact, their rationale, posted on the website states:

 

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way†of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations. (emphasis mine)

 

This can, in no way, be confused with enthusiasm for the Christian position. If you review their "People" page, it's quite enlightening; comprised of microbiologists, physicists, biologists, and geneticists. 

 

In short, I’ve posted these articles to demonstrate that, contrary to popular belief and teaching, the debate over Darwinism and evolution is not closed or settled.  There is a healthy dose of skepticism amongst the scientific community. There are still a lot of questions to be answered and new information being discovered that throws a monkey-wrench in the Darwinian model; no pun intended.

 

I do not know the scientists who have started this website, but what I understand from what they have stated on their site is not that they are skeptical of evolution, but that they feel that the factors that drive evolution are more varied and complex than previously realized, and they wish to deepen the understanding of the evolutionary process by encouraging further research into those areas.   Their focus on "empirical observations" means that they rely upon the scientific method to learn by observing the natural world, and not from an appeal to a supernatural being or supernatural beliefs.  

 

I agree that our understanding of evolution is not closed or settled, but is evolving, growing and developing as new information is observed and analyzed.  That is what makes it interesting and engaging.  That is how scientists work.   But you have provided no evidence of a fundamental skepticism by secular scientists about evolution itself.  

 

The one place where I agree with you is that this website does not provide any "enthusiasm for the Christian position" - or any support for ID.  

[songsparrow]

I dunno, I think evolution makes a lot of sense but I don't see it as incompatible with a religious POV, nor do I see it as necessarily incompatible with some alternate theory of the origin of life itself, although I haven't a clue how life started, nor do I think about it much.

 

I think there's an event horizon of sorts (kind of like a black hole) beyond which we cannot see and thus have a lot of difficulty speculating; I buy the Big Bang and etc.  but I don't think that really answers any where did we come from? questions.

 

I certainly don't think education only means education in a certain way of seeing the world, jeez.  

 

I think it is certainly possible for someone to hold the belief that God set our universe in motion based on principles that we are able to learn about and understand based on observing the natural world around us, thus believing in God while also accepting scientific understandings about our universe and evolution.  But the things that we see in the world around us are also explainable without requiring a God to set things in motion or be involved in any way.  So they do not prove that God exists or is necessary for our existence.

 

As far as I am aware, we have no evidence of what happened before the Big Bang - our observations can only go back to that point in time and no further.  Speculation about what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang or exists outside of our detectable universe - whether they are the realm of God, or whether it's all a hologram, or whether we're existing inside a computer simulation - are all interesting philosophical topics and great fun to discuss over a bottle of wine, but they are not science (at least until someone figures out a way to test those ideas with evidence).

 

I think that a scientific education means learning to use the scientific method:  gaining observations and evidence from the world around us, formulating hypothesis, testing those hypothesis, and reforming our hypothesis when they are met with inconsistent evidence.  I do not think that it is scientific education to state a belief, cherry pick data to attempt to support that belief, and reject data that contradicts that belief.

[eternalsummer]

Mm, but is understanding of the natural world (that is, that which we can see and observe and test, I guess) applicable to understanding of the non-natural world, or understanding of the source of the natural world?

 

For instance, when people talk about intelligent design (which I don't know much of anything about save a presentation my 9th grade bio teacher made), what I gather generally is that they reject to some degree or another the idea that life originated spontaneously from the primordial soup thing; instead, they think something outside of what we can observe created it deliberately, right?

 

Now, I can agree that there's no evidence of intelligent design that would satisfy someone looking for a concrete explanation contained within the system.  But I'm not sure that the evidence there is for evolution precludes the creation of everything at one point or another (especially as most people who believe in intelligent design seem to also believe that there is a god who is all-powerful).  The young-earthers I knew among messianic jews believed that God had created the dinosaur fossils and etc. as some sort of test or history or something.  It was not incompatible, because they believed in the mechanism.

 

At any rate, all that aside, what I'm saying is that even if I say that I believe life arose spontaneously from the primordial soup, I don't have to believe that in order to satisfy the evidence (as there is no direct evidence that some alien didn't come over and drop singe-celled bacteria, or whatever, in the ocean however many billion years ago, right?)  And if I accept that it could be aliens (or martian asteroids, or something) then I have to accept that people for whom God (literal sitting in the sky God) is a live hypothesis can believe in evolution and also intelligent design.

 

 

More interestingly, though, is the idea that there is such a thing as a black hole.  A black hole is not black because there is nothing in it.  It is black because we can't see what is in it.  There's an event horizon past which we cannot see, and can only barely speculate - I see the Big Bang as a similar phenomenon (and death, for that matter), so I don't cast too many aspersions on people who have different ideas about the unknowable than I do.

 

 

As far as education, I guess I think there are a variety of lenses through which you can view the world; as long as you are consistent with the laws of physics (which include, for me, the laws of morality, but that is another discussion), I don't see why you can't call different perspectives education.

 

For instance, if I teach my kids that there is no such thing as Newton's third law, that's not much of an education.  They'll suck at all kinds of things if they believe that, because they'll have an incorrect idea of how the universe works.

 

But whether I teach them that the third law is part of a larger order to the universe that includes morality and karma (kind of a Hindu education, I guess), or that it is simply a law for physical, observable objects that happens to exist in this universe and there's no need for a why because there are no whys, just hows, or that the reason for the third law is because God made the universe in all its manifestations - all of those are educations, right?

[Catwoman]

My big problem with this stuff getting posted here is that I thought the main objective of this board was EDUCATION.

I don't have a problem with information with which I don't agree being posted, because I figure that, if nothing else, it can be a good jumping-off point for a good discussion.

 

The problem I do have is when someone starts to feel backed into a corner and starts insulting people on a personal level instead of sticking to the subject at hand, either because they've run out of ways to defend their position or because they feel so certain that they are correct that they think it's acceptable to tell others that they're complete idiots for having a different point of view.

 

At that point, things just turn ugly, people start taking sides, and people start reporting each other until the moderators swoop in and close the thread.

 

I have to say that I think that, for the most part, most people are being quite civil and polite lately, so even when there are disagreements, the threads can continue. Hopefully, this thread will turn out the same way, because it's always an interesting topic. :)

[eternalsummer]

I think it is certainly possible for someone to hold the belief that God set our universe in motion based on principles that we are able to learn about and understand based on observing the natural world around us, thus believing in God while also accepting scientific understandings about our universe and evolution.  But the things that we see in the world around us are also explainable without requiring a God to set things in motion or be involved in any way.  So they do not prove that God exists or is necessary for our existence.

 

As far as I am aware, we have no evidence of what happened before the Big Bang - our observations can only go back to that point in time and no further.  Speculation about what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang or exists outside of our detectable universe - whether they are the realm of God, or whether it's all a hologram, or whether we're existing inside a computer simulation - are all interesting philosophical topics and great fun to discuss over a bottle of wine, but they are not science (at least until someone figures out a way to test those ideas with evidence).

 

I think that a scientific education means learning to use the scientific method:  gaining observations and evidence from the world around us, formulating hypothesis, testing those hypothesis, and reforming our hypothesis when they are met with inconsistent evidence.  I do not think that it is scientific education to state a belief, cherry pick data to attempt to support that belief, and reject data that contradicts that belief.

 

Oh sure, I wouldn't say that philosophical speculation is science.  But any speculation about what caused life to begin borders on philosophy/worldview, so I  guess I don't see an ID theory as all that different from a spontaneous creation via plasmas or whatnot (it has been a long time since biology!) in terms of the way people think of it.

 

And I don't even believe in a separate literal God in the sky type of thing (but I am not an atheist, I think there is order in the universe and perhaps something that science and the scientific method cannot examine).

[songsparrow]

For instance, when people talk about intelligent design (which I don't know much of anything about save a presentation my 9th grade bio teacher made), what I gather generally is that they reject to some degree or another the idea that life originated spontaneously from the primordial soup thing; instead, they think something outside of what we can observe created it deliberately, right?

 

Now, I can agree that there's no evidence of intelligent design that would satisfy someone looking for a concrete explanation contained within the system.  But I'm not sure that the evidence there is for evolution precludes the creation of everything at one point or another (especially as most people who believe in intelligent design seem to also believe that there is a god who is all-powerful).  The young-earthers I knew among messianic jews believed that God had created the dinosaur fossils and etc. as some sort of test or history or something.  It was not incompatible, because they believed in the mechanism.

 

There is evidence that life as it exists today did not arise spontaneously at one point in time in a "Garden of Eden" or similar scenario, but that it has evolved and developed over time.  One could argue that a God created the first spark of life in the primordial soup, but that is a religious and not a scientific belief.  There is no evidence that can be mustered to prove that, and life could have arisen from the primordial soup without any need for a divine spark (and we can look for evidence to support or disprove that idea).  There is also no evidence that can prove that fossils were faked by God, so it is again a religious belief but not a scientific idea.

 

 

 

More interestingly, though, is the idea that there is such a thing as a black hole.  A black hole is not black because there is nothing in it.  It is black because we can't see what is in it.  There's an event horizon past which we cannot see, and can only barely speculate - I see the Big Bang as a similar phenomenon (and death, for that matter), so I don't cast too many aspersions on people who have different ideas about the unknowable than I do.

 

Black holes are not unknowable.  There are mathematical formulas that explain much about their existence, shape and function, and astronomers are able to collect visible evidence of their creation, development, and ultimate dissolution that can be used to show those models to be correct or incorrect, and so our understanding of black holes continues to develop and evolve as scientists put forth hypotheses and seek evidence to test those hypotheses.

 

 

As far as education, I guess I think there are a variety of lenses through which you can view the world; as long as you are consistent with the laws of physics (which include, for me, the laws of morality, but that is another discussion), I don't see why you can't call different perspectives education.

 

For instance, if I teach my kids that there is no such thing as Newton's third law, that's not much of an education.  They'll suck at all kinds of things if they believe that, because they'll have an incorrect idea of how the universe works.

 

But whether I teach them that the third law is part of a larger order to the universe that includes morality and karma (kind of a Hindu education, I guess), or that it is simply a law for physical, observable objects that happens to exist in this universe and there's no need for a why because there are no whys, just hows, or that the reason for the third law is because God made the universe in all its manifestations - all of those are educations, right?

 

You can certainly teach your kids ideas about God, morality and karma, but that is not a scientific education.  Those are not scientific concepts.  Proponents of ID wish to teach their ideas in science classrooms either in place of or in addition to the scientific theory of evolution.  But ID is not a scientific theory, it is a religious theory.  Teach it in churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship as much as you like (the collective you, not you personally ananemone).  But it does not belong in science classrooms.

[albeto.]

Mm, but is understanding of the natural world (that is, that which we can see and observe and test, I guess) applicable to understanding of the non-natural world,

 

What is "the non-natural world"? How does one identify it? What are it's parameters? What are its markers?

 

or understanding of the source of the natural world?

 

Yes. Astronomy, physics, chemistry and others address this.

 

For instance, when people talk about intelligent design (which I don't know much of anything about save a presentation my 9th grade bio teacher made), what I gather generally is that they reject to some degree or another the idea that life originated spontaneously from the primordial soup thing; instead, they think something outside of what we can observe created it deliberately, right?

 

"Intelligence Design" is a phrase coined by the publishers of the book "Of Pandas and People" to be used in the public schools in Delaware. They changed the word "creationism" to "design proponents," making an editorial error with an incomplete find/switch code leaving the words "cdesign proponentsists." That phrase, "cdesign proponentsists" is the smoking gun of so-called "intelligent design." It's direct evidence of its function to slip religion into public education. You can learn more here.

 

Now, I can agree that there's no evidence of intelligent design that would satisfy someone looking for a concrete explanation contained within the system.  But I'm not sure that the evidence there is for evolution precludes the creation of everything at one point or another (especially as most people who believe in intelligent design seem to also believe that there is a god who is all-powerful).  The young-earthers I knew among messianic jews believed that God had created the dinosaur fossils and etc. as some sort of test or history or something.  It was not incompatible, because they believed in the mechanism.

 

Then what's to stop us from incorporating any creation myth into our understanding? If evidence isn't valuable, why stop with creation myths? Why not incorporate any imaginary scenario? Why limit ourselves to facts when trying to understand anything?

 

At any rate, all that aside, what I'm saying is that even if I say that I believe life arose spontaneously from the primordial soup, I don't have to believe that in order to satisfy the evidence (as there is no direct evidence that some alien didn't come over and drop singe-celled bacteria, or whatever, in the ocean however many billion years ago, right?)  And if I accept that it could be aliens (or martian asteroids, or something) then I have to accept that people for whom God (literal sitting in the sky God) is a live hypothesis can believe in evolution and also intelligent design.

 

Opinions don't affect facts, though. Facts should affect opinions. They do in other aspects of life, why not this? Why is evolution exempt from the same process by which one determines the accuracy of a fact elsewhere?

 

More interestingly, though, is the idea that there is such a thing as a black hole.  A black hole is not black because there is nothing in it.  It is black because we can't see what is in it.  There's an event horizon past which we cannot see, and can only barely speculate - I see the Big Bang as a similar phenomenon (and death, for that matter), so I don't cast too many aspersions on people who have different ideas about the unknowable than I do.

 

That's nice that you don't cast too many aspersions on people who have different ideas about black holes than you, but if your nation demanded to incorporate public policy designed to appease the Muppets who live in these black holes and watch what we do, and will hurl down epic storms of Bad Karma if we piss them off, would you recognize the need to adhere to teaching actual facts to younger generations?

 

As far as education, I guess I think there are a variety of lenses through which you can view the world; as long as you are consistent with the laws of physics (which include, for me, the laws of morality, but that is another discussion), I don't see why you can't call different perspectives education.

 

Then those who make claims that directly contradict the laws of physics should be called out. Every time. Even if they're nice people trying to help.

 

For instance, if I teach my kids that there is no such thing as Newton's third law, that's not much of an education.  They'll suck at all kinds of things if they believe that, because they'll have an incorrect idea of how the universe works.

 

But whether I teach them that the third law is part of a larger order to the universe that includes morality and karma (kind of a Hindu education, I guess), or that it is simply a law for physical, observable objects that happens to exist in this universe and there's no need for a why because there are no whys, just hows, or that the reason for the third law is because God made the universe in all its manifestations - all of those are educations, right?

 

Why teach things that could be true just because we could imagine them to be true. Why not teach what's actually true instead? 

 

This isn't a matter of arguing over which flavor of ice cream is the best. It's a matter of recognizing fact from opinion, information from belief, and utilizing this information rather than ignoring it when it doesn't conform to belief. 

 

[MercyA]

As far as education, I guess I think there are a variety of lenses through which you can view the world; as long as you are consistent with the laws of physics (which include, for me, the laws of morality, but that is another discussion), I don't see why you can't call different perspectives education.

 

For instance, if I teach my kids that there is no such thing as Newton's third law, that's not much of an education.  They'll suck at all kinds of things if they believe that, because they'll have an incorrect idea of how the universe works.

 

But whether I teach them that the third law is part of a larger order to the universe that includes morality and karma (kind of a Hindu education, I guess), or that it is simply a law for physical, observable objects that happens to exist in this universe and there's no need for a why because there are no whys, just hows, or that the reason for the third law is because God made the universe in all its manifestations - all of those are educations, right?

 

Well said!

[Haiku]

Evolution News and Views is run by the Discovery Institute, which "is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of the pseudoscience "intelligent design" (ID). Its "Teach the Controversy" campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects." (Wikipedia)

 

Not a credible news source.

[Joanne]

 

 

 

 

You can certainly teach your kids ideas about God, morality and karma, but that is not a scientific education.  Those are not scientific concepts.  Proponents of ID wish to teach their ideas in science classrooms either in place of or in addition to the scientific theory of evolution.  But ID is not a scientific theory, it is a religious theory.  Teach it in churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship as much as you like (the collective you, not you personally ananemone).  But it does not belong in science classrooms.

 

My problem with ID is twofold:

 

1. The science is, well, not.
2. The *theology* is poor and the Christian principles behind it concern me. The myopic focus that the Christian Bible must be literal ignores the culture of the times in which it developed and was eventually written, strips the Bible of meaning, nuance, and mystery, excludes a tremendous number of "believers", diminishes and insults those who develop an integrated (science and spirituality) world view, excludes, limits.

The Bible developed orally and was written during a time when metaphor, symbolism, fable, parable, and deliberate hyperbole were the oral and written characteristics. Stories, containing truth but not literal,  were used to educate, stimulate, explain, and guide. But it was not meant to be a historic record. It was not a historic record, it was a written scripts of oral tradition that, on occassion, include historic record.

 

If God existed, ID would limit, not expand him.

 

[Trish]

 

 

I'm kind of failing to see how this either disproves evolution or proves God.

 

 

 

Evolution doesn't need to be disproven, it needs to be proven.

 

Fossils would help.

[mommymilkies]

Evolution doesn't need to be disproven, it needs to be proven.

 

Fossils would help.

What?  There ARE fossils.  

[Azalea]

 

I like this site because it most often cites peer-reviewed, published works by secular scientists.  After all, this is the main complaint of most opposed to ID sites.  All I ever hear is….it doesn’t mean anything if it’s not peer-reviewed.  Now it sounds as if it’s worthless if it IS peer-reviewed, even by secular scientists.  So I guess the main point is that if a valid scientific article is published in valid, secular magazines, journals, or websites that’s okay.  But, if that same article is then cited on an ID site, it suddenly becomes invalid?  That’s plainly illogical.

 

Saddlemomma, the site links to the Journal of BIO-Complexity. This is not a credible science journal. The editor-in-chief and twenty-four members of the editorial board of BIO-Complexity are signatories to the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinismâ€:

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (

www.dissentfromdarwin.com

)

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/6/latest-intelligent-design-journal

I hope you will read the article at NCSE and then get back to us on whether you still believe that the Journal of BIO-Complexity is a credible source. It is a quick read.

[Walking-Iris]

I think it is certainly possible for someone to hold the belief that God set our universe in motion based on principles that we are able to learn about and understand based on observing the natural world around us, thus believing in God while also accepting scientific understandings about our universe and evolution.  But the things that we see in the world around us are also explainable without requiring a God to set things in motion or be involved in any way.  So they do not prove that God exists or is necessary for our existence.

 

As far as I am aware, we have no evidence of what happened before the Big Bang - our observations can only go back to that point in time and no further.  Speculation about what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang or exists outside of our detectable universe - whether they are the realm of God, or whether it's all a hologram, or whether we're existing inside a computer simulation - are all interesting philosophical topics and great fun to discuss over a bottle of wine, but they are not science (at least until someone figures out a way to test those ideas with evidence).

 

I think that a scientific education means learning to use the scientific method:  gaining observations and evidence from the world around us, formulating hypothesis, testing those hypothesis, and reforming our hypothesis when they are met with inconsistent evidence.  I do not think that it is scientific education to state a belief, cherry pick data to attempt to support that belief, and reject data that contradicts that belief.

 

 

I'm glad someone said it.

 

Honestly I begin to doubt the strength of people's professed faith when they seem so terribly desperate to prove it to themselves and others.

 

Everything in your first part that I bolded is exactly what I would say. 

[livetoread]

The Discovery Institute is better understood as a marketing firm, not as a reliable source of information regarding science. They have a product they are marketing, and they follow advertising methods and ethics, not the methods and ethics those doing science follow.

[Corraleno]

 

 

Evolution doesn't need to be disproven, it needs to be proven.

 

I'm afraid you don't understand how science works. Here is an excellent explanation by Satoshi Kanazawa:

 

 

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.

 

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

 

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory.  No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final.  That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

 

Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven).  There is nothing in between.  A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven.  These are the same as unproven.

 

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories.  Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true.  They are always somewhere in between.  Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others.  There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others.  It is a matter of more or less, not either/or.  For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

 

The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes.  Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,†because they know no such thing exists.  Anyone who uses the words “proof,†“prove†and “proven†in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

 

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory†and it is not “proven.† What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven.

[Saddlemomma]

My big problem with this stuff getting posted here is that I thought the main objective of this board was EDUCATION.

 

The main point is education.  However, sometimes education gets quashed by ideologies.  Science gets limited by "there's only ONE way to think - DARWINISM, only one way to teach - DARWINISM, and if you question it or don't subscribe to it oftentimes you're labeled unpleasant names.  That's the true problem.  No questions are allowed, however at the heart of science is questioning.

 

Science is about investigating and discovery.  Not about shutting down one avenue of investigation because it's forbidden to go in an opposite direction.  It should be about exploring all ideas proposed. 

 

The individuals at The Third Way website don't share all my views, and we disagree at many points, however, I applaud and commend them for realizing there are serious problems with Darwinism.  They are fed up with the scientific political establishment telling them they have to tow the line on the holy grail of Darwinism despite what the scientific evidence is telling them.  Yes, they still subscribe to evolution; so do I to some extent.  I believe in micro-evolution and the Big Bang.  The point at which we diverge is me believing a Big Bang needs a Big Banger to get the whole thing rolling rather than a single, tiny singularity popping out of nothing, then exploding and vomiting out the whole of our universe.  While God sounds ludicrous to secularists; something spontaneously popping out of nothing sounds ludicrous to me. That is also the point at which evolutionists and creationists will never agree.  We each have individual opinions based upon the same facts because neither one can be proven or disproved.

 

It all boils down to philosophy.  Secularists who deny the supernatural must reject any unnatural, extra-natural, or supernatural explanation, even if the evidence may reasonably point in that direction.  Christians who believe in the supernatural allow themselves to consider both the supernatural and natural conclusions.  By virtue of our beliefs, we can follow the evidence wherever it leads.  We are open to either possibility.  We have not limited one set of possible conclusions before even seeing the evidence. To do that would be biased indeed. If the evidence leads to a natural conclusion, it's all good because to us God created nature.  If it leads to the supernatural, it's all good because God is supernatural.  It doesn't make one side better or right over the other. We just arrive at different conclusions for the evidence we do have.

 

The problem comes in when you stifle inquiry.  That is stifling science and, thereby, stifling education.

 

Side Note for clarification:

Another thing many people get confused about:  Darwinism and evolution are not the same thing.  When I talk about Darwinism, I'm expressing that I disagree with Darwin's version of evolution.  Proponents of ID disagree with Darwin's version of evolution.  The Third Way group still believes in evolution but disagrees with Darwin's version of evolution. Darwinism is a particular theory about evolution. 

[Erin]

It all boils down to philosophy.  Secularists who deny the supernatural must reject any unnatural, extra-natural, or supernatural explanation, even if the evidence may reasonably point in that direction.  Christians who believe in the supernatural allow themselves to consider both the supernatural and natural conclusions.  By virtue of our beliefs, we can follow the evidence wherever it leads.  We are open to either possibility.  We have not limited one set of possible conclusions before even seeing the evidence. To do that would be biased indeed. If the evidence leads to a natural conclusion, it's all good because to us God created nature.  If it leads to the supernatural, it's all good because God is supernatural.  It doesn't make one side better or right over the other. We just arrive at different conclusions for the evidence we do have.

 

The problem comes in when you stifle inquiry.  That is stifling science and, thereby, stifling education.

 

Side Note for clarification:

Another thing many people get confused about:  Darwinism and evolution are not the same thing.  When I talk about Darwinism, I'm expressing that I disagree with Darwin's version of evolution.  Proponents of ID disagree with Darwin's version of evolution.  The Third Way group still believes in evolution but disagrees with Darwin's version of evolution. Darwinism is a particular theory about evolution. 

 

Well said.

I've never understood why people insist that there has to be some sort of mutual exclusion between a Creator and evolution.  The Alpha and the Omega creates the rules.  He isn't limited by them.  

[Free]

Side Note for clarification:

 

Another thing many people get confused about:  Darwinism and evolution are not the same thing.  When I talk about Darwinism, I'm expressing that I disagree with Darwin's version of evolution.  Proponents of ID disagree with Darwin's version of evolution.  The Third Way group still believes in evolution but disagrees with Darwin's version of evolution. Darwinism is a particular theory about evolution. 

 

What is Darwin's version of evolution and how is it different from your version of evolution?

 

(and please don't say Macroevolution. The third way group that you seem to be fond of, do accept macroevolution)

 

[Free]

It all boils down to philosophy.  Secularists who deny the supernatural must reject any unnatural, extra-natural, or supernatural explanation, even if the evidence may reasonably point in that direction.  Christians who believe in the supernatural allow themselves to consider both the supernatural and natural conclusions.  By virtue of our beliefs, we can follow the evidence wherever it leads.

 

How do you find evidence for the supernatural? If there is evidence, then would it not then be seen as natural?

[Erin]

 

 

How

You DO realize that most Christians don't believe in a literal, 6-day creation, right?  

[albeto.]

The main point is education.  However, sometimes education gets quashed by ideologies.  Science gets limited by "there's only ONE way to think - DARWINISM, only one way to teach - DARWINISM, and if you question it or don't subscribe to it oftentimes you're labeled unpleasant names.  That's the true problem.  No questions are allowed, however at the heart of science is questioning.

 

This doesn't reflect how the scientific method or the scientific community actually works. In reality, ideologies, mistakes, prejudices, and other natural biases get weeded out in the tens of thousands of related researches. Scientists look for a trend, study that trend in detail, and falsify those details. Only when you don't realize just how deeply this research goes can you assume there are great blind spots.

 

Science is about investigating and discovery.  Not about shutting down one avenue of investigation because it's forbidden to go in an opposite direction.  It should be about exploring all ideas proposed.

 

Creationism was the original scientific assumption, remember? The scientific community didn't shut it out, it corrected it, detail by minute detail, over centuries, and across the globe.

 

The individuals at The Third Way website don't share all my views, and we disagree at many points, however, I applaud and commend them for realizing there are serious problems with Darwinism.  They are fed up with the scientific political establishment telling them they have to tow the line on the holy grail of Darwinism despite what the scientific evidence is telling them.  Yes, they still subscribe to evolution; so do I to some extent.  I believe in micro-evolution and the Big Bang.  The point at which we diverge is me believing a Big Bang needs a Big Banger to get the whole thing rolling rather than a single, tiny singularity popping out of nothing, then exploding and vomiting out the whole of our universe.  While God sounds ludicrous to secularists; something spontaneously popping out of nothing sounds ludicrous to me. That is also the point at which evolutionists and creationists will never agree.  We each have individual opinions based upon the same facts because neither one can be proven or disproved.

 

It's understandable to be confused. It's understandable to think an explanation that makes sense is right. However, an individual's lack of understanding of a fact doesn't actually negate the credibility of that fact. You don't need to know the details of astronomy for certain claims to be factual. But to come to an home education board and promote pseudo-science and religious imaginations as a viable alternative is not only sloppy education, it's embarrassing to the rest of us home educators. It's poisoning the well of public perception to contribute mythological stories long ago debunked as having any scientific credibility. The kind of anti-intellectual campaign these threads support are not only embarrassing, they're detrimental to society, and dangerous to individuals. We owe it to our kids to not delve into an intellectual dark age, especially considering the treasure of knowledge they can access of only people shared it with them, and you owe it to yourself to know when you're being duped.

 

It all boils down to philosophy.  Secularists who deny the supernatural must reject any unnatural, extra-natural, or supernatural explanation, even if the evidence may reasonably point in that direction.  Christians who believe in the supernatural allow themselves to consider both the supernatural and natural conclusions.  By virtue of our beliefs, we can follow the evidence wherever it leads.  We are open to either possibility.  We have not limited one set of possible conclusions before even seeing the evidence. To do that would be biased indeed. If the evidence leads to a natural conclusion, it's all good because to us God created nature.  If it leads to the supernatural, it's all good because God is supernatural.  It doesn't make one side better or right over the other. We just arrive at different conclusions for the evidence we do have.

 

It doesn't boil down to philosophy at all, and this explanation is completely faulty and frankly silly, given the actual facts. The fact that you have personally been a part of this campaign again and again and again suggests you are not at all interested in learning information, but instead are determined to offer whatever reason might pass in order to believe your religious views are credible and should be taken seriously. Science isn't the arena for that discussion, and frankly, it's embarrassing to know these discussions are public because my kids are home educated and I don't want the public to think they're scientifically illiterate and educationally neglected. This isn't a matter of philosophy, it's a matter of faith, and arguments like this trying to demand a place in a discussion shouldn't be tolerated any more than voodoo practitioners demanding tolerance on a medical discussion board. 

 

The problem comes in when you stifle inquiry.  That is stifling science and, thereby, stifling education.

 

The irony of this statement is profound. If history serves, the likelihood of you reading and responding to these questions and comments are next to nil, but just in case, I'd be personally interested in how you understand the scientific method to work. 

 

Side Note for clarification:

Another thing many people get confused about:  Darwinism and evolution are not the same thing.  When I talk about Darwinism, I'm expressing that I disagree with Darwin's version of evolution.  Proponents of ID disagree with Darwin's version of evolution.  The Third Way group still believes in evolution but disagrees with Darwin's version of evolution. Darwinism is a particular theory about evolution.

 

One who appeals to scientific inquiry ought to know that Charles Darwin was the first person to provide tangible, credible evidence to support the theory of evolution that had been developed over centuries. He wasn't the first, the only, or the last. To assume that his information must never be explored, falsified, or modified it so assume the scientific method isn't about science. It's as silly as assuming evolutionists bow to the Galapagos every Tuesday afternoon at tea time in reverence to him.

[songsparrow]

The point at which we diverge is me believing a Big Bang needs a Big Banger to get the whole thing rolling rather than a single, tiny singularity popping out of nothing, then exploding and vomiting out the whole of our universe.  While God sounds ludicrous to secularists; something spontaneously popping out of nothing sounds ludicrous to me. 

 

Well said.

I've never understood why people insist that there has to be some sort of mutual exclusion between a Creator and evolution.  The Alpha and the Omega creates the rules.  He isn't limited by them.  

 

Evolutionary theory does not speak to what caused the Big Bang to occur.  The Big Bang is how our universe came to be, but has only the most tenuous connections with the evolution of life on Earth.  

 

I have never heard anyone insist that there must be mutual exclusion between a religious belief in a creator and a scientific understanding of evolution.  Many scientists, both current and throughout history, both had religious faith and yet still followed the scientific method in learning about the physical universe.  One can hold the belief that there is a God that caused the Big Bang to occur and set the universe in motion.  One can believe that all of the amazing complexity in creation is a testament to the wisdom of the creator.  One can believe that any alternative sounds ludicrous.  But these are religious and not scientific beliefs. One could likewise sincerely believe that the "strings" in string theory are actually the noodle-y appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  ETA:  But I do insist that religious beliefs do not disingenuously claim to be scientific or be taught in science classrooms.  

 

The Big Bang - and the development of life on Earth - is not unexplainable without the existence of a supernatural being.  An intelligent, deliberate creator is not necessary in order to explain either the Big Bang or the evolution of life on Earth.  Thus, neither the Big Bang or life on Earth is proof that such a creator exists.  

 

That is also the point at which evolutionists and creationists will never agree.  We each have individual opinions based upon the same facts because neither one can be proven or disproved.

 

It all boils down to philosophy.  Secularists who deny the supernatural must reject any unnatural, extra-natural, or supernatural explanation, even if the evidence may reasonably point in that direction.  Christians who believe in the supernatural allow themselves to consider both the supernatural and natural conclusions.  By virtue of our beliefs, we can follow the evidence wherever it leads.  We are open to either possibility.  We have not limited one set of possible conclusions before even seeing the evidence. To do that would be biased indeed. If the evidence leads to a natural conclusion, it's all good because to us God created nature.  If it leads to the supernatural, it's all good because God is supernatural.  It doesn't make one side better or right over the other. We just arrive at different conclusions for the evidence we do have.\

 

The scientific method has been proven throughout history to be a superior way of exploring and understanding the natural world.  Scientists base their ideas on observable evidence and data; they test their ideas withreproducible experiments, such that the evidence and data is observable by and can be tested by anybody who wishes to do so.   Scientists are willing to change their ideas when contradictory data is discovered or when a flaw is shown in their methods or conclusions.

 

[Erin]

 

 

I have never heard anyone insist that there must be mutual exclusion between a religious belief in a creator and a scientific understanding of evolution.

Then you haven't been having this conversation very long.  ;)  

I assure you, there are MANY, on both sides of the argument, who insist that to believe in one precludes the ability to believe the other.

[songsparrow]

Then you haven't been having this conversation very long.   ;)

I assure you, there are MANY, on both sides of the argument, who insist that to believe in one precludes the ability to believe the other.

 

 

I guess that I can see that, depending upon a person's specific religious beliefs, those beliefs could preclude that person's ability to accept evolutionary theory.  But not *all* religious beliefs would lead to that result.

 

Likewise, accepting evolutionary theory may preclude one from believing certain, particular religious beliefs, but it would not preclude *all* religious belief in a diety.

[Haiku]

We each have individual opinions based upon the same facts because neither one can be proven or disproved.

 

But opinions are not science. Just because you have formed an opinion about a set of facts does not mean you are correct or scientific. Science is not based on opinions. It is based on an observable, quantifiable, testable, and replicable body of data. Evolution is correct because it is the best theory we have to explain the body of evidence that we have observed, quantified, tested, and replicated. No one who is proponent of evolution is wedded to the idea that our current understanding is the end. Only the creationists hold that view.

[Catwoman]

That's nice that you don't cast too many aspersions on people who have different ideas about black holes than you, but if your nation demanded to incorporate public policy designed to appease the Muppets who live in these black holes and watch what we do, and will hurl down epic storms of Bad Karma if we piss them off, would you recognize the need to adhere to teaching actual facts to younger generations?

If we may, I'd like to put aside the whole "God and Creation" thing for a moment and talk about what's really important here.

 

ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS MUPPETS??? :eek: :svengo: :eek:

 

(I mean, I agree that they probably don't live in black holes, although I don't frequent black holes so I guess I can't really say for sure... ;))

 

:D

[albeto.]

I have never heard anyone insist that there must be mutual exclusion between a religious belief in a creator and a scientific understanding of evolution.  Many scientists, both current and throughout history, both had religious faith and yet still followed the scientific method in learning about the physical universe.  One can hold the belief that there is a God that caused the Big Bang to occur and set the universe in motion.  One can believe that all of the amazing complexity in creation is a testament to the wisdom of the creator.  One can believe that any alternative sounds ludicrous.  But these are religious and not scientific beliefs. One could likewise sincerely believe that the "strings" in string theory are actually the noodle-y appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  ETA:  But I do insist that religious beliefs do not disingenuously claim to be scientific or be taught in science classrooms.

 

I would (and have) argue that there does exist a mutual exclusion between a religious belief and a scientific understanding. This includes, but is not limited to explaining the biodiversity of the natural world, or the origins of the universe. I say this because by definition, a religious belief assumes a particular claim to be true through faith, whereas the scientific method specifically excludes beliefs as facts. That's not to say scientists cannot employ the scientific method while personally adhering to a religious belief, but at some point, one method or the other is understood to provide information - divine revelation or observation and falsification (to put it very simply). Whether that line is drawn at the theory of evolution / creationism or natural origins of the universe / willful creation, there exists a line that differentiates between one and the other. In other words, there exists a mutual exclusion between the two.

[Saddlemomma]

What is Darwin's version of evolution and how is it different from your version of evolution?

 

(and please don't say Macroevolution. The third way group that you seem to be fond of, do accept macroevolution)

 

 

Cover your ears because I'm going to say it - Macroevolution.  I also stated that I don't agree with everything that TTW group espouses.  Macroevolution is the portion of evolution that I have a problem with.

[Free]

Cover your ears because I'm going to say it - Macroevolution.  I also stated that I don't agree with everything that TTW group espouses.  Macroevolution is the portion of evolution that I have a problem with.

 

Well, I was actually hoping that you could elaborate on the mechanisms of evolution that you disagree with. But since you say you agree with microevolution, I suppose you do agree with Neo-Darwininian evolution which proposes that organisms evolve primarily through random mutation and natural selection.

 

[EKS]

If God existed, ID would limit, not expand him.

 

Exactly!

 

Creationism/ID is the way a *man* would go about creating life.  I would think that God would be much more sophisticated than that--for example, God could have set up a few fundamental physical laws (or maybe just one law) and then said "Go."  After which, God would see that it was good.

[Haiku]

Cover your ears because I'm going to say it - Macroevolution.  I also stated that I don't agree with everything that TTW group espouses.  Macroevolution is the portion of evolution that I have a problem with.

 

As has been mentioned many times here at TWTM, there is not really any difference between micro- and macroevolution because evolution is simply change over time. "Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales." (Wikipedia)

[songsparrow]

I would (and have) argue that there does exist a mutual exclusion between a religious belief and a scientific understanding. This includes, but is not limited to explaining the biodiversity of the natural world, or the origins of the universe. I say this because by definition, a religious belief assumes a particular claim to be true through faith, whereas the scientific method specifically excludes beliefs as facts. That's not to say scientists cannot employ the scientific method while personally adhering to a religious belief, but at some point, one method or the other is understood to provide information - divine revelation or observation and falsification (to put it very simply). Whether that line is drawn at the theory of evolution / creationism or natural origins of the universe / willful creation, there exists a line that differentiates between one and the other. In other words, there exists a mutual exclusion between the two.

 

I see your point.  I agree that a purported divine revelation is not evidence that can properly be proffered in support of or against a scientific theory because it is not observable, testable or reproducible.  Likewise, faith by definition is not and cannot be supported by evidence; if there were evidence, it would no longer be faith.  So, in that way, faith and science are mutually exclusive.  

 

I guess the point I was trying to make is what you are saying is different than saying that it is impossible for an individual to both profess religious faith and accept modern scientific theories of how our natural world came to be, including evolution (e.g., deists and the clockwork universe).   It is not impossible for a creator and evolution to both exist without contradiction.  But such a position does require the person to accept and reject particular religious beliefs, though. 

[albeto.]

  It is not impossible for a creator and evolution to both exist without contradiction.  But such a position does require the person to accept and reject particular religious beliefs, though. 

 

I think we're on the same page, generally speaking; it's not impossible for a creator and evolution to both exist without contradiction. Although... it's like saying it's not impossible for mermaids and evolution to both exist without contradiction. There could be beasts that are half human and half fish, with powerful spiritual abilities that can, and do, negatively posses people. But the likelihood of this being true, when looked at reasonably, based on logic and the information we do have, makes that possibility so miniscule as to not even consider it. It might as well not be likely, for all practical purposes. In other words, if a universe that has a god whose character and creation is virtually indistinguishable from a universe without such a god, from where does the support of belief come? When taking into consideration the roots of this belief, I'd argue that it's quite antithetical to the knowledge we do have, the knowledge gained through the scientific method, kwim? So, yeah, it requires a person to accept certain religious beliefs in lieu of the general trend we have about how the world works. 

[Rebel]

 

Saddlemomma, the site links to the Journal of BIO-Complexity. This is not a credible science journal. The editor-in-chief and twenty-four members of the editorial board of BIO-Complexity are signatories to the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinismâ€:

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. (

www.dissentfromdarwin.com

)

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/6/latest-intelligent-design-journal

I hope you will read the article at NCSE and then get back to us on whether you still believe that the Journal of BIO-Complexity is a credible source. It is a quick read.

 

I was going to comment, but you said it for me.  I have to publish at least one article in a reputable peer-reviewed national or international journal in order to get my Ph.D. from Baylor University, the largest Southern Baptist University in the world so definitely a Christian university and THIS journal would not satisfy that requirement.  The journal does not even have an impact factor and did you read the purpose and scope?

 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/about/editorialPolicies#purposeAndScope

 

I copied this directly from our department's web page. "Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."