Jamie_B Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Interesting read. [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/"]Click Here[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Interesting article. I don't see the need for people to gather up scientific fact to solidify their faith. The bible, or any religious book, isn't meant to be taken literally or 100% factual. It is all about your faith. I am not just referring to the article, but to people who "discover" fake artifacts that "prove" that their religion is right. I agree that there is no way that scientists can be 100% positive that evolution is correct, but it will never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. So far it is one of the best answers to explain it. Hundreds of years from now, people will look back and laugh at people who thought hundreds of things that will be proven wrong. The earth was widely considered flat until hundreds of years ago. We have "evolved" in our way of thinking and understanding the world around us, but are still IMO very far from the "right" answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='Feb 2 2005, 01:18 PM']Interesting article. I don't see the need for people to gather up scientific fact to solidify their faith. The bible, or any religious book, isn't meant to be taken literally or 100% factual. It is all about your faith. I am not just referring to the article, but to people who "discover" fake artifacts that "prove" that their religion is right. I agree that there is no way that scientists can be 100% positive that evolution is correct, but it will never be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. [b]So far it is one of the best answers to explain it.[/b] Hundreds of years from now, people will look back and laugh at people who thought hundreds of things that will be proven wrong. The earth was widely considered flat until hundreds of years ago. We have "evolved" in our way of thinking and understanding the world around us, but are still IMO very far from the "right" answer. [right][post="42173"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Do you mean evolution is one of the best answers? The LACK of evidence for evolution is amazing. If the change process of evolution is gradual and slow, then there should be millions of transitional species. But the lack of fossil evidence to support transitional species is such that they have actually come up with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (which basically says change is spontaneous, e.g. one day a lizard gave birth to a bird). What really bothers me is the "religious fervor" with which evolution is taught as fact, and even the mere suggestion that it be taught as theory, or that intelligent design also be taught is met with such resistance. If you are going to teach evolution, teach it as theory, and teach both the supporting evidence (what little there is) and the contradicting evidence. And teach the other theories as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 evolution is a true thing.. it happens... the key to saying that, is that all scientists run into a wall when they try to base their entire theory around that... they can't get past the fact that, things evolve, but how the hell did they even become... things?!? the planet didn't magically make itself, then our atmosphere, and then life all by itself... things evolve.. we should all agree w/ that... take, for example, the eskimos... in an anthropology class i took in college, we watched some films about them... they would just lie their babies, naked, in the snow... it's not like these infants have already built up the tolerance to take the extreme cold from northern canada... their bodies have evolved to be able to take such climates... this is why it doesn't bother me to here about evolution... i do, however, have a problem w/ teachers telling this theory, but not explaining that scientists can't explain where it ALL came from... we need to teach that these are theories b/c science can't explain why we're here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Good post Rick (did I just write that?). I agree and any real scientist will tell you that there is no way of knowing with any certainty the answer to those questions, which is why it has so many possible theories. Evolution is a part of life, it may not explain our existence, but it cannot be ignored. The origin of the universe is very complex, and we are very far from understanding it. However, other than scriptures and holy texts, what "proof" is there that a divine being created man and the entire universe? What about the rest of the planets and millions of stars just like our galaxy's sun where life can exist? Did this being create life on other planets? I think it is pretty arrogant to think that human beings (homo sapiens) are the pinnacle of evolution or the history of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Feb 2 2005, 02:52 PM']evolution is a true thing.. it happens... the key to saying that, is that all scientists run into a wall when they try to base their entire theory around that... they can't get past the fact that, things evolve, but how the hell did they even become... things?!? the planet didn't magically make itself, then our atmosphere, and then life all by itself... things evolve.. we should all agree w/ that... take, for example, the eskimos... in an anthropology class i took in college, we watched some films about them... they would just lie their babies, naked, in the snow... it's not like these infants have already built up the tolerance to take the extreme cold from northern canada... their bodies have evolved to be able to take such climates... this is why it doesn't bother me to here about evolution... i do, however, have a problem w/ teachers telling this theory, but not explaining that scientists can't explain where it ALL came from... we need to teach that these are theories b/c science can't explain why we're here... [right][post="42197"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] We need to discriminate between micro-evolution (adjustments within a species to facilitate propagation) and macro-evolution (one species becoming another). I believe in micro. I have serious problems with macro (the lack of evidence). Are you talking about micro? (it sounds like it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 as far as physical evidence goes, punctuated equilibrium, or punk eek, is one of the more proven theories, the basic evolution principle (darwinism, phyletic gradualism, whatever, they're close enough) does lack support from fossils, but that does not mean there is a major lack of evidence, as far as darwinism is concerned, while punk eek is not quite the lizard to bird in one day example, it is relatively close, and one that some scientists seem to believe, the only problem with it is that it is wrong, and very unscientific to say the least --"the driving force behind (punk eek) was an attempt to enhance the novelty and importance of a relatively modest observation about the fossil record."-- punk eek is not that different from phyletic gradualism, the problem is that punk eek is not on a scale, it has no time frame and never has, basically a scientist said, "well were missing some fossils here so lets just say these changes happened spontaneously instead of gradually and not really give much more of an explanation" if anyone wants to check out a few books related to the subject these are some pretty good reads: "finding darwin's god" by kenneth miller, "science and theology" from john polkinghorne, and the one that i thought was the most interesting was "the whole shebang' by timothy ferris, the last 2 include more info on theology and the creation of the universe than on darwinism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 with all of that said, there is no definitive answer, and the correct idea of creation is most likely a rare blend of all things science and faith, many scientists seem to believe the idea or view of "god" as an intelligent life form maybe incorrect and best critiqued by describing "god" as merely chance and going on from there it makes complete sense if you think about it, how could you explain the unexplained if you could not claim faith, it would be explained by chance, and chance alone also, i never said any of this was my view, i just find it interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 [quote]What really bothers me is the "religious fervor" with which evolution is taught as fact, and even the mere suggestion that it be taught as theory, or that intelligent design also be taught is met with such resistance.[/quote] I think that is the point ALOT of people want to get across, is that were not opposed to the idea of evolution as a theory, but rather that its taught as fact and all other theories are dismissed. That bothers me to, because jza is right we just don't know. (At least from a scientific prespective) Thanks for the recommendation Nati Ice, I'm not really sure I follow your 1st paragraph completely (not a sciencist, so some of those things i've never heard of). Are they easy reads for us non-science types? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 I agree that it is asinine to force a theory down someon'es throat as truth simply because we have no better science-based explanation. It is equally egregious to dismiss out of hand Creationism as well, because we simply do not (and IMHO, will never) know the truth about the formation of the universe and how homo sapiens sprang into existence. We have some clues but not enough data to be able to proclaim with anything other than modest certainty how we got here. I enjoy thinking about cosmic mysteries, until my brain hurts, and then I just wallow in life's day to day trivialities... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 they are written assuming you know nothing about anything, and they explain, in detail, all of the theories and the positives and negatives, "finding darwins god" is the one about darwinism, obviously, so it relates best to the subject, but they are all done, for the most part, without biases and only include opinion in the final chapters, at that time you will find the authors are very persuasive also all of these authors are some of the leading scientists in their respective fields, ill just put it this way - i would not want to be high and try to read some of the theories - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/26.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 [quote name='Jason' date='Feb 2 2005, 02:16 PM']We need to discriminate between micro-evolution (adjustments within a species to facilitate propagation) and macro-evolution (one species becoming another). I believe in micro. I have serious problems with macro (the lack of evidence). Are you talking about micro? (it sounds like it). [right][post="42207"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] definately micro... in other words, i don't believe that we evolved from monkeys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 [color="green"][b]If interested.... More on it [/b][/color] [u]Design Yes, Intelligent No A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory and Neocreationism Massimo Pigliucci [/u] The claims by Behe, Dembski, and other "intelligent design" creationists that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is all about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A new brand of creationism has appeared on the scene in the last few years. The so-called neocreationists largely do not believe in a young Earth or in a too literal interpretation of the Bible. While still mostly propelled by a religious agenda and financed by mainly Christian sources such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute, the intellectual challenge posed by neocreationism is sophisticated enough to require detailed consideration (see Edis 2001; Roche 2001). Among the chief exponents of Intelligent Design (ID) theory, as this new brand of creationism is called, is William Dembski, a mathematical philosopher and author of The Design Inference (1998a). In that book he attempts to show that there must be an intelligent designer behind natural phenomena such as evolution and the very origin of the universe (see Pigliucci 2000 for a detailed critique). Dembki's (1998b) argument is that modern science ever since Francis Bacon has illicitly dropped two of Aristotle's famous four types of causes from consideration altogether, thereby unnecessarily restricting its own explanatory power. Science is thus incomplete, and intelligent design theory will rectify this sorry state of affairs, if only close-minded evolutionists would allow Dembski and company to do the job. Aristotle's Four Causes in Science Aristotle identified material causes, what something is made of; formal causes, the structure of the thing or phenomenon; efficient causes, the immediate activity producing a phenomenon or object; and final causes, the purpose of whatever object we are investigating. For example, let's say we want to investigate the "causes" of the Brooklyn Bridge. Its material cause would be encompassed by a description of the physical materials that went into its construction. The formal cause is the fact that it is a bridge across a stretch of water, and not either a random assembly of pieces or another kind of orderly structure (such as a skyscraper). The efficient causes were the blueprints drawn by engineers and the labor of men and machines that actually assembled the physical materials and put them into place. The final cause of the Brooklyn Bridge was the necessity for people to walk and ride between two landmasses without getting wet. Dembski maintains that Bacon and his followers did away with both formal and final causes (the so-called teleonomic causes, because they answer the question of why something is) in order to free science from philosophical speculation and ground it firmly into empirically verifiable statements. That may be so, but things certainly changed with the work of Charles Darwin (1859). Darwin was addressing a complex scientific question in an unprecedented fashion: he recognized that living organisms are clearly designed in order to survive and reproduce in the world they inhabit; yet, as a scientist, he worked within the framework of naturalistic explanations of such design. Darwin found the answer in his well-known theory of natural selection. Natural selection, combined with the basic process of mutation, makes design possible in nature without recourse to a supernatural explanation because selection is definitely nonrandom, and therefore has "creative" (albeit nonconscious) power. Creationists usually do not understand this point and think that selection can only eliminate the less fit; but Darwin's powerful insight was that selection is also a cumulative process-analogous to a ratchet-which can build things over time, as long as the intermediate steps are also advantageous. Darwin made it possible to put all four Aristotelian causes back into science. For example, if we were to ask what are the causes of a tiger's teeth within a Darwinian framework, we would answer in the following manner. The material cause is provided by the biological materials that make up the teeth; the formal cause is the genetic and developmental machinery that distinguishes a tiger's teeth from any other kind of biological structure; the efficient cause is natural selection promoting some genetic variants of the tiger's ancestor over their competitors; and the final cause is provided by the fact that having teeth structured in a certain way makes it easier for a tiger to procure its prey and therefore to survive and reproduce-the only "goals" of every living being. Therefore, design is very much a part of modern science, at least whenever there is a need to explain an apparently designed structure (such as a living organism). All four Aristotelian causes are fully reinstated within the realm of scientific investigation, and science is not maimed by the disregard of some of the causes acting in the world. What then is left of the argument of Dembski and of other proponents of ID? They, like William Paley (1831) well before them, make the mistake of confusing natural design and intelligent design by rejecting the possibility of the former and concluding that any design must by definition be intelligent. One is left with the lingering feeling that Dembski is being disingenuous about ancient philosophy. It is quite clear, for example, that Aristotle himself never meant his teleonomic causes to imply intelligent design in nature (Cohen 2000). His mentor, Plato (in Timaeus), had already concluded that the designer of the universe could not be an omnipotent god, but at most what he called a Demiurge, a lesser god who evidently messes around with the universe with mixed results. Aristotle believed that the scope of god was even more limited, essentially to the role of prime mover of the universe, with no additional direct interaction with his creation (i.e., he was one of the first deists). In Physics, where he discusses the four causes, Aristotle treats nature itself as a craftsman, but clearly devoid of forethought and intelligence. A tiger develops into a tiger because it is in its nature to do so, and this nature is due to some physical essence given to it by its father (we would call it DNA) which starts the process out. Aristotle makes clear this rejection of god as a final cause (Cohen 2000) when he says that causes are not external to the organism (such as a designer would be) but internal to it (as modern developmental biology clearly shows). In other words, the final cause of a living being is not a plan, intention, or purpose, but simply intrinsic in the developmental changes of that organism. Which means that Aristotle identified final causes with formal causes as far as living organisms are concerned. He rejected chance and randomness (as do modern biologists) but did not invoke an intelligent designer in its place, contra Dembski. We had to wait until Darwin for a further advance on Aristotle's conception of the final cause of living organisms and for modern molecular biology to achieve an understanding of their formal cause. Irreducible Complexity There are two additional arguments proposed by ID theorists to demonstrate intelligent design in the universe: the con-cept of "irreducible complexity" and the "complexity-specification" criterion. Irreducible complexity is a term introduced in this context by molecular biologist Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box (1996). The idea is that the difference between a natural phenomenon and an intelligent designer is that a designed object is planned in advance, with forethought. While an intelligent agent is not constrained by a step-by-step evolutionary process, an evolutionary process is the only way nature itself can proceed given that it has no planning capacity (this may be referred to as incremental complexity). Irreducible complexity then arises whenever all the parts of a structure have to be present and functional simultaneously for it to work, indicating-according to Behe-that the structure was designed and could not possibly have been gradually built by natural selection. Behe's example of an irreducibly complex object is a mousetrap. If you take away any of the minimal elements that make the trap work it will lose its function; on the other hand, there is no way to assemble a mousetrap gradually from a natural phenomenon, because it won't work until the last piece is assembled. Forethought, and therefore intelligent design, is necessary. Of course it is. After all, mousetraps as purchased in hardware stores are indeed human products; we know that they are intelligently designed. But what of biological structures? Behe claims that, while evolution can explain a lot of the visible diversity among living organisms, it is not enough when we come to the molecular level. The cell and several of its fundamental components and biochemical pathways are, according to him, irreducibly complex. The problem with this statement is that it is contradicted by the available literature on comparative studies in microbiology and molecular biology, which Behe conveniently ignores (Miller 1996). For example, geneticists are continuously showing that biochemical pathways are partly redundant. Redundancy is a common feature of living organisms where different genes are involved in the same or in partially overlapping functions. While this may seem a waste, mathematical models show that evolution by natural selection has to produce molecular redundancy because when a new function is necessary it cannot be carried out by a gene that is already doing something else, without compromising the original function. On the other hand, if the gene gets duplicated (by mutation), one copy is freed from immediate constraints and can slowly diverge in structure from the original, eventually taking over new functions. This process leads to the formation of gene "families," groups of genes clearly originated from a single ancestral DNA sequence, and that now are diversified and perform a variety of functions (e.g., the globins, which vary from proteins allowing muscle contraction to those involved in the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood). As a result of redundancy, mutations can knock down individual components of biochemical pathways without compromising the overall function-contrary to the expectations of irreducible complexity. (Notice that creationists, never ones to loose a bit, have also tried to claim that redundancy is yet another evidence of intelligent design, because an engineer would produce backup systems to minimize catastrophic failures should the primary components stop functioning. While very clever, this argument once again ignores the biology: the majority of duplicated genes end up as pseudogenes, literally pieces of molecular junk that are eventually lost forever to any biological utility [Max 1986].) To be sure, there are several cases in which biologists do not know enough about the fundamental constituents of the cell to be able to hypothesize or demonstrate their gradual evolution. But this is rather an argument from ignorance, not positive evidence of irreducible complexity. William Paley advanced exactly the same argument to claim that it is impossible to explain the appearance of the eye by natural means. Yet, today biologists know of several examples of intermediate forms of the eye, and there is evidence that this structure evolved several times independently during the history of life on Earth (Gehring and Ikeo 1999). The answer to the classical creationist question, "What good is half an eye?" is "Much better than no eye at all"! However, Behe does have a point concerning irreducible complexity. It is true that some structures simply cannot be explained by slow and cumulative processes of natural selection. From his mousetrap to Paley's watch to the Brooklyn Bridge, irreducible complexity is indeed associated with intelligent design. The problem for ID theory is that there is no evidence so far of irreducible complexity in living organisms. The Complexity-Specification Criterion William Dembski uses an approach similar to Behe to back up creationist claims, in that he also wants to demonstrate that intelligent design is necessary to explain the complexity of nature. His proposal, however, is both more general and more deeply flawed. In his book The Design Inference (Dembski 1998a) he claims that there are three essential types of phenomena in nature: "regular," random, and designed (which he assumes to be intelligent). A regular phenomenon would be a simple repetition explainable by the fundamental laws of physics, for example the rotation of Earth around the Sun. Random phenomena are exemplified by the tossing of a coin. Design enters any time that two criteria are satisfied: complexity and specification (Dembski 1998b). There are several problems with this neat scenario. First of all, leaving aside design for a moment, the remaining choices are not limited to regularity and randomness. Chaos and complexity theory have established the existence of self-organizing phenomena (Kauffman 1993; Shanks and Joplin 1999), situations in which order spontaneously appears as an emergent property of complex interactions among the parts of a system. And this class of phenomena, far from being only a figment of mathematical imagination as Behe maintains, are real. For example, certain meteorological phenomena such as tornados are neither regular nor random but are the result of self-organizing processes. But let us go back to complexity-specification and take a closer look at these two fundamental criteria, allegedly capable of establishing intelligent agency in nature. Following one of Dembski's examples, if SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers received a very short signal that may be interpreted as encoding the first three prime numbers, they would probably not rush to publish their findings. This is because even though such signal could be construed as due to some kind of intelligence, it is so short that its occurrence can just as easily be explained by chance. Given the choice, a sensible scientist would follow Ockham's razor and conclude that the signal does not constitute enough evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence. However, also according to Dembski, if the signal were long enough to encode all the prime numbers between 2 and 101, the SETI people would open the champagne and celebrate all night. Why? Because such signal would be both too complex to be explained by chance and would be specifiable, meaning that it is not just a random sequence of numbers, it is an intelligible message. The specification criterion needs to be added because complexity by itself is a necessary but not sufficient condition for design (Roche 2001). To see this, imagine that the SETI staff receives a long but random sequence of signals. That sequence would be very complex, meaning that it would take a lot of information to actually archive or repeat the sequence (you have to know where all the 0s and 1s are), but it would not be specifiable because the sequence would be meaningless. Dembski is absolutely correct that plenty of human activities, such as SETI, investigations into plagiarism, or encryption, depend on the ability to detect intelligent agency. Where he is wrong is in assuming only one kind of design. For him design equals intelligence and, even though he admitted that such an intelligence may be an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, his preference is for a god, possibly of the Christian variety. The problem is that natural selection, a natural process, also fulfills the complexity-specification criterion, thereby demonstrating that it is possible to have unintelligent design in nature. Living organisms are indeed complex. They are also specifiable, meaning that they are not random assemblages of organic compounds, but are clearly formed in a way that enhances their chances of surviving and reproducing in a changing and complex environment. What, then, distinguishes organisms from the Brooklyn Bridge? Both meet Dembski's complexity-specification criterion, but only the bridge is irreducibly complex. This has important implications for design. In response to some of his critics, Dembski (2000) claimed that intelligent design does not mean optimal design. The criticism of suboptimal design has often been advanced by evolutionists who ask why God would do such a sloppy job with creation that even a mere human engineer can easily determine where the flaws are. For example, why is it that human beings have hemorrhoids, varicose veins, backaches, and foot aches? If you assume that we were "intelligent-ly" designed, the answer must be that the designer was rather incompetent-something that would hardly please a creationist. Instead, evolutionary theory has a single answer to all these questions: humans evolved bipedalism (walking with an erect posture) only very recently, and natural selection has not yet fully adapted our body to the new condition (Olshansky et al. 2001). Our closest primate relatives, chimps, gorillas, and the like, are better adapted to their way of life, and therefore are less "imperfect" than ourselves! Dembski is of course correct in saying that intelligent design does not mean optimal design. As much as the Brooklyn Bridge is a marvel of engineering, it is not perfect, meaning that it had to be constructed within the constraints and limitations of the available materials and technology, and it still is subject to natural laws and decay. The bridge's vulnerability to high winds and earthquakes, and its inadequacy to bear a volume of traffic for which it was not built can be seen as similar to the back pain caused by our recent evolutionary history. However, the imperfection of living organisms, already pointed out by Darwin, does do away with the idea that they were created by an omnipotent and omnibenevolent creator, who surely would not be limited by laws of physics that He Himself made up from scratch. The Four Fundamental Types of Design and How to Recognize Them Given these considerations, I would like to propose a system that includes both Behe's and Dembski's suggestions, while at the same time showing why they are both wrong in concluding that we have evidence for intelligent design in the universe. Figure 1 summarizes my proposal. Essentially, I think there are four possible kinds of design in nature which, together with Dembski's categories of "regular" and random phenomena, and the addition of chaotic and self-organizing phenomena, truly exhaust all possibilities known to us. Science recognizes regular, random, and self-organizing phenomena, as well as the first two types of design described in figure 1. The other two types of design are possible in principle, but I contend that there is neither empirical evidence nor logical reason to believe that they actually occur. The first kind of design is non-intelligent-natural, and it is exemplified by natural selection within Earth's biosphere (and possibly elsewhere in the universe). The results of this design, such as all living organisms on Earth, are not irreducibly complex, meaning that they can be produced by incremental, continuous (though not necessarily gradual) changes over time. These objects can be clearly attributed to natural processes also because of two other reasons: they are never optimal (in an engineering sense) and they are clearly the result of historical processes. For example, they are full of junk, nonutilized or underutilized parts, and they resemble similar objects occurring simultaneously or previously in time (see, for example, the fossil record). Notice that some scientists and philosophers of science feel uncomfortable in considering this "design" because they equate the term with intelligence. But I do not see any reason to embrace such limitation. If something is shaped over time-by whatever means-such that it fulfills a certain function, then it is designed and the question is simply of how such design happened to materialize. The teeth of a tiger are clearly designed to efficiently cut into the flesh of its prey and therefore to promote survival and reproduction of tigers bearing such teeth. The second type of design is intelligent-natural. These artifacts are usually irreducibly complex, such as a watch designed by a human. They are also not optimal, meaning that they clearly compromise between solutions to different problems (trade-offs) and they are subject to the constraints of physical laws, available materials, expertise of the designer, etc. Humans may not be the only ones to generate these objects, as the artifacts of any extraterrestrial civilization would fall into the same broad category. The third kind of design, which is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish from the second, is what I term intelligent-supernatural-sloppy. Objects created in this way are essentially indistinguishable from human or ET artifacts, except that they would be the result of what the Greeks called a Demiurge, a minor god with limited powers. Alternatively, they could be due to an evil omnipotent god that just amuses himself with suboptimal products. The reason intelligent-supernatural-sloppy design is not distinguishable from some instances (but by all means not all) of intelligent-natural design is Arthur C. Clarke's famous third law: from the point of view of a technologically less advanced civilization, the technology of a very advanced civilization is essentially indistinguishable from magic (such as the monolith in his 2001: A Space Odyssey). I would be very interested if someone could suggest a way around Clarke's law. Finally, we have intelligent-supernatural-perfect design, which is the result of the activity of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. These artifacts would be both irreducibly complex and optimal. They would not be constrained by either trade-offs or physical laws (after all, God created the laws themselves). While this is the kind of god many Christian fundamentalists believe in (though some do away with the omnibenevolent part), it's quite clear from the existence of human evil as well as of natural catastrophes and diseases, that such god does not exist. Dembski recognizes this difficulty and, as I pointed out above, admits that his intelligent design could even be due to a very advanced extraterrestrial civilization, and not to a supernatural entity at all (Dembski 2000). Conclusions In summary, it seems to me that the major arguments of Intelligent Design theorists are neither new nor compelling: It is simply not true that science does not address all Aristotelian causes, whenever design needs to be explained; While irreducible complexity is indeed a valid criterion to distinguish between intelligent and non-intelligent design, these are not the only two possibilities, and living organisms are not irreducibly complex (e.g., see Shanks and Joplin 1999); The complexity-specification criterion is actually met by natural selection, and cannot therefore provide a way to distinguish intelligent from non-intelligent design; If supernatural design exists at all (but where is the evidence or compelling logic?), this is certainly not of the kind that most religionists would likely subscribe to, and it is indistinguishable from the technology of a very advanced civilization. Therefore, Behe's, Dembski's, and other creationists' (e.g., Johnson 1997) claims that science should be opened to supernatural explanations and that these should be allowed in academic as well as public school curricula are unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of both design in nature and of what the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution (Mayr and Provine 1980) is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFresh Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Feb 2 2005, 10:40 AM']Interesting read. [right][post="42153"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Not really. Frankly, I'm more than a little irritated with what I perceive to be the public concept of evolutionary theory. For starters, there are theories and there are [i]Theories.[/i] (Note the capitalization.) I could say that I think Joan Rivers is a robot from the future who does not like what Jennifer Tilly is wearing and call that my "Joan Rivers theory." The Theory of evolution is a whole different ball of wax, though. [u]Evolution is a scientific Theory.[/u] This means that it has passed rigorous scientific testing and observation and has achieved a level of veracity not afforded postulates and hypotheses. Another example of a scientific Theory would be Einstein's Theory of Gravitation or the Pythagorean Theorem. Creationists and IDer's (there's very little distinction) will say "Evolution is only a theory." and aren't being sincere about what constitutes a theory. Also, they are even more dishonest by claiming that the beliefs of Creationism or Intelligent Design are scientific theories. They are NOT. To be a scientific theory, it must be falsifiable, both these concepts clearly are not falsifiable because they are simply faiths and beliefs. Creationists are proponents and propagators of a [b]religion.[/b] They are by they're very nature anti-science because their worldviews eschew a philosophy of observation and logic for one based on blind faith. [b]That biological evolution occurs[/b] (and did occur to result in the current diversity of biological species) [b]is a scientific [u]fact.[/u][/b] The method of evolution is still a highly researched and experimented subject and is what comprises our current Theory of Evolution. Evolution of the species is a fact, the method in which it occurs is still being discovered. We know a great deal already, but we still don't have the whole picture. [color="green"]There is an enormous amount of data, experimentation, prediction, and observation to support the Theory of Evolution and more is being gathered everyday. [/color] [quote name='"Jason"']We need to discriminate between micro-evolution (adjustments within a species to facilitate propagation) and macro-evolution (one species becoming another). I believe in micro. I have serious problems with macro (the lack of evidence). Are you talking about micro? (it sounds like it).[/quote] There is no difference between these things, they are merely buzzwords created to serve an ignorant populace. Speciation (what Jason calls macro-evolution) is an observed fact. [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"]We have an excellent resource in the fossil record to show this. [/url] Similarly, the whole "I don't think we evolved from monkeys." line is silly because no one is claiming we evolved from monkeys. [i]Human beings and monkeys share a common ancestor.[/i] All this back-and-forth about "where did we come from" is only the result of years of cultural indoctrination - we'll just label it "relgion" for short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 i'm not going to argue about your points on the theory of evolution, you are right it has been highly scrutinized and deserves the title of scientific theory, but it however should not be viewed as a scientific fact in my book (which is the way i believe u have described it) hence the title "theory" as for using einstein's theory of gravitation and the pythagorean theorem as proof for the validity of evolution, i would have to completely disagree, with those kinds of points i could easily argue the opposite and offer up recently unproven theories to back my claim additionally, just b/c those 2 examples retain the word "theory" in their titles, does not mean that they should be used as valid counter points at one time they were both theories (all facts were once theories), now they are regarded as scientific facts, the problem is the fine line between the two where exactly is the cutoff between a highly proven scientific theory, and a scientific fact? should i call a theory a fact b/c i can not personally disprove it? these points do not add any further evidence towards the proof of the theory of evolution, evolution is a growing theory and some people have recently begun viewing it as a fact, the problem is that it is not just because something is called a scientific theory does not mean that it should be placed on a pedestal and be removed from all scrutiny, it just means it can be tested scientifically and uses scientific evidence to prove itself, and without supporting evidence your joan rivers theory is just an idea, not a theory, it doesn't deserve the title theory even with a lower case t if it does not offer at least some valid evidence, it is just a possibility we can not scientifically disprove evolution, but we can not solidify the theory of evolution either, there have been plenty of theories that were once thought of as true, even those viewed as a scientific fact, that have been recently proven to be completely false, granted, todays scientific evidence is much stronger than in the past it however is not without its own flaws with all of that said the theory is most likely correct, but it is not without flaws, and with the lack of major conflicting evidence it is growing closer and closer to fact every day, but viewing it as a completely proven scientific fact, come on evolution does happen, but on what scale micro - most likely macro - likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFresh Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 [b]Nati Ice wrote:[/b] [color="red"] i'm not going to argue about your points on the theory of evolution, you are right it has been highly scrutinized and deserves the title of scientific theory, but it however should not be viewed as a scientific fact in my book (which is the way i believe u have described it) hence the title "theory"[/color] [color="blue"]Evolution is a fact. I explained quite clearly why it is considered so. Please read the fifth paragraph of my post. Evolution meets the criteria to be considered "fact" by the scientific community. For further explanation, please consult this link: [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html[/url][/color] [color="red"]as for using einstein's theory of gravitation and the pythagorean theorem as proof for the validity of evolution, i would have to completely disagree, with those kinds of points i could easily argue the opposite and offer up recently unproven theories to back my claim[/color] [color="blue"]I did not use those examples as "proof." It would do you well to learn something about the scientific method and the terminology used. I was giving examples of factual concepts called theories. I cannot understand why you would use the odd syntax I read from you unless you are unfamiliar with scientific terms.[/color] [color="red"]additionally, just b/c those 2 examples retain the word "theory" in their titles, does not mean that they should be used as valid counter points[/color] [color="blue"]I have no idea what you mean. A "counterpoint" would entail a refutation, which I clearly did not intend. I was merely defining the concept of a scientific theory for the layman.[/color] [color="red"]at one time they were both theories (all facts were once theories), now they are regarded as scientific facts, the problem is the fine line between the two[/color] [color="blue"]You are confusing the scientific method. It's a fact that I'm wearing purple boxers right now. "BigFresh is wearing purple boxers right now" was never a theory.[/color] [color="red"]where exactly is the cutoff between a highly proven scientific theory, and a scientific fact? should i call a theory a fact b/c i can not personally disprove it?[/color] [color="blue"]Theories have achieved said moniker by passing the rigorous testing an prediction given them. It is a title of reference that I suggest you look up in a dictionary. To clarify, were you to actually research it you would find that Evolutionary Theory has at [i]least[/i] as much evidence supporting it than Einstein's Gravitational Theory. In truth, most scientists would say it has far more.[/color] [color="red"]these points do not add any further evidence towards the proof of the theory of evolution, evolution is a growing theory and some people have recently begun viewing it as a fact, the problem is that it is not[/color] [color="blue"]You are very confused about the nature of modern scientific knowledge. By these statements I can deduce that you didn't get the gist of my previous post.[/color] [color="red"]just because something is called a scientific theory does not mean that it should be placed on a pedestal and be removed from all scrutiny, it just means it can be tested scientifically and uses scientific evidence to prove itself, and without supporting evidence your joan rivers theory is just an idea, not a theory, it doesn't deserve the title theory even with a lower case t if it does not offer at least some valid evidence, it is just a possibility[/color] [color="blue"]You are very confused. The reason a Theory achieves that nomenclature in the first place is BECAUSE it has stood up to intense scrutiny, and also that it CONTINUES to be under intense scrutiny. The Theory of Evolution has retained its veracity because it continues to hold up to criticism and prediction and discovery. I never once claimed it was axiomatic. At any time, something new could come along that alters the Theory - this is HOW SCIENCE WORKS. I highly recommend you learn about the scientific method it will completely change your odd impressions.[/color] [color="red"]we can not scientifically disprove evolution,[/color] [color="blue"]YES WE CAN. If the Theory is wrong, then we CAN disprove it because it is a scientific theory. [b]The fact that this has not been done is part of the reason we call it a "Theory."[/b][/color] [color="red"] but we can not solidify the theory of evolution either, there have been plenty of theories that were once thought of as true, even those viewed as a scientific fact, that have been recently proven to be completely false, granted, todays scientific evidence is much stronger than in the past it however is not without its own flaws[/color] [color="blue"]You are miseducated on what science is and how it works. Science is not the study of absolutes. It is a continuing process that is directed toward finding the [u]best possible explanation.[/u] Links: [url="http://www.ldolphin.org/SciMeth2.html"]http://www.ldolphin.org/SciMeth2.html[/url] [url="http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plants_Human/scimeth.html"]http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/Plants_Human/scimeth.html[/url] [url="http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html"]http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs.../AppendixE.html[/url][/color] [color="red"]with all of that said the theory is most likely correct, but it is not without flaws, and with the lack of major conflicting evidence it is growing closer and closer to fact every day, but viewing it as a completely proven scientific fact, come on evolution does happen, but on what scale micro - most likely macro - likely[/color] [color="blue"]I find it difficult to address this paragraph because it seems to me as though you are confusing your own beliefs with what is scientifically evidenced. There is no doubt about the occurence of evolution as a natural process whether on the small or large scale. The WAY it happened is what comprises the theory. You are using the micro/macro catchwords that no biologist or anthropologist gives a damn about. Those words are used by people trying to promulgate their religious beliefs, not by anyone in the actual field. To an actual biologist, saying "We're not so sure about evolution occuring." is akin to telling a geologist "We're not so sure about that plate techtonic theory." Oh yeah, and that "Earth is round" thing? We're still up in the air about that, too. [/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 well dipshit, since you obviously have nothing better to do than write complete rebuttals to a quick post concerning a thread that was initially the subject of a recommended good read, ill humor you this is a bengals message board, didnt know if you forgot, so chill out with all of your holier-than-thou type of tone give me some time and ill get back with u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Biggie Fresh- The funniest thing of all is that while what you say is true, we have no idea what provides the "spark" for life to start it's evolutionary process, ie, what compelled the first single-celled organism to reproduce, what made the amphibious become halfway land-dweller, etc. It is the same way with star formation. We know the spectral compositions, we know whether it's spectrum is blue or red-shifted, we can calculate how far away it is, it's luminosity, we can identify potential areas of cosmic dust that are conducive to the formation of proto-stars...and yet, we are not really sure what compells the morass of atoms, minerals and dust to begin gravitiational collapse to trigger hydrogen fusion. It is a mystery. I am a neo-evolutionist. To me, star formation enhances my faith in a Greater Being, call it God or whatever you like. Faith in God is the antithesis of empirical data, which is why science eschews His/Her/It's existence, because it cannot either prove nor disprove it, so science ignores it. It is called faith, and I certainly am no religious nut and have deep respect for the advances science has perpetuated upon humankind, and continues to do so. But I hold an intrinsic belief (call it faith, if you must) that we were not meant to figure out everything about ourselves and our surroundings in the ultimate sense. While I concede to the extremely rapid development of technology within the last 100 years or so, traveling to a distant star that might have other life-forms is such a daunting possibility that I just don't see us cracking that nut anytime soon, or ever, since we'll probably kill ourselves before something that magnificent ever happens. And who is to say that the Laws Of Physics as we know them even apply to unimaginably distant places in our universe? We are a mote of dust on the ass of the milky Way, let alone the Universe. We have sent unmanned robots to Mars...YAY! We are so far from interstellar travel it isn't even worth mentioning...we don't even understand our own solar system fully yet! OK, I'm rambling, but I believe my point was made. Science is in the business of eliminating uncertainties, and there is no laboratory experiment on Earth that can possibly cover every base. So the argument remains undecided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 [img]http://blog.ceejayoz.com/archives/images/churchsign.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 Evolution is not a theory. Although, the "Theory of Evolution," is, obviously. [color="blue"][QUOTE]Evolution is a fact. I explained quite clearly why it is considered so. Please read the fifth paragraph of my post. Evolution meets the criteria to be considered "fact" by the scientific community. For further explanation, please consult this link: [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html[/url][/QUOTE][/color] ok..., this is you 5th paragraph [color="blue"][QUOTE]That biological evolution occurs (and did occur to result in the current diversity of biological species) is a scientific fact. The method of evolution is still a highly researched and experimented subject and is what comprises our current Theory of Evolution. Evolution of the species is a fact, the method in which it occurs is still being discovered. We know a great deal already, but we still don't have the whole picture.[/QUOTE][/color] first of all, read closely then critique me closely, i never once said that evolution did not occur, i said this [color="red"][QUOTE]i'm not going to argue about your points on the theory of evolution, you are right it has been highly scrutinized and deserves the title of scientific theory, but it however should not be viewed as a scientific fact in my book (which is the way i believe u have described it) hence the title "theory"[/QUOTE][/color] sounds to me as if i never disputed evolution happening, i said the [u]theory of evolution[/u] is not fact, you also seem to agree [color="blue"][QUOTE]The method of evolution is still a highly researched and experimented subject and is what comprises our current Theory of Evolution. Evolution of the species is a fact, [u]the method in which it occurs is still being discovered. We know a great deal already, but we still don't have the whole [/u]picture..[/QUOTE][/color] evolution did most likely occur, like i already said here [color="red"][QUOTE]with all of that said the theory is most likely correct, but it is not without flaws[/QUOTE][/color] and here [color="red"][QUOTE]evolution does happen, but on what scale[/QUOTE][/color] and as for that article you recommended me checking out, i looked at it, i'm not gonna lie, i didn't read it all, b/c i stopped reading once i noticed this little bit of info, the article was published in january of 1993 (also the website appears to be just slightly biased, haha) hmm, you think a little bit of information has been discovered since then? this article tells me nothing outside of what i have already said, the theory of evolution is just a theory, not a fact it claims that evolution did happen, but says that how it happened (theory of evolution) is still widely unknown moving on....... i said this [color="red"][QUOTE]as for using einstein's theory of gravitation and the pythagorean theorem as proof for the validity of evolution, i would have to completely disagree, with those kinds of points i could easily argue the opposite and offer up recently unproven theories to back my claim[/QUOTE][/color] you said this [color="blue"][QUOTE]I did not use those examples as "proof." It would do you well to learn something about the scientific method and the terminology used. I was giving examples of factual concepts called theories. I cannot understand why you would use the odd syntax I read from you unless you are unfamiliar with scientific terms.[/QUOTE][/color] you have got to be kidding me, this is the lamest attempt at talking shit i have ever seen, but thanks for the recommendation i will be sure to look into this new "scientific method" thing i have been hearing so much about anyways, what you did was put this theory of evolution into the same category as the other 2 theories, in doing so you have also subliminally hinted that the validity of the evolution theory should be put on the same level (you will dispute this, but frankly i don't give a shit) next.... i said this [color="red"][QUOTE]additionally, just b/c those 2 examples retain the word "theory" in their titles, does not mean that they should be used as valid counter points[/QUOTE][/color] i have no idea why i added the word "counter" is in front of point, it was just an editing mistake, chill out continuing on...... you said this [color="blue"][QUOTE]To clarify, were you to actually research it you would find that Evolutionary Theory has at least as much evidence supporting it than Einstein's Gravitational Theory. In truth, most scientists would say it has far more. [/QUOTE][/color] i agree completely although this is not saying much considering the [u]relative[/u] lack of evidence within the gravitational theory and again.... i said this [color="red"][QUOTE]these points do not add any further evidence towards the proof of the theory of evolution, evolution is a growing theory and some people have recently begun viewing it as a fact, the problem is that it is not[/QUOTE][/color] you said this [color="blue"][QUOTE]You are very confused about the nature of modern scientific knowledge. By these statements I can deduce that you didn't get the gist of my previous post.[/QUOTE][/color] wrong, i got it, i just don't agree with all of your factual proof i don't agree with you classifying the theory of evolution along with the other 2, nor do i agree with you wanting to assume that i said that the theory of evolution is a fact that statement was definitely taken out of context anyways... my partial statement [color="red"][QUOTE]just because something is called a scientific theory does not mean that it should be placed on a pedestal and be removed from all scrutiny[/QUOTE][/color] this was referring to you claiming this theory as a fact your partial response [color="blue"][QUOTE]You are very confused. The reason a Theory achieves that nomenclature in the first place is BECAUSE it has stood up to intense scrutiny, and also that it CONTINUES to be under intense scrutiny. The Theory of Evolution has retained its veracity because it continues to hold up to criticism and prediction and discovery. I never once claimed it was axiomatic. [/QUOTE][/color] and i never once said that it hadn't previously been tested, but you seem to disagree with anyone that is willing to criticize next... i said [color="red"][QUOTE][u]we can not scientifically disprove evolution[/u],[/QUOTE][/color] you said [color="blue"][QUOTE][u]YES WE CAN.[/u] If the Theory is wrong, then we CAN disprove it because it is a scientific theory. [u]The fact that this has not been done is part of the reason we call it a "Theory."[/[/u]QUOTE][/color] so let me get this straight, i never said evolution was not a fact, actually i said that in all likelyhood it was correct, the exact quotes are up top, i disputed the theory of evolution not evolution itself so u claim evolution is a fact and site one lame ass resource (im not doubting there are more out there), then you tell me we can disprove evolution????? why would you call evolution a theory if you claim that it is a fact????? next... i said this [color="red"][QUOTE][u]but we can not solidify the theory of evolution either[/u], there have been plenty of theories that were once thought of as true, even those viewed as a scientific fact, that have been recently proven to be completely false, granted, todays scientific evidence is much stronger than in the past it however is not without its own flaws[/QUOTE][/color] and u told me to go look up how science works? i once again stated the theory of evolution was just that, a theory, yet you tell me... [color="blue"] [QUOTE]Science is not the study of absolutes. It is a continuing process that is directed toward finding the best possible explanation[/QUOTE][/color] so within this statement what is it exactly that you are trying to tell me, that facts do not exist????, because that is what i am hearing if that is what i think you are saying then i may agree with you, holy shit how many people view facts is not exactly the scientific description of the word, hence the reason i have never once claimed evolution as a layman's "fact" also, i never said anything about facts, but if you are assuming that i am looking for absolute proof then you are mistaken and finally... i said this [color="red"][QUOTE]with all of that said the theory is most likely correct, but it is not without flaws, and with the lack of major conflicting evidence it is growing closer and closer to fact every day, but viewing it as a completely proven scientific fact, come on evolution does happen, but on what scale micro - most likely macro - likely[/QUOTE][/color] you said this [color="blue"][QUOTE]You are using the micro/macro catchwords that no biologist or anthropologist gives a damn about. [u]Those words are used by people trying to promulgate their religious beliefs, not by anyone in the actual field.[/u] To an actual biologist, saying "We're not so sure about evolution occuring." is akin to telling a geologist "We're not so sure about that plate techtonic theory." Oh yeah, and that "Earth is round" thing? We're still up in the air about that, too. [/QUOTE][/color] fist off your quotes do not even relate to what i said, once again i never claimed evolution is wrong, i said the theory of evolution is unproven but probably correct since you like to degrade everyone on their use of the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution i would like to point out that i do know several biologists and anthropologists and not all of them agree with your evolution fact, and many of them would recognize, and maybe, just maybe *gasp* would even mention it during a lecture oh, and since you believe that nobody in the actual field would use these terms i offer u this "good read," this is an article taken from the same site u cited as proof to your belief in evolution being regarded as a "fact," oh, and don't worry, [u]they mention both terms in the first paragraph[/u] [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/[/url] i am not a scientist nor am i a science major, i do however, possess a limited amount of information on the subject matter, i also have many resources to consult, but frankly i have better things to do with my time i'm sure u will find several small flaws and editing mistakes within this post, but unlike u i couldn't care less, i'm goin to bed now so ill talk to u later MR. HOLIER-THAN-THOU [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img] oh, before i go, here is a little recommendation that might help you out in life, don't talk down to people to make yourself seem superior and i'm not claiming to be a genius but don't assume that everyone around you is a complete imbecile either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFresh Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 [color="red"] well dipshit, since you obviously have nothing better to do than write complete rebuttals to a quick post concerning a thread that was initially the subject of a recommended good read, ill humor you[/color] If writing rebuttals is such a waste of time and pointing out that someone did so is tantamount to insult, why did you write one yourself? [color="red"]this is a bengals message board, didnt know if you forgot, so chill out with all of your holier-than-thou type of tone[/color] This is the General Discussion board, also. Implying, I'd say, a "discussion" of "general" topics. Having more knowledge than you about a particular subject and being willing to dispense it hardly qualifies me for "holier-than-thou." In fact, I'd like to opine that you suggesting you're more aware of the nature of extant biology than the majority of the world's scientists is rather holier-than-thou. Nati Ice, you're getting pissed-off for no reason. It seems to me as though you simply constructed your own ideas concerning evolution without being thoroughly educated on the subject. If you're wondering why I cite TalkOrigins.org so often its because they are the internets leading authority concerning the Evolution/Creationism debate and have a bevy of scientists on board with essays and data. I could find you other sources that are more comprehensive, but I doubt I'd find the full content on the internet for free. This is why I linked to TalkOrigins. As for you suggesting TO is biased, I'm not sure what you mean. They most certainly ARE biased toward empirical scientific data. This is the only logical position one could honestly take. Furthermore, you are splitting hairs and accusing me of semantic device concerning my definition of evolution and Evolutionary Theory. [b]Evolutionary Theory comprises all the known, incorporated [u]facts[/u] concerning the diversity of biological species.[/b] It is factual because all the data is scientifically verified and empirically observed and peer-reviewed. Evolutionary Theory is a fact because it is comprised of facts that agree with one another and have held up to scrutiny. It IS a fact. Where you seem to wedge the crowbar is into the wee gaps we have where our knowledge is incomplete. Concerning my statement that the ToE is disprovable, you misunderstood me. I was describing the nature of all scientific Theories in that they must be [u]falsifiable.[/u] That is, non-axiomatic. Otherwise we would not be able to continually test their veracity because we would assume [i]a priori[/i] that they were without variable - which would not be good science. This is one of the many reasons why certain things called "theories" - like Intelligent Design - are non-scientific. The are not falsifiable because they have an unproven-yet-axiomatic basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFresh Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 [b]Bunghole wrote[/b] [color="green"]Biggie Fresh- The funniest thing of all is that while what you say is true, we have no idea what provides the "spark" for life to start it's evolutionary process, ie, what compelled the first single-celled organism to reproduce, what made the amphibious become halfway land-dweller, etc.[/color] Believe it or not, we've got a pretty good picture of all of these things. The Miller/Urey experiments (and subsequent, more complex ones) went a long way to show just how organic, replicatory compounds can arise from inorganic material in the proper conditions - [i]ie[/i] an anaerobic environment like that on Earth nearly 4 billion years ago. We've learned that life, in its simplest sense, is really just chemistry. and reproduction is based on chemical necessity. In fact, some have likened the reproduction of complex organisms to a simple, preprogrammed propinsity to continue the sequence. We have an interesting fossil and geologic (sedimentary) record that explains what environmental conditions necessitate a population's drastic adaptation; the waterborne to become the amphibious and landborne, and the other way around. (cetaceans, etc.) [color="green"]It is the same way with star formation. We know the spectral compositions, we know whether it's spectrum is blue or red-shifted, we can calculate how far away it is, it's luminosity, we can identify potential areas of cosmic dust that are conducive to the formation of proto-stars...and yet, we are not really sure what compells the morass of atoms, minerals and dust to begin gravitiational collapse to trigger hydrogen fusion.[/color] We have also observed stars being born in the great forges of our galaxy. We have excellent computer simulations that can illustrate how subatomic particles congeal to form stars - as well as a good picture of how and at what point a mass of particles becomes so dense and massive that its insides begin fusing atoms together or - if not enough mass is present - stays cool and dormant as a brown dwarf. [color="green"]I am a neo-evolutionist. To me, star formation enhances my faith in a Greater Being, call it God or whatever you like.[/color] Could you tell me what attributes you give the Greater Being. Also, why does star formation enhance your faith in the GB? [color="green"]Faith in God is the antithesis of empirical data, which is why science eschews His/Her/It's existence, because it cannot either prove nor disprove it, so science ignores it.[/color] I've never thought of science as ignoring God. In a sense, though, I see what you mean. Since science has no need of God in the first place - and there is no reason to suggest its existence, you could say it goes beyond even ignoring. Then again, since almost everyone is aware of the existence of God-belief... weird. I never thought of it like that at all. [color="green"]It is called faith, and I certainly am no religious nut and have deep respect for the advances science has perpetuated upon humankind, and continues to do so. But I hold an intrinsic belief (call it faith, if you must) that we were not meant to figure out everything about ourselves and our surroundings in the ultimate sense.[/color] How did you arrive at this conclusion? What about people like me who don't believe this way - where do we fit in to the picture? Are there consequences for the absence of this belief? [color="green"]While I concede to the extremely rapid development of technology within the last 100 years or so, traveling to a distant star that might have other life-forms is such a daunting possibility that I just don't see us cracking that nut anytime soon, or ever, since we'll probably kill ourselves before something that magnificent ever happens.[/color] A somewhat saddening and all-too-realistic view. I wonder, if we weren't so damn busy killing ourselves, maybe we WOULD be able to develop the technology to get out there. [color="green"]And who is to say that the Laws Of Physics as we know them even apply to unimaginably distant places in our universe?[/color] We just can't know right now... and you make a very interesting point. [color="green"]We are a mote of dust on the ass of the milky Way, let alone the Universe. We have sent unmanned robots to Mars...YAY! We are so far from interstellar travel it isn't even worth mentioning...we don't even understand our own solar system fully yet! OK, I'm rambling, but I believe my point was made. Science is in the business of eliminating uncertainties, and there is no laboratory experiment on Earth that can possibly cover every base. So the argument remains undecided.[/color] Great post, Bunghole! Maybe we should start a cosmology/astronomy/physics post. This stuff is fun to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 To answer your first question, I never wrote out a “complete response†such as the one I suggested you wrote. I typed out a 2-minute blurb in response to your original post. If you were expecting a formal essay to critique, you were sadly mistaken. This is not English class and you are not my professor. Additionally, if you care to read my initial reply again, you will notice that I never agreed or disagreed with you. My initial reply was intended to spark debate, and to have you enlighten me to say the least. The tone in which you responded, a line for line point/ counter point, including some of which was what many people would perceive as "putdowns," was not appreciated and was the cause for my attitude change. Many of your counter arguments were not even valid. Hence the reason I wrote my last response. The point I was trying to get across in my following post was that I doubt too many people care to read the long responses that we have now begun to author. Exactly where was I "suggesting you're more aware of the nature of extant biology than the majority of the world's scientists?" I never made that suggestion nor did I ever critique any scientific knowledge, if you are referring to me not believing whole-heartedly in the evolution theory then you are quite wrong. I can believe it is valid or I can argue against it, the point is that I am not going to sit here and write a dissertation about the complete validity of all of its evidence or claims. As far as “TO†is concerned, I said that I find it to be lacking in several fields, including its examination of the possibility of creation, which is the reason I believe it is biased. Do not tell me, “They most certainly ARE biased toward empirical scientific data. This is the only logical position one could honestly take,†excuse me but that is ridiculous. I would certainly hope that a scientific website would use scientific data and evidence from an empirical study, to support its claims. On a separate note, the “ToE†is factual, that is something I can agree with, but however, it is not fact. It uses much scientific evidence to support its claims, but it lacks a great deal in overall believability. You state, “Where you seem to wedge the crowbar is into the wee gaps we have where our knowledge is incomplete,†to that I concur. For that is my overall point. Without complete and absolute truth we cannot be positive about anything. I understand that you believe science is based upon giving the best solution to the problem, but for me our creation is a case that I believe we should all make an exception. I am not suggesting that intelligent design is what lies in between these minute gaps, and I am not suggesting a “God of the Gaps,†type approach is correct either. I just believe that until these gaps are solved we should stray away from the absolute and final claim of “truth†from the evolution theory If you would care to read the third to last paragraph, along with several other bits of my responses, you would notice that I have never once claimed to be an expert in the field. I never suggested that the reason for me calling you “holier-than-thou†was due to your vast knowledge of the subject matter either. There is a simple critique, and then there is the way in which you have chosen to express your differences in opinion. Yes, I said opinion, as I have mentioned before science is not without its own flaws, just like you and I are not without our own mistakes and errors. Science should be taken only so far. It has limits just like every other field of study, and just because we can make claims and support them through science does not mean that those are the only correct answers or the only feasible reasons for the given results. If I disagree with you do not make lame attempts suggesting I should consult a basic scientific website concerning the proper ways to conduct a scientific study. It was little jabs like that, that have begun to tick me off. Science is great. It proves a lot and helps us out with everyday life. It however is not everything. I will go ahead and ask that you take a step back when you get the chance to observe what cannot be proven by the sciences alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nati Ice Posted February 3, 2005 Report Share Posted February 3, 2005 i agree for the most part with your response to bung concerning the spark of life, b/c my memory rivals that of a 7 year old with a.d.d. i cannot say with all certainty but it seems to me that some additional info supporting evolution from nothing was the discovery of amino acids? on several comets or asteroids it is a key to life and an example of early life forms, i really wish i could remember more to offer a better explanation, basically whatever it was wherever they found it, it proved that basic forms of life could develop from nothing also if we were to go to a distant star, one that would actually be considered "close" by many astrologists, we would be gone for such a vast amount of time that it would most likely not even be worth going in the first place, we cannot travel at lightspeed so it would defiantly take waaaay to long to imagine, it is not a limit on technology but on our own survival, we would die, at those rates space itself expands and contracts greatly as i mentioned before many civilizations have attributed chance to god or another higher power, if i cant explain it then who could argue against me if i claimed god, and i'm not trying to be sacrilegious, with this info science could, reluctantly, actually include the work of god, but in reality it would just be a flux that we couldn't explain, but hey who knows also it still amazes me to know that we may actually know more about the universe than we know about the bottom of the sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.