Note: PZ Myers is making a list of blogs posted about this very topic — Bush and Intelligent Design — on his excellent blog Pharyngula. They make interesting reading.
Note #2: This blog entry was featured in the 14th Skeptic’s Circle at Be Lambic or Be Green.
The basic problem with Intelligent Design (ID) is that it’s wrong.
The problem is, that’s not the worst problem. It’s not just wrong, but really wrong, spectacularly wrong. And worst of all, it’s actively wrong.
Here’s the deal. Proponents of ID are devoted to convincing you that evolution is wrong, that life is too complex to have arisen naturally, and that there must have been some higher intelligence– they’re oh-so-coy about calling it God — that intervened somehow.
The problem is, their evidence is crap.
One of their biggest claims is that the eye cannot have evolved naturally, because it is too complex. This is wrong. As posted at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE):
… this argument is over 200 years old; it has been thoroughly and consistently discredited by many thousands of scientific observations and experiments and, on this basis, is firmly rejected by scientists. “Irreducible complexity” is a term employed by Behe to argue that evolutionary processes cannot account for at least some of the observed complexity in living things. However, [ID proponent Michael] Behe’s insistence that complex structures must always retain the same function and must be built step-by-step overlooks many well-known evolutionary processes. While it is true that there are complex biologic features and processes that would not operate at 100% effectiveness or even at all if one part were removed or altered today, legitimate scientists understand that these features and processes were formed by a natural process (that is, evolution by natural selection).
In other words, thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to understanding biology, evolution, medicine, agriculture, astronomy, physics, chemistry, zoology — and every kind of ology and onomy that matters — all conclude that the very basis of ID claims is wrong. ID proponents go on to make similar claims about bacteria flagella and other biological mechanisms, but these arguments are all wrong. A search at the NCSE site will show you why.
Have no doubts, none at all: ID is an attempt for religious fundamentalists to wedge (their word) their religion into our schools. It is that simple. Their arguments are fundamentally flawed and weak, and have been shown to be so many, many times. This is warmed over creationism, and, not to put too fine a point on it, young earth creationism is garbage. It’s wrong, and it’s the worst kind of wrong– it plays to people’s beliefs and faith, which are incredibly hard to argue against, even when those beliefs are contradicted by every single thing we understand about the nature of the Universe.
This fight against ignorance and medieval thinking has been very difficult– for one thing, scientists can hardly believe they have to do it. But I fight ignorance all the time, and I know what depths its proponents will sink to.
And this fight just got harder. The President of the United States is known to suppress science he doesn’t like. Scientists have been complaining about this for years. And now he has dipped his toe into the ID movement. In an article by the Knight Ridder newspaper syndicate, Bush says he thinks ID and science should be taught side-by-side:
Bush compared the current debate to earlier disputes over “creationism,” a related view that adheres more closely to biblical explanations. As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.
This is precisely the wedge the ID and creationists want. They want this taught like it’s legitimate science, but it isn’t. In science we let the facts sway our conclusions. In ID and creationism, they let their pre-existing dogma sway the way they view the facts. In many cases they distort the facts to suit their desire, use quote mining, for example, or simply lie if needed.
That ain’t science. It isn’t even good religion.
It’s wrong. And they want to teach your children this way.
If I sound angry, it’s because I am. Science in the United States is suffering horribly because of the lack of quality education, and the increasing tendency of people to swallow whole incredibly fallacious arguments. You are reading this article right now because of science. You’re on the Internet because of science. If you’re over the age of 35 and still alive, it’s because of science.
The trend of killing science in the US is killing ourselves. Again, it’s that simple.
Go read what they have to say at NCSE. Go read Pharyngula, go read Talk-Origins, go read The Skeptic’s Dictionary. Then, go read my own thoughts on on what science does, and what antiscience cannot do.
This has to stop. Now. And the way to do it is to educate yourself and others, because that is the one thing those antiscience groups are trying to prevent you from doing.
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:15 pm
When i first decided to write a comment to this article, i was planning on defending Bush. After all, (if you read the Knight Ridder article carefully) all I would have endorsed is the acknowledgement in public schools of the fact that lots (way too many) of people believe in “intelligent design” and that this concept, flawed as it may be, should be mentioned along side of evolution. After thinking about it, i changed my mind. Intelligent Design has no place in (public) schools, because crap theory propoganda should not be funded by the government (i.e. people) even if lots of simple-minded folk believe. For the record, i like Republicans more than Democrats (not saying much), but state-sponsered religious education goes against everything the *libertarian* founding fathers believed. Let the oppiate addicts learn their fundamental beliefs in church, and save public schools for actual science.
August 2nd, 2005 at 11:55 pm
Evolution itself is at fault. Most sections of the human race could not evolve to be as ‘intelligent’ as some others. It’s not their fault. The majority of the human race has some vacant area inside their brains which bounces off the wind it receives through the ears. This wind movement creates discharges in the brain which it interprets as divine intervention. This constant tickling of the brain in some people explains their inability to understand ‘normal’ things while being able to justify ‘abnormal’ ideas. Sadly, President Bush falls into the under-evolved category; so do majority of the human race. Others should kindly understand their inherent inabilities and behave accordingly; no matter how much it gets on one’s nerves.
August 3rd, 2005 at 12:20 am
This is simply terrible and makes me angry too. Using the same logic – Islam, Hinduism and such should be part of the education too, they have also lots of *scientific* explanations in them, aren’t they? :-/
Unfortunately I think, that this movement has only political reasons. The more children will be so called religious, the more easy would for the goverment to find volunteers for their “holy” crusades.
And no, I am not conspiracy theorist. I am simply angry because it really turns to Orwell in the worst sense possible. The less will be people able to distinguish truth from fairy tales, the less they will distinguish what is wrong and what is right. This will have very unfortunate consequences.
Maybe you should vote for having vampires and werewolves anatomy taught in biology too?
August 3rd, 2005 at 12:38 am
What is worry? True creationists do not evolve therefore they will not survive. Evolution not only applies to biological creatures, but social ones also. That includes countries, business, corporations, etc.
August 3rd, 2005 at 12:49 am
Sorry to post again, but this just occurred to me. How ID (or creationism by that matter) explains the apparition of new strains of deadly and not (yet) so deadly diseases? Is there a supernatural being constantly designing new influenza viruses and releasing then into the earth???
August 3rd, 2005 at 3:21 am
First of all: I think creationism is silly. But a few comments:
1: Do you have to evolve to survive? I didn’t check the sources on this, but don’t they say that sharks have been about for 300 million years, with no great changes?
2: The eye argument: Has it really been around for 200 years? Me seemeth that it wouldn’t be needed before the time of Darwins publication, 150 or so years ago.
3: Sidenote. Obviously, the BA reckons farming as a science, since he claims that one wouldn’t live to be more than 35 without science (mean life span in the stone age, right?) – and people obviously lived to be more than that even before the invention of our modern science (hypothetic-deductive method). Seing what some scientists, or perhaps more correctly companies, do with science, you can’t say that all that is science is good science. Take for instance the food biotech company Monsanto, and their efforts to make life harder for farmers all over the globe. Perhaps this has turned out bad because it is science connected with heavy economic interests, but still…
Oh, and the atomic bomb. Good science?
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:06 am
Evolution Happens!
Support the teaching evolutionary science (all the sciences) in the public schools by getting involved with your child’s science education through the PTA, visiting your school’s educators, attending the school district meetings, joining the National Center for Science Education, and visiting http://www.evolushark.com.
Biblical creationists and Intelligent Design advocates are not just trying to eliminate biological evolution from the public schools, they will also try to eliminate plate tectonics theory, stellar/galactic/Big Bang theory, or any of the sciences and secular/humanistic philosophies that conflict with their religious fundamentalist evangelical beliefs. They all have their own respective churches, sectarian schools, bible study groups, homes, etc., where they are free to teach whatever they want (except violence and hatred). So why go for public schools? Indoctrination of everyone into Christian theology and dogma.
So, educate yourselves by reading: “Why Intelligent Designs Fails–A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism” edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis; “Science and Earth History–The Evoluion/Creation Controversy” by Arthur N. Strahler; “Climbing Mount Imoribable” by Richard Dawkins; “What Evolution is” by Ernst Mayr.
Read the science magazines.
Stanley Schmidt has an excellent editorial in the October 2005 issue of Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact magazine concerning the teaching of Evolution in the public school system.
If any of you read the science magazines and websites, scientists are the best at being critical of their own branch of science, discovering weaknesses and strengths, and always striving to improve science–it is self-correcting and increasing our knowledge all the time.
Become science activists. And vote. The US Constitution and the US of A is heading into a 21st Century Dark Ages because of apathy and the religious fundagelicals want a “Christian Nation” under the 10 Commandments and biblical teaching.
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:08 am
Berkeley,
The atomic bomb technology is indeed science at its best. Atomic energy (Fission and Fusion) will go a long way in addressing global energy needs.
I don’t think there is anything called ‘good’ and ‘bad’ science simply coz there is no place for morals or other ‘human sentiments’ here. What matters here are evidence, proof, repeatablity, accuracy etc.
People may use these scientific outputs to cause harm to others. This will not make science ‘bad’.
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:20 am
I’ve been supportive of Bush on many issues, but his constant science ignorance is the one thing that severely bothers me. For the record, I am a pious Catholic, but I was taught a different method of Catholism…one that takes the Bible as a guide on how to live life, not as an exact description of what happened. Natural Selection Evolution led to us being here, but I’ve always wondered if it was guided in some way. It’s like having two parallel conversations…on the one hand, Evolution has been shown time and time to be correct. Anyone who doubts we evolved from monkeys naturally and slowly over time is out and out wrong. But Nature is a weird thing…sometimes it does seem as though there is a consciousness, albeit not an active one, that came into play. The coincidences involved for how we manage to exist is pretty awe-inspiring, but I can’t prove an intelligence is at work. So I have Faith. That’s the way I look at it…I can’t prove that someone designed this, therefore I cannot factor an intelligence at work in the scientific world.
However, to teach this stuff in school? Science is Science…someone one of my old science teachers told me, and he was right. You know what Science is because it can be proven through logic or experimentation. We cannot logically deduce Intelligent Design or prove it, therefore it should not be considered school material.
Sometimes, it’s hard being a Republican…I guess this is what a pro-life Democrat feels like.
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:20 am
Red State Rabble had a related posting Tuesday regarding the Missouri rep’s bill to include “criticisms of evolution in biology textbooks”:
http://redstaterabble.blogspot.com/2005/08/run-with-it.html
`I noticed something great: Davis has worded the bill in a strange way. She mentions “controversies” and “philosophical claims”, but she never says a thing about creation or evolution. Clearly she was trying to slip under the radar, but her particular wording can be read as a plea for better science education. I think we could take this and run with it.
“My bill is only three sentences,” Davis says. “It says that all biology textbooks sold to the public schools of the state of Missouri shall have one or more chapters containing a critical analysis of origins.â€?
Great! It can carefully cover spontaneous generation and Lamarck’s theory, and show how the scientific method disproved them. It can give a good critical comparison of gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium models, with lots of data.’
I included the block quote to put that last paragraph in context. There is a potential opportunity for scientists to hijack the ID / creationist movement and turn it to the power of good. Much like the timeline of cosmological theories (flat earth, earth-centric, etc.), doesn’t it make sense to put our current working theories and hypotheses in the context of the others that have been shown not to work?
Specific example: the human eyeball is not an example of irreducible complexity (i.e., it didn’t just appear BLOOP out of nowhere). Let’s TEACH the children why not rather than trying to argue with adults who’ve already made up their minds, flying in the face of data and all reason.
Personally, I think public schools should also teach a comparative religion course as a part of their history curriculum. Quite a lot of philosophy, literature, brutality and just good solid history has a religious hook. Start with the Babylonians, compare Egyptians and Minoans, etc., all the way up to the Moonies and Scientology Tom Cruisies.
Perhaps this is a winning strategy: expand public school budgets (eek! pay our taxes?!) to cover these topics in detail and in a logical sensible context.
Just so we’re clear: ID is bovine scatology and religion should never ever be a part of a science classroom.
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:29 am
My first exposure to something approaching ID came in the 1980′s with a BBC 2 Horizon programme (A science TV program). The programme was talking about the Anthropic Cosmological Principal (ACP). When I saw it, looking at the Weak part, it shouted out to me “Designer”! (I do concede that the Strong part is probably nearer to this concept)
I believe one of the proposers of the ACP said “The universe appears to be designed for man”
AFAIK the people who came up with this were not Creationists and may have been athiests.
From what I recall of the programme, I was left with the impressons that it was physicists that originated ID, and the ACP showed that there was a designer.
FWIW
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:40 am
Bush endorses Intelligent Design creationism
It's only a small fillip on the vast rococo monument to incompetence, anti-science, and lies that the Republican party has erected over our country, but I take it personally. George W. Bush has endorsed Intelligent Design creationism's pl…
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:54 am
Perhaps we need to INCREASE public school curricu
So here’s the deal: I’m tired of the increasing American stupidity quotient. That is not a claim that we, as a group of people, are getting stupider. We are, however, generating material for stories that definitely make us all look like donkeys.
August 3rd, 2005 at 5:55 am
Additonal comments not included other blogs:
Scientific thinking is very hard to do, takes a lot of work, and sometimes does not make sense.
For example, on my way to work this morning I could watch, through quick glances, our star and waning crescent moon appearing to rise above the eastern horizon. Throughout the day the sun will appear to rise to the zenith then descend to the western horizon and set below it. Common sense would indicate that both are “moving” relative to me “orbiting” Earth-geocentricism. Semantically we continue to state the sun “rises” and “sets” as if the sun was actively “moving” across the sky (Buckminster Fuller tried to change that to sun-sight and sun-clipse but it never caught on). So, for everyone to comprehend that it actually is our planet that is rotating on its axis was quite a leap in intellectual ability and still is for some.
A good book to read: “Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science” by Alan Cromer.
The “equal time” argument is garbage. Most children are raised in the faith, traditions and culture of their parents. They go to the churches of their parents, bible study classes, etc.. Therefore, most children already have biblical creationism taught to them throughout their formative years.
Further, unlike science education, faith-based education is easy to understand and know and does not take a lot of mental effort or IQ. Its more common sensical, too.
“God did it and that’s all I need to know!”
Religious teaching has also had several thousand years of “educating” the mostly illiterate masses.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:22 am
One minor point of disagreement: you wrote
John Wilkins was closer to the mark:
Young-Earth Creationists (YECs) have crap evidence. The ID crowd doesn’t even have that much.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:27 am
“The problem is, their evidence is crap.”
That’s only part of the problem. Their logic, methodology, and ethics are also crap. As scientists, they have nothing. Unfortunately, as political propagandists trying to replace science with extremist christian beliefs, they have the endorsement of the president.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:34 am
ajith,
Struggling with the after-effects of the Tsjernobyl plant meltdown in the middle of the nineties, Norwegians have learnt to have great respect for nuclear energy. Seen together with the atomic bomb, and the difficulties in containing the waste from energy production, the possible side-effects of this technology makes it dangerous at the least. In my opinion good science would be to investigate alternative energy sources or ways of reducing the energy consumption, first and foremost in the Western countries, since we set the example for much of the rest of the world (which, I think should be noted, is important also for the other subjects discussed on this page).
Don’t get me wrong: The atomic theory is great science, and very interesting, too. But the purpose or use of a science influences the goodness or badness of the it. Or, perhaps, not the science in itself, but at least the reputation of it. I for one am happy that social-darwinism rapidly lost ground.
And I don’t like nuclear weapons.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:55 am
One of the things someone can tell me that will truly frustrate me, if not infuriate me, is saying that science is the new religion.
Science is NOT a religion. Religion goes one way. Extremist ones within the religion will NOT allow you to DARE to speak against what is written in the Book. The Book, that big holy thing, is unchangeable, the Truth that cannot be broken, the Word from the One Who Created All. You are right to call this ID threat “Medieval thinking”. Because back in the medievals, the lord ruled, but never without the priest’s advice. What the man behind the altar said was supreme, it was what God wanted you to do. If you dared to skip one Sunday… One mass… You were a BAD person.
Science on the other hand, is a search for facts. If there is one little weird nudge in the theory, people will work to find what is wrong in their way of thinking. And in the end, you could even get a completely different theory. Religion is not so flexible. There is a TON OF FLAWS in their stories, but they can’t stand having someone say it’s not… logical. To them, logic is something useless. In fact, you can’t face up religion and say:”This is not logical!” They will simply answer to you that logic is not applicable, what the Lord says is what is important, and we simple mortals should not bother to understand anything but what He told us.
This said, I believe religion is not a bad thing in many normal cases. Simple faith is sometimes needed for many people to keep going in life, but the place of religion is NOT in schools. It is the parents’ job to teach something so touchy to their children, and IF THEY WISH. If it is taught in schools, will the parents have a look over what ideas the teacher, who is not part of their family, put in the head of their child? No. It is DANGEROUS to teach ID in school.
Where I live, teachers are not overviewed. They are used to say how much the government is always right to the kids, how much syndicates are always the best thing and that you should never work without a syndicate, and never do too much. Also, they tell the kids that it is not important to be in little competition to be the best of the class. In fact, teachers will never say who is the best. This was not what my parents wanted me to learn at school. They wanted me to learn mathematics, physics, sports, language. NOT how I should act in life. What I must act like is the PARENTS job to teach… Thus the link with religion: usually, religion teaches you how to behave, thus if it is in the family morales, it must be taught by the parents.
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:14 am
ajith, to say that bush is “under evolved” because of his beliefs is an ad hominem in the worst way. what bush is, frankly, is under educated with regards to science. unfortunate (and probably necessary), but political leaders spend their lives worrying about politics and publich policy, not scientific research.
the problem i have is the comments (paraphrased) “we should mention it so people understand the debate.” there is no debate. just some creationists attempting to do an end run around science. in the end, their entire argument falls under the heading “life is too complex, there must be a creator.” in other words, you have to start with faith that there is a creator to believe in ID. uh, that’s creationism.
oh, and no, there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” science. applying moral relativism to scientific research does not make sense. science is nothing more than a search for answers. yeah, nuclear bombs do bad things, but so does fire. where would we be without fire?
taks
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:19 am
It’s funny, I’ve lived in Seattle and Massachusetts in his years in office. In both places, people hated him. When they asked me why I hated him, I always said, “Because he kills science.”
Nobody ever really understood why I thought that was so important.
It’s an uphill battle: keep up the good work.
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:39 am
maybe i’m unduly optimistic, but i say “bring ‘em on”. it may take a couple of decades, but in reality there is only one likely outcome of a debate between ID and science. what is interesting is that this may lead to an evidence based questioning of other tenets of faith.
given the peril the world faces from theocrats (taleban, gop etc) we should be encouraging a spotlight to be turned on these medieval concepts.
let’s hope we can add theocracy to the list of failed governments – feudalism, fascism, communism etc.
August 3rd, 2005 at 9:15 am
Back in the 80s, my high school biology teacher mentioned creationism in the classroom. But I don’t think the ID folks would like how he mentioned it
Religion has no place in a science class, period.
As for the president’s remarks, I think he was trying to avoid offending part of his “base” (of course, if he were a real federalist, he’d have said that local school curricula were none of his business). Frankly, I think the GOP is really confused about voters in this regard. While many religious people believe in a creator, I doubt more than a tiny minority actually reject evolution, astrophysics, and geology.
God forbid that we actually turn our backs on science and technology, which have done more good for mankind than every religion combined. Even from a religious standpoint, why do we have reason, senses, and freewill if we’re not meant to use them? Words about God handed down by generations of men are and must be fallible; however, creation itself is, from the theistic perspective, the direct product of God. What better way to learn about the creator than to study his creation directly? Maybe the universe itself was created to deceive (who knows?), but I’d rather rely on it than on faith that some words handed down by men are the actual, unaltered statements of God.
August 3rd, 2005 at 10:38 am
Gah. Infuriating, indeed. Not entirely unexpected, but no less crazy-making for it.
(Psst. There’s a typo in the “And this fight just got harder” paragraph. Thought you should know.)
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:10 am
Berkeley Said:
> Oh, and the atomic bomb. Good science?
How are you using the word “good”? Good science in the sense of accurate, well-done, thorough. Bad in the sense of value judgement on what it is used for.
Alternately, I would state, “Good science, bad technology.”
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:13 am
Sticks Said:
> I believe one of the proposers of the ACP said “The universe appears to be designed for man�
Isn’t that a bit like saying, the ocean appears to be designed for fish?
August 3rd, 2005 at 11:17 am
B.A.,
I agree with you about the need to keep Intelligent Design and/or Creationism out of science classes, but I hate to say this blog entry is crap.
You start off by stating “their evidence is crap”, but then you follow up, not with a refutation of some of the common claims against evolution, but an argument from authority that because so many thousands of scientists say ID is wrong, we should just accept the claim and be done with it. No way, man. That’s the way religion operates: because we say so. It has no basis in an intelligent debate about Intelligent Design. For decades, most geologists contested the theory of plate tectonics. Where do we stand on that now? Did the number of geologists who, it now turns out, were wrong have any impact on the accuracy of the statement? What about the presence of pre-Clovis humans in North America? The idea that there were none was so ingrained that some archeologists had their careers wrecked for having the gall to submit evidence that suggested otherwise. No part of science is right — yesterday, today, or tomorrow — just because a “consensus” says it is. That’s the stuff that smacks of ideology.
Another point: you say we are here reading this because of science. Well and very true. How many people who created the Internet are agnostic or atheist? How many believe in God, Allah, or space aliens? Does it matter if the fellow who invented the X-ray takes the Bible literally? How about your fellow astronomers? Do any of them ever talk about God? If they do, are their observations or calculations automatically suspect? Your implication is that the decline of science skills is somehow tied to the rise of ludicrous beliefs. Rubbish. The decline in science skills is the direct result of a lack of cultural interest in science. We idolize football stars, sexy models, and hunky actors. The recent “War of the Worlds” remake removed a central science character and replaced him with a befuddle loser who can’t take care of his own kids. (As an aside, Cruise’s character, as an employed and doubtless unionized crane operator, probably makes more money a year than the Bad Astronomer — a fact Spielberg either missed or conveniently ignored in painting his common American.)
The debate over Evolution in our schools is just a flashy side-show to a greater problem: most people don’t care about science. A lot don’t even trust it. The ID crowd are doing their best to capitalize on that sentiment, but they didn’t create it. I haven’t a clue how to combat this problem, but until we have “fans” of science who are just as willing to paint their faces green for their favorite research facility as football fans are for their team, it isn’t going to change. Science education is faultering in this country because most schools are more interested in their sports programs than their science curriculum. And kids with an interest in their financial future steer clear of science because its an economic dead-end. I know physicists who work as engineers. One of my best friends in high school decided against a career in marine biology — a field he loved — because he knew he wouldn’t be able to earn a living from it. Today he works in business communications. Science isn’t glamorous and it doesn’t often pay the bills.
It would be nice if we had a President who stood up for science and raised it’s awareness in a positive fashion. One who said, “religion has no place in a science class, period.” I’d vote for him. But most people in this country would not. He’d be painted as an unsympathetic robot at best, and a left-wing, anti-religion zealot at worst regardless of any other position he holds. Every President we’ve elected has taken pains to prove he believes in God. How many have proven they trust the scientific method? From that process comes men like our President. At least we can take some comfort from the fact that when Bush makes statements like he did about ID, enough of a controversy will spring up so that young minds can be made aware that there is such a thing as Evolution.
August 3rd, 2005 at 12:18 pm
EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS!
http://www.venganza.org
An open letter to the Kansas state board of education regarding ID theory. Definitely thought provoking!
Also, I find it very sad that this is provoking more news stories and discussion than the discovery of a (possible) 10th planet.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:06 pm
alexa said:
>maybe i’m unduly optimistic, but i say “bring ‘em on”. it may take a couple of decades, but in reality there is only one likely outcome of a debate between ID and science.
There is already an outcome on the debate between ID and science: science wins. Any disinterested, half-intelligent person willing to devote the modest amount of time required to understand the theory of evolution by natural selection would agree with this.
Unfortunately a great many people are too stupid, too narrow-minded or too lazy to make the effort. Their ignorance is confirmed when they begin to criticise evolution, honestly believing that they are qualified to do so.
It would be wonderful if in 20 years time if we could look back and remember ID as the final desperate effort to save creationism that failed, but I don’t think it’ll happen. Proponents of the most ridiculous ideas seem to have a strange disregard for evidence and logic, regardless of the amount presented to them.
August 3rd, 2005 at 1:56 pm
“”"Unfortunately a great many people are too stupid, too narrow-minded or too lazy to make the effort. Their ignorance is confirmed when they begin to criticise evolution, honestly believing that they are qualified to do so.”"”
Well, the thing is, its not about science. It is about power. So its no suprise they dont care about the actuallity of the evidence.
If they did all you would need to do is bring it all down to the level of boolean logic, which everyone can understand, and walk through the evidence step by step.
But this is not about truth or facts. Its about who gets to have the hegemony. Who gets to say what is right and wrong.
The world has changed a alot over the last 20 years and some people cant take it. So the will fight ferociously to bring back and maintain the ideological framwork that they feel comfortable in.
It is, at its heart, an issue of fear of reality, and people fighting for their delusions, combined with a lack of abillity to accept other views in their proximity. This in turn is a direct result of their delusions, their cognitive frameworks being so fragile.
Reality as such dont need defending which is why scientist in general are still trying to understand what the hell is going on.
August 3rd, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Public schools are political institutions. Politics requires compromise. I should think you could teach a lot of elementary biology without getting into an argument (bound to be emotional) over origins. And isn’t elementary biology enough for K-12?
I certainly favor evolution over Creation or ID – how would ID ever come up with the mosquito or the house fly???
August 3rd, 2005 at 2:06 pm
Don’t get started on the 10th planet thing. That whole issue is just silly. There should only be 8 planets and Pluto should be recognized as a Kuiper Belt Object. But I digress.
I think it’s pretty ironic that just a few days ago I over heard Bush talking about the importance of separation of church and state in the countries which we are installing Democratic Goverments. Someone should tell him to start with his own country first.
If I’m being level headed about this, I actually think it would be a good idea to teach ID in schools, but not as a scientific theory. If you want to teach it as a religious alternative to science, along with other religion’s thoughts on this topic, I think that would be very beneficial to students.
August 3rd, 2005 at 3:07 pm
I don’t have a long, involved comment for ya, Dr. Plait; nor will I go off on some barely relevant tangent of my own for five or six paragraphs. I just want to say that for some reason, it’s heartening to me to see you tackle issues that are not only of an astronomical nature, but of a biological and (in this case) sociological one as well. Kudos to you, Dr. Plait. Chocolote chip Kudos, even!
August 3rd, 2005 at 3:49 pm
First: Phil, I wholeheartedly agree. It makes me angry, too, and I don’t have kids yet.
Berkley et al., the atomic bomb was a fantastic achievement, in terms of both science and engineering. In that sense it was good science. To understand the magnitude of the challenges that were overcome, I strongly recommend reading “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes. It is kind of heavy (in both senses – it is over 800 pages), and it covers all aspects of the bomb – the physics, chemistry, engineering, military, political, philosophical and human facets. There is one chapter in particular that is extraordinarily poignant; this describes the 6th August 1945 by quoting a sequence of eyewitness accounts – about 30 or 40 of them. The combined impact is staggering.
Dukrous, I’d like to be pedantic and point out a minor flaw: we didn’t evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor species with monkeys.
arensb – I would go even further. There is no physical, chemical or biological evidence that supports YEC. Therefore, YECs have the support of zero evidence. A critical analysis of Genesis results quite quickly in one conclusion – it is anecdotal. There was no experimental control, there was no calibration of measurements (“How long was the first day? The Bibble says it was a day! We measure days by the Sun, which was not reported to have been created on the first day, so how can the word “day” have any meaning in that context?”). As such, it cannot be given any weight in relation to actual physical evidence.
Ron Zeno – I agree fully with that comment. A large part of the problem is that they do not care about evidence. If they did, the problem would simply vanish.
Michelle, one very minor thing – in mediaevel England, the church and the throne were often at loggerheads. The monarch would have everyone believe that he, being king by divine right, is the representative of God on Earth. From the clergy’s perspective, that is the Pope (and if there happened to be more than one at the time, you could take your pick). Hence the murder of Thomas a Becket in Canterbury, and, come to think of it, hence the dissolution of the monasteries during the 1530s (during which time some of England’s finest Gothic architecture was demolished or defaced). Anyway, I agree with the rest of your comment.
Alexa, Communism is alive and well and living in China. And it is not too long ago that one could have said fascism were alive and well and living in Alabama. I won’t agree it’s failed until it stops twitching.
M.A. DeLuca – You raise some very good points. I personally am sufficiently familiar with a lot of the evidence to accept the BA’s statements about evolution. However, someone who is not would have to take his word for it. Except Phil does actually link to Talk Origins, where a huge amount of evidence is discussed in detail (and presented very clearly, too). Also, the weirdest thing about science is that it does pay the bills, but not in the way we scientists might wish. For a technology-based economy such as the USA or the UK, a strong R&D base is vital to long-term economic growth. So, science pays the bills for the country as a whole. Which makes it kind of ironic that scientists’ individual remuneration is usually rather poor. Except in the pharmaceuticals industry perhaps.
Jason Solis – I fully agree with your point about separating church and state. In fact, I think that’s in the Constitution, isn’t it? (I’m sure someone can correct me if I’m wrong – American history is not a large topic in the British education system). It was also a contributing factor to a great may of the tribulations in Britain’s history (i.e. the power of the church versus the power of the monarch). I guess British history is not one of George W’s strong points, either.
That’s all for now from me. Thanks for reading.
August 3rd, 2005 at 6:57 pm
Um.. excuse my ignorance here but regarding that part about the science of atomic (hydrogen?) bombs.
Doesn’t it also keep the sun from buring out?
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:14 pm
Above, M.A. Deluca says:
“I agree with you about the need to keep Intelligent Design and/or Creationism out of science classes, but I hate to say this blog entry is crap.
You start off by stating “their evidence is crapâ€?, but then you follow up, not with a refutation of some of the common claims against evolution, but an argument from authority that because so many thousands of scientists say ID is wrong, we should just accept the claim and be done with it.”
No, that is NOT what I did. I put in links to several sites that actually *show* why the basis of ID is wrong. The point I was making with scientists was not an argument from authority, it was an argument for expertise. People who study science, who understand it, who have spent a lifetime not just using it but making accurate predictions and millions upon millions of advances because of it… all think ID is crap.
Someone once told me that it should be a law that if you think evolution is wrong, you shouldn’t be allowed to use medicine that was developed because of evolutionary biology. I understand that as satire, but the point is an interesting one.
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Phil Plait must have used a mighty powerful teles
Somehow, Dr. Phil Plait managed to see my little tiny blog from the vast cosmos that is Bad Astronomy. Just to give you some perspective, whereas I’m all excited about getting 1000 unique visitors (Woot! Thanks for hitting refresh over and over, Shad…
August 3rd, 2005 at 7:30 pm
I think OutsideObserver succinctly hit the nail on the head. I believe it is about power, and a desperate grasp born out of fear and the need to control. Creationists who fight for “equal time” aren’t interested in science or expanding students’ horizons with different views, because if so, they would also include all the critical thinking about the Bible and creationism–the Synoptic Hypothesis, for example–in their classes, and they don’t. They want to teach what they want, and then complain when they are criticized. So, they want science classes to present alternative views, but they don’t want to within their own classes. Forget that there are already things called churches (which receive 501(c)3 status) to teach their views–what do they think they are accomplishing?
This article was in the Houston Chronicle yesterday. This is an elective class that is offerred in 52 school districts in Texas, so Texas Freedom Network claims (which includes religious members).
[url=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3291664]Group says Bible course is riddle with bias, errors[/url]. TFN isn’t even saying that the Bible shouldn’t be taught, and they are STILL being accused of being “…fearful of academic freedom…” Who is afraid?
“Chancey’s review found the Bible is characterized as inspired by God, discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists, Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible’s historical accuracy.
He said the course suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation’s founding document.
All of those points may be acceptable to some religions, but not to others, Chancey said.
His review also found the curriculum relies on many nonacademic sources and directs teachers and students to sectarian Web sites and research materials. In other areas, entire pages or chapters appear to be lifted from other publications without proper sourcing, Chancey said.”
A Biblical scholar did the review. M.A. Deluca may be right in saying that science isn’t culturally popular, but this kind of stuff really bugs me, because it’s about lack of critical thinking, and if this is correct, then a class like this isn’t teaching kids to even view sources critically! Plenty of polls have been done that show kids are coming out of school with sub-rudimentary knowledge about history, geography, science, they are prone to believing everything they read on the Internet, etc. I even see this with adults I work with.
It’s a problem for us all when schools or groups fight to include subjects of a highly biased nature with many unfounded claims; it gives a student an easy elective when they should probably be taking a civics class or hey, how about astronomy? There are only so many hours in a school day, and schools ought to be promoting subjects students can really use–things they won’t be taught elsewhere by their parents or churches. Fill the curriculum with electives that teach them something new, leave the comparative religion classes for college. And it doesn’t do me a lot of good to have a whole bunch of ignorant fellow citizens when it comes to fighting for civil rights, or budgeting for NASA or medical research; it doesn’t help in raising the culture which will demand better government, better entertainment, or whatever. Yes, there will always be people who want to cling to their illusions or easy thinking, but teaching ID/religion is not helping to promote science, especially when it is used politically to pit people against evolution theory. At times I think many people sign petitions without even thinking of the big picture, as these 6,000 people in Odessa, TX did; they may hear that public schools are against God or the Bible, and they go into defense mode. Some may not be very educated themselves.
Bush’s comments are more of the same contempt for the Supreme Court and our Constitution, which he’s been handing out for more than 10 years. He’s never been passionate about science or critical thinking, and he’s pandering to his supporters, what else is new, but when he talks to the astronauts on the shuttle it makes me cringe. The current governor of TX has shown similar contempt for separation of church and state.
Sometimes I wonder what I would have learned had I not been forced to take three years of religion, which taught me nothing I already hadn’t learned through church. Even as an atheist, it was the easiest A. And yes, my parents regret having sent us there.
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:20 pm
Axiom, technorati will list every blog that links to mine, so that’s how I found you. Welcome!
August 3rd, 2005 at 8:40 pm
Nigel wrote:”Michelle, one very minor thing – in mediaevel England, the church and the throne were often at loggerheads. The monarch would have everyone believe that he, being king by divine right, is the representative of God on Earth. From the clergy’s perspective, that is the Pope (and if there happened to be more than one at the time, you could take your pick). Hence the murder of Thomas a Becket in Canterbury, and, come to think of it, hence the dissolution of the monasteries during the 1530s (during which time some of England’s finest Gothic architecture was demolished or defaced). Anyway, I agree with the rest of your comment.”
Really?? Well thank you for the instruction, I appreciate it.
August 3rd, 2005 at 9:33 pm
Nigel Depledge Says:
Jason Solis – I fully agree with your point about separating church and state. In fact, I think that’s in the Constitution, isn’t it? (I’m sure someone can correct me if I’m wrong – American history is not a large topic in the British education system).
Indeed it is. In fact it’s the very first thing in our Bill of Rights; Amendment I begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”
Of course, some extremists have recently (and historically, no doubt) argued that the clause actually applies only to Congress, or only to actual laws it passes (and not, say, to laws passed by state legislatures, or laws which allow the teaching of, say, ID by means of backhanded wording). The Supreme Court, and society and history at large, have begged to differ.
It worries me that this country’s waning support for science may mean some very dark times are ahead. Remember the ’50s and ’60s where we had real faith in science and it seemed like it would take us to the stars and beyond? When we chose to fund science education because science would help us beat the Ruskies, who had just launched Sputnik? That seems to be all in our past now.
Science shows us miracles every day–instant communications across the globe, large-scale air travel, mobile telephones, lifesaving medical procedures, and on and on. That feeds our dependence on instant gratification. I think that when people come up against something that science can’t yet provide (a cure for cancer, answers to moral questions, etc.), they cast around for something that can. And lo and behold, religion is able to promise answers to all the questions that science (responsibly) said it was not able to.
The problem isn’t that people turn to religion for answers to the Large Questions in life (why are we here, what’s right and wrong, how should we live, etc.)–that’s what religion is for. The problem is when religion decides to step forward and insist that its answers to naturalistic questions (which were invented ages ago to answer questions we didn’t have the means to investigate) be given precedence over scientifically demonstrated explanations. People whose faith in science depends on it providing all the answers can be easily swayed against it.
Here’s an eye-opening point of view–it’s an engineer’s perspective on creationism! This is a good reminder to look on the practical side of things. http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/science.html.
August 3rd, 2005 at 9:49 pm
I don’t like Pharyngula very much, for reasons you can probably discern from Myers’ post in this thread. Fortunately, there are a good number of other blogs taking up the issue, including many on the political right. And I have to give Myers credit for pointing this out on his blog and linking to them.
Good science should ignore political boundaries. Bad science certainly does.
August 3rd, 2005 at 10:35 pm
I am a practicing Roman Catholic.
I have no problem believing in evolution as I believe this is
the way God creates here on Earth.
Creationists are literal Bible Thumpers. Very few of them if any are Catholic. We Catholics believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. It is the New Testament that teaches about the Life of Jesus Christ not the Old Testament.
I believe that Genesis is correct that God did create the heavens & the Earth.
Scientists have told us there was indeed a real Eve.
They gained that insight through the study of Mitochondrial
DNA…
Again, the bible is the inspired word…would you think the Supreme Being would try to teach humans about the birth of Stars, Planets & Life as we know it today?
Of course not, he would use the same kinds of words that human beings would understand.
At any rate it is beautiful poetry.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:14 am
I find this angering me more and more. It seems to be gaining momentum and it truely baffles me as to why. But let me switch gears and mention one of the reasons I find ID to be so peculiar.
From my point of view, ID is not just an insult to science.
Religion is powerful because it’s based on faith. People believe in something so completely because they feel it within themselves to do so. I am not a religious person by any means, but even I can see the immense conviction held by those who are.
ID is essentially saying belief is not good enough. By misrepresenting itself as science, it’s levelling a direct insult to the millions who choose to be religious. True religion doesn’t need to be validated and it doesn’t need to be proven. On the contrary, it can’t allow itself to be proven! Doing so removes its most powerful facet…belief!
Merging science and religion surely spells death for both.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:29 am
For the Catholics that testified that they were taught evolution in school, and that the Biblical Genesis was presented more as metaphor and parable than “fact,” were you aware that the new Pope seems to feel rather… uncharitable toward evolutionary concepts? It’s beginning to look as though church doctrine will soon back away from certain scientific concepts, including evolution.
“Well. I wasn’t expecting some kind of Spanish Inquisition….”
August 4th, 2005 at 2:41 am
P. Edward Murray Said:
>I have no problem believing in evolution as I believe this is the way God creates here on Earth.
The wonderful thing about evolution by natural selection is that it removes the need for a creator or supervisor.
>Scientists have told us there was indeed a real Eve.
>They gained that insight through the study of Mitochondrial DNA…
Scientists didn’t have to study mitochondrial DNA to gain the insight that all humans share a common female-line ancestor; that’s just common sense. Mitochondrial DNA is peculiar in being passed along the female line only, and Eve is just a name that has been given to the common ancestor from whom all humans living today inherited their mitochondrial DNA. There’s certainly no suggestion that mitochondrial Eve is the same person as biblical Eve. They share a name and that’s all.
>I believe that Genesis is correct that God did create the heavens & the Earth.
>Again, the bible is the inspired word…would you think the Supreme Being would try to teach humans about the birth of Stars, Planets & Life as we know it today?
>Of course not, he would use the same kinds of words that human beings would understand.
The creation of stars, planets and life as explained in the bible is not a simplification of present day theories, and in most cases is contradictory to them. Rather, the way the bible is written reflects the authors’ understanding of the natural world at that time.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:49 am
Marq, I understand Pope Benedict’s feelings, but it doesn’t invalidate my faith or ability to choose for myself. It shouldn’t for anyone. Religion is a personal relationship that should form in a unique way. I base my own personal Faith from the Catholic upbrining I had and have modified some arguments based on what works for me.
Do I believe God created everything? Yes, I do…but I’ve been known to argue that we’re an unexpected side-effect of Creation.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:38 am
I am playing Devil’s advocate here; I’m not sure where I stand. But to say that all creationists are ignorant is flat out wrong. To ignore that creationists bring up good points is also wrong. To say that the majority of scientists don’t believe in ID is unfounded (ID can mean that God created the mechanisms for evolution).
I am a third year science student, and I study physics and evolution. I’m not entirely sold on evolution and my GDA doesn’t suffer because of it. I understand electromagnetism even though I understand that the big bang theory has a few holes in it. Science won’t be hurt if the critiques of evolution are taught in high school as well. It will probably get more people interested in science. That’s why I am studying science.
Evolution is origins science. It is not operational science. Things like the atomic bombs are operational science. Evolution deals with observations in the present (the fossil record, biological similarities etc…) to make an educated guess on the past. It is now an ideology that the overwhelming majority of scientists have been taught and consequently believe, that doesn’t make it correct. Creation Science is also an ideology. Both camps have pre-set beliefs and try to find evidence to support their claims. Both camps alter their theories and make retro-predictions.
Both ID proponents and myself don’t want religion in the classroom. We want evolution in the classroom. We want more evolution taught, not less. The critiques and the evidence for evolution should be taught.
Saying things like, “legitimate scientists understand that these features and processes were formed by a natural process (that is, evolution by natural selection)� is really telling me that you don’t understand evolution. Natural selection is no longer considered to be the mechanism of evolution. Natural Selection selects genetic information out of a system it does not create genetic information. Mutations are the mechanism for evolution, and even so their effect on the creation of evolution is questionable. Examples of evolution are weak, like antibiotic and pesticide resistance are usually the product of a loss in genetic information (the inability to receive fatal substances is not evolution, it’s a mutation that rarely occurs. If you had cancer in your leg and lost your leg by accident that’s not proof of over time molecules can become men).
Like I said, I’m undecided. But it really frustrates me when people say the debate is over, and Darwin won, or creationism won. It’s not over. If this were a creation science blog I would explain to them that their arguments are usually outdated (moon dust, thermodynamics etc…).
Just my thoughts, and try not to be too insulting next time, that doesn’t add to your post.
God Bless,
Christian
August 4th, 2005 at 7:04 am
Agree with BA, but M.A.DeLuca did raise a point that I, as an agnostic skeptic, have been trying to make for years now.
Too often the side of science take on huffy, impatient airs, and looks down their nose at anyone who deviates from the party line… lust like everyone else. Yes, there are good examples of information being presented (such as clavius.org for the moon hoax issue), but there is a *severe* attitude problem on the side of science.
Someone mentioned Penn & Teller’s show. “Bull****” might be the *worst* thing to happen to skepticism in years. Every episode I have seen can be boiled down to “Why are we right? Because YOU’RE A (BLEEPING) IDIOT, that’s why!” They also use very obvious propagandist techniques, like cherry picking the best spokespeople for their side, and the flakiest spokespeople for the other side. I mean, I *agree* with P&T, yet I feel like this about the show.
I’d wager hard cash that their show has pushed more people away from science than Farenheit 9/11 pushed into the GOP camp.
It makes me want to become an independent documentary filmmaker. I have a DV camera and iMovie. Anyone want to do something real?
August 4th, 2005 at 7:25 am
“Jason Solis – I fully agree with your point about separating church and state. In fact, I think that’s in the Constitution, isn’t it? (I’m sure someone can correct me if I’m wrong – American history is not a large topic in the British education system).”
Is this the part you’re talking about? I see nothing about separation here.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
August 4th, 2005 at 7:49 am
Citizen of Trantor, my understanding is that Penn & Teller are taking the insult-master position mostly because they want to avoid defamation suits. I’m not sure that I agree that that approach is necessary, but there’s some truth to the idea that mere name-calling isn’t defamation. Also, I’ve seen enough of the shows to say that not all of the opposition is represented by flakes (though they’ve had a couple of real ditzes).
In my opinion, P&T are not trying to make converts; they are preaching to the choir. I’m sure anyone with even a modicum of skepticism has had a moment when he just wanted to yell, “That’s friggin’ STUPID!” Penn & Teller are doing that for us
Michael Shermer had a show that tried to convert people to reason, but that didn’t work (though I liked the show).
August 4th, 2005 at 7:50 am
The Bad Astronomer Said:
“People who study science, who understand it, who have spent a lifetime not just using it but making accurate predictions and millions upon millions of advances because of it… all think ID is crap.”
Sorry about the double post, but this had to be responed to. There are plenty of reputable scientists that disagree with evolution. You cannot say that *all* scientists think ID is crap. The following link lists several that support creationism:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_creationsci
August 4th, 2005 at 8:11 am
My, what an impressive list. Including veterinarians and M.D.s. Reputable “scientists” indeed. These folks aren’t even hiding behind the ID smokescreen, they’re creationists. You wouldn’t happen to know where I can find a list of “astronomers” who maintain the Earth is at the center of the universe?
August 4th, 2005 at 8:18 am
As a European, it seems absolutely insane that this is even being considered. If any politician said something like this here their career would be over in a heart beat. The US education systen already has a very negative image around the globe, teaching some utter nonsense along with evolution is just going to make it the laughing stock of the world. With the amount of wealth in your country you should have the finest education system in the world, not the poorist of the western world.
Keep up the good work those people like Phil who are fighting the trend, if they don’t do something soon how long is it going to be until the religious extremes take us back to the dark ages and start burning scientists at the stake… again?
August 4th, 2005 at 8:20 am
i consider myself fairly religious. i also consider myself logical beyond what most people would think healthy. some people against creationism hold the idea that EVERYTHING can be explained. Edwin Hubble came up with the “Big Bang” theory, but he couldnt explain it. i don’t think anyone can explain it. some may say “in time, we will be able to explain it, just as copernicus(?) proved that the earth went round the sun.” well, the way I see it, that was quite physical and tangible, and happening in a present time, which made it rather easy to prove. we will probably never be able to re-create the beginning of the universe. i believe because it was divine in nature, others believe simply because it is too difficult for one reason or another. some of you probably think that this is in fact illogical to the greatest extreme. what i think is illogical, is even attempting to explain something so inexplicable, so extraordinary, that our minds cannot even fathom what it has created.
on another point, it never ceases to amaze me how absolutely vicious some people are. the word “hate” is thrown around far too easily, as well as the word “liar”. bush is a “liar” because he dethroned a terrible dictator, and he is “hated” because he holds different beliefs than most, more enlighted, people of science. but if a man lies under oath (and yes, it was an out and out lie), he is not called a liar, he is not hated, he is idolized.
everyone is entitled to their own opinion. everyone is NOT entitled to strike down a different opinion simply because it differs from their own. sure there are going to be zealots on both sides of the argument, but tolerance must prevail. if it really gets you that upset that someone else is trying to force their opinions on someone else, just relax, and present information without condecention, it works much better.
August 4th, 2005 at 8:23 am
BJN, you could look at Gerardous Bouw, who runs the “Geocentric Astronomer” website. But I wouldn’t call him an astronomer since he is not a scientist, but a literal biblical apologist. Again, he makes up his mind first and then looks at the facts.
David Lee, besides the problem that the ICR is provably wrong about so many things and makes outrageously erroneous claims about the most basic science(I lay out quite a few in my book), that list has many other problems as well. I invite interested parties to the Talk-Origins site for more info: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
August 4th, 2005 at 8:57 am
Christian Says:
I am playing Devil’s advocate here;
Both ID proponents and myself don’t want religion in the classroom. We want evolution in the classroom. We want more evolution taught, not less. The critiques and the evidence for evolution should be taught.
—-
First off, I’m glad someone did play devil’s advocate here. And you did a good job with it too. The only problem is, I think you are in the minority here when you talk about teaching more points of views. In my last posting, this is what I was hinting at. In a perfect world, it would be great to teach the views of different religion’s views on this topic. Unfortunately, ID is just one religion’s point of view, and their motives seem to be less pure than yours.
Not to mention that they’re trying to pass this off as a scientific theory, not as a religious belief, which as this article said, is just flat out wrong.
August 4th, 2005 at 9:09 am
BJN said:
“My, what an impressive list. Including veterinarians and M.D.s. Reputable “scientistsâ€? indeed. These folks aren’t even hiding behind the ID smokescreen, they’re creationists. You wouldn’t happen to know where I can find a list of “astronomersâ€? who maintain the Earth is at the center of the universe? ”
The statement from the bad astronomer was that all scientists think ID is crap. It took me all of 10 seconds to find a list of scientists that did not think that. My point is that there are enough educated people in the world supporting either side to warrant teaching both sides. If you are so sure your side is right, you have nothing to worry about.
Give me some time and I will find a list of astronomers who maintain the Earth is at the center of the universe
August 4th, 2005 at 9:21 am
I try not to read too much about this or my head will explode–so I suppose this has been said many times, many ways. But—how CAN anyone believe in intelligent design if they just look around. Just look at the human race if you are ignorant about biology. if there was a designer he must have been either stupid or absent minded, there is very little evidence of intelligence in the physical and mental design of humans!
August 4th, 2005 at 10:34 am
I am probably going to get hammered for this but…….. why is the concept of ID so hated. Is it not possible that some other intelligent being (maybe human in nature) assisted in life being created here on Earth? Aren’t the advances in cloning that I read about all the time sort of like ID in the fact that an intelligent being is helping to create life or control the creation of life? Is it not fathomable that in the very near future one of our brilliant scientist discovers how to manipulate enough “things” to create life that did not exist before? If that is the case, why is it not possible that we or maybe other forms of life here, were created by something else out there. Phil, you have even talked about the possibilities that life exist on other planets and that it is even very possible that it is intelligent (more so then I). Who is to say that they didn’t “seed” or help get us here. As we get more advanced, do we not think that one day we might not transfer some of our life to another world?
Now, I understand the resistance to creationism but teaching that the only possible method for life to exist here is to have been created here and evolved here seems closed minded to me. If you couldn’t tell, I am not a scientist. I am just a guy who love’s Phil’s movies reviews, but I am shocked at the hostile tone of some of these posting. As a great American once said “Couldn’t we all just get along” or was it “Ouch, quit it!”
August 4th, 2005 at 11:05 am
Paul Smith:
It’s not the money spent, it’s the ideology. We’re neck deep in it these days, and it prevades our educational system like the deadly London smog of 1952. It’s not called “kultursmog” for nothing.
There’s all sorts of competing political belief systems that result in an avoidance of failure, and by failure I mean they cannot allow a child to fail, even if that means lowering the expectations about the child to the point where they are already met.
The child “passes” the class, but, really, didn’t learn anything. It’s like passing them in Astronomy because they learned the big bright thing in the sky during the day is the Sun. They may think the Sun revolves around the Earth, or the Earth is flat and sitting on the back of a Turtle, but, hey, they met our lowered expectations of Sun identification.
I think we’ll get past it eventually, but it will take a lot of work. It’d be nice to get some *constructive* criticism from the rest of the world instead of mindless jabs once in a while. There’s too many “Oh, Americans are X and they always think Y” type statements said about one of the most diverse populations in the world’s history. It’s not groupthink but our very diversity that leads to these problems (wildly competing ideologies, desires and goals). Diversity can be a strength, but eventually everyone has to get on the same page of the prospectus and move forward. Picture you process in developing the EU Constitution, but with a million little tiny countries each with a vote and their own agenda.
You savvy?
August 4th, 2005 at 11:13 am
David,
Did you forget what the inquisition did a couple of hundred years ago? How does that qualify as “getting along”? Scientists are right to be angry with attempts of the church/religion to intefere with education because religion is irrational, technically it does not have a real basis of support for its arguments and points, it makes about its worldview. I’m not saying religion should be banned, because I respect its moral teachings, but it should not try to impose a wrong understanding of the world.
Your point that the human race was merely “seeded” by another civilization/intelligent being simply transfers the problem of evolution of life from our backyard to someone else’s, in a way that I can daringly classify as not willing to find a more suitable explanation. What the scientific theory of evolution is trying to find is proof that this did or did not happen, which is in MHO the essesnce of the problem – the church demands that things are accepted as given, without proof (believe in God), versus proving that things actually happen (fossil records).
I can understand in a way why the religios beliefs are becoming increasingly popular those days (excuse my generalization, but to a certain extent it is true). And the reason behind it in my opinion is that they offer simple explanations, very simple, very easy to understand by the “average” person, who feels more and more isolated and left out by the progress of technology and understanding of our world, and who simply does not want to spend time reading tons of scientific publications/books, when religion is offering him the Bible, just one book.
I am sorry if I offend religious people with my comment but come on people, who makes the world work today?
August 4th, 2005 at 11:27 am
David,
The answer to your question rests with the intent of the “intelligent design” movement. Saying that evolution was seeded by an intelligent mortal being (not a god or other supernatural entitiy) would be to merely displace the beginning of life back one more step to another naturalistic origin. If an alien caused life on earth, how did the alien first evolve?
The purpsose of the “intelligent design” movement is first and foremost to get people to abandon naturalistic explanations for life. It is their goal to forever have our society attribute any gap in our knowledge to supernatural origins and give up trying to answer them. This is unacceptable as it stalls the scientific search for knowledge.
The other major flaw there is that “intelligent design” moguls persist in assuming that the evolution of life should have a directed purpose and that they are being actively guided to acheive some sort of predefined goal. Observed biology directly contradicts this assumption. Evolved creatures are flawed and the nature of random mutation and natural selection ensures that the adaptions which survive are never perfect but in many cases barely adequate. Also, whatever role which could have been played by any hypothetical mortal designer it cannot still be operating. The “intelligent design” cabul is not interested in a dispassionate mortal designer – they have already predefined their assumed designer as a supernatural entity which must still be guiding the life of organisms on Earth and generally reject purely naturalistic causes (such as mortal aliens, however hypothetical).
August 4th, 2005 at 11:41 am
David said:
I am probably going to get hammered for this but…….. why is the concept of ID so hated. Is it not possible that some other intelligent being (maybe human in nature) assisted in life being created here on Earth?
I hope you don’t get hammered for asking an honest question. I believe your conception of “intelligent” design may be different than the “intelligent” design (ID) that groups are attempting to push into science classrooms. I think the origin of life is still fairly uncertain as you said but this is not what ID criticizes. They target evolution. While I’m certainly no expert, my guess is that ID does this because it is basically creationism with all the references to “God” replaced by “intelligent designer” and Creationists do not like evolution because they can only accept one way for God to work.
Although there is no theory of ID, their basic principle is that some time(s) something (God) messed with life on Earth. They point to things like the human eye or the flagella tail of bacteria and say that since they can’t imagine how it would evolve it must have been a designer. When over and over again scientists have found likely pathways for the evolution of complicated features [www.talkorigins.org for summaries], ID just picks a new yet unexplained part to cling to.
Scientists find ID unacceptable because there is no evidence to support it, no benefit to assuming it, and no way to disprove it. This puts ID firmly outside science and into philosphy. But this has not stopped ID supporters from politicizing and pushing their beliefs as science. Calling ID science demeans the work of real science and, if included in science classrooms, undermines our children’s understanding of the scientific process.
August 4th, 2005 at 11:44 am
David,
ID isn’t about science it is nothing more than a repackaging of biblical creationism and no other being except the evangelical Christian God is an acceptable intelligence behind ID.
And if you really want to get blasted go to a Christian Fundamentalist website such as Rapture Ready and post the idea that ID could mean that aliens seeded life on earth.
Just be ready to duck and cover.
August 4th, 2005 at 11:53 am
During my 4.0 mile jog at 13:30 hours EDT, I decided to forgo my restraint on offending “all religious persons that have blogged” this webblog.
“God” is just pretend, imaginary, and is a created being.
I became an Atheist [ If a god or gods/goddesses actually "existed", I would not be an Atheist!] in 1970, on my own, after researching the religions of our very own species, Homo sapiens sapiens. From at least eighty thousand years of mostly polytheistic religion (paganism) of the hunter/gatherer tribes to the Greeks, Romans, mostly Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Native Americans, Africans, etc., and during the last 4.5 thousand years of four distinct monotheistic religions of desert/arid tribes (Egyptian “Aten”, Judaism (YHWH), Catholic/Christian, and Islam (Allah)).
If you are interested, I recommend an article in the August 2005 Discover magazine by Robert Sapolsky: “Are the Desert People Winning? Anthropologists say all the world’s cultures fall into two basic groups: those from the forests and those from arid lands. Increasingly, the future looks treeless.”
August 4th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Thanks for your responses to my post and helping clear up my confusion some on this issue. I guess what I am bothered by is the rigidness, that I perceive, in the teaching of evolution. I do believe that things evolve, but I do not think we can prove where we came from yet. I would only like to see that my children are taught that we don’t know for sure. I am not saying that we were put here by a God, but we don’t know for sure how we got here. Theories have fallen apart before and I would love it if my child were to either help prove or disprove one. I think the only way that would happen is (a brain transfer from someone not related to me) if they understand that what is being taught still needs to be worked on.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
I think a couple clarifications are in order…
Evolution is an explanation for how life changes, adapts, etc. It’s entirely separate from the question of how life originated. Naturalistic explanations for life’s origins (molecules struck by lightning, etc.) make sense in the context of evolution and often ride alongside it, but they’re not a part of the theory of evolution itself. Evolution would be just as valid if God or Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster initially created life.
The idea that life was seeded on Earth (“panspermia”, I think it’s called) is not directly relevant to evolution, since it has to do with how life began on Earth, not what it’s done since arrival. It’s also true that panspermia merely pushes back the question of how life began in the first place.
Mutation is the force that pushes evolution forward. Natural selection is the process that guides it in one direction or another. Evolution requires both. That’s also why it’s not synonymous with natural selection.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
David Says:
I do believe that things evolve, but I do not think we can prove where we came from yet. I would only like to see that my children are taught that we don’t know for sure.
—-
I couldn’t agree with you more, David. But ID is not the solution. Not even close. I do however remember being taught that theories were just that – just theories and not for sure.
August 4th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Unyielding rigidness is certainly not a good thing in science or life. It seems to me that science as practiced today strikes a fair balance between accepting new ideas and keeping old ones. To be accepted as a valid theory, a new idea must have supporting evidence. There is no evidence that evolution did not occur and many different converging lines of evidence that it did. Every biologist I know would love the fame and funding from finding a better theory than evolution but all evidence leads to evolution.
The practice and thought pattern of science does seem to be missing from many classrooms. Kids should learn to think in science class instead of just memorizing facts. I certainly support teaching children how to think in a scientific way but intelligent design does not do this. It is not an alternative to evolution. It is a belief based on faith not a theory based on evidence. The only way it should be included in science class is as an example of how not to do science.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Christian Said:
> But to say that all creationists are ignorant is flat out wrong.
Correct. Some deliberately misrepresent evolution and science.
> To ignore that creationists bring up good points is also wrong.
Arguable. To point out a specific incident or development that is not currently explained has some value. To use that to declare “therefore, evolution is completely wrong” does not.
> To say that the majority of scientists don’t believe in ID is unfounded (ID can mean that God created the mechanisms for evolution).
Semantics. ID and creationism are more than just the belief in an ultimate creator, they are specific premises about cosmological and life origins and development. ID proponents oppose large components of the theory of evolution, components that integrate the whole of biological science. Believing that evolution is the method chosen by God for development of life does not make you a creationist (or IDer), it makes you a religious evolutionist. Creationism is more than the belief that God is ultimately responsible for creating everything, it is the assertion about God’s methodology. That assertion is at odds with the findings of scientific research, and is not based upon alternate evidenciary grounds, but ideology. That is why it is not science.
> [Evolution] is now an ideology that the overwhelming majority of scientists have been taught and consequently believe, that doesn’t make it correct.
No. Evolution is a descriptive word used to represent a comprehensive explanation of processes that are obvious and observed – life is not static, as environments change so do the lifeforms present. There are open questions and debates about the details of how things happen, what drives the changes, and the mechanisms of the changes. These are the salient arguments and areas of study within biology. “Evolution” is often used as a shorthand term for any aspect of study within the overarching explanation. ID is not an attempt to address the open questions, the non-resolved methods and unexplained details. That can be done within evolution and without declaring “Evolution” to be wrong. Witness Punctuated Equilibrium versus Gradualism. ID is the attempt to justify Creationism, which is the replacement of explanations with”God did it”. That is a singularly poor answer to the questions, such as “How did life develop on Earth?” “God did it.” Okay, now how did God do it? Snap his fingers and *poof*? That is what Creationism provides as the answer.
Analogy: you are driving in an unfamiliar city and stop for directions.
you: “Excuse me, mister, how do I get to 51st street and Baker Ave?”
mister: “I imagine by driving your car.”
A singularly unhelpful answer, isn’t it.
> Both ID proponents and myself don’t want religion in the classroom. We want evolution in the classroom. We want more evolution taught, not less. The critiques and the evidence for evolution should be taught.
You may be speaking for yourself, but you are not correct about ID proponents. Witness textbook disclaimers on Evolution. Witness efforts to remove even the word “evolution” from biology classes.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
David:
I think there are several reasons why ID gets such a hot reaction from mainstream science.
Part of the problem is that ID has been very aggressive–it’s come into the ring swinging, and that’s obviously going to get a reaction from people. But there are several more substantial reasons.
It’s unscientific–I don’t mean that in an insulting way; it’s just not a scientific discipline, any more than literature or art or music is scientific: it’s not that kind of animal. Science proceeds by thinking up possible explanations–naturalistic explanations–for things, testing those explanations honestly, and deciding the outcome strictly based on the results. Conclusions come at the end of a long series of tests that prove the strength of the idea, and that idea is *only then* called a “theory”. ID proceeds from the assumption that the world is too complex to have come about without some kind of supernatural intervention, and it wraps all its ideas around that core concept. It performs no significant tests, decides its outcomes largely based on preconceived assumptions, and doesn’t allow the possibility of changing its core ideas even if proven wrong. Scientific ideas DO get changed if sufficient scientific evidence is found showing that they need to be changed. ID can be valid as religion or philosophy, but it is clearly NOT a science.
ID makes no real effort to be scientific in any meaningful way. It’s taken Christian creationism, stripped out the religious-sounding parts, and claimed to be scientific on the grounds that it is religiously neutral. And in fact it does seem religiously neutral on its surface–but when you take a closer look, you can see that’s not so. ID is clearly based on Biblical creationism–one creator (hence most Eastern religions are excluded), for instance. The fact that ID, while clearly not a science, claims to be one and therefore claims the benefits of a science (ie, credibility and that it should be taught in science classes) is galling to many.
ID also has a specific agenda. Having failed to gain acceptance by the mainstream scientific community, it’s gone straight to the political arena. Its agenda has been very transparant: push its way into public school as a neutral-sounding program, then insert religion into it later. Think about it–students are taught that the world was shaped by an “intelligent designer”; that begs the question of who or what this intelligent designer is, and the obvious answer is God. I think it’s very clear all around that ID proponents would object to modifying ID teaching to accomodate Hindu or Buddhist beliefs in Hindu- or Buddhist-American communities. They’re geared to one specific religion, and many find it abhorrent that people are trying to reintroduce this sort of thing to our public schools, even with a new name and a facelift.
Another issue (to harp on the science thing) is that many are concerned that teaching ID would adversely affect our children’s science educations. ID suggests that science, if not harmful, is at least irrelevant to many naturalistic phenomena. If the next generation grows up believing that the Bible is the authoritative source for astronomy, biology, geology, etc. (remember, the attack on evolution is just one part of the strategy to teach a young universe), what will happen to our scientific research years from now? ID and creationism are not scientific–they don’t offer testable predictions that can be used to overcome obstacles. Right now we’re seeing the impact of microevolution, as microbes for instance are adapting to be resistant to antibiotics. ID/creationism would predict that germs wouldn’t evolve such a resistance. How would our medical community fare under such assumptions? And including ID in our public school curricula could very well damage the reputation of American science education, with various repercussions down the road. These are some of the concerns that raise alarms in many people’s minds.
David, I’m definitely not trying to flame you or anything. I’m trying to honestly answer your question.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
David,
In practice, things are never known “for sure”, in a way that IS how they are, versus that is how they appear. Scientific theories do not usually explain why things happen the way they do, because (in my opinion) that is not their primary goal (and it will most likely will never be known for sure, you can generalize down to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle if you will…), rather extrapolate the state of some system (biological, physical) in some way to obtain verifiable predictions. The scientist’s job is to discover the best way of making those extrapolations. However, since we are not God, we dont have access to all the data that is out there to base our conclusions on, hence our theories will most likely fail unders some circumstances. But that is not the point. The point is that we (ideally) get closer to the REAL understaning of the world in an open and verifiable way, rather than seeking questionable “shortcuts” such as intelligent design.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
First off, I am an astronomy major with a philosophy minor (kind of weird, I know), so naturally I side with the science. But one of my philosophy profs was real into the whole Intelligent Design thing, so I ended up learning a bit about it and how it started.
When I first heard about ID, it was in a philosophy course, which seemed appropriate, since that’s what it is: a bunch of ideas that a couple of philosophers, including some scientists, came up with which were based off of evolution. It didn’t quite refute the idea (like some people want it to now), but it didn’t quite say it was complete either. It rasied some points, and brought up some interesting thougts, like maybe we still have some stuff to learn, but that was about it.
That’s where many of the arguments, irreducible complexity and the like, came from. They were philosophical musings; some guys sitting around saying “I wonder how the eye got to be the way it is.”
Of course now that the hardcore religious types have grabbed onto these arguments, ID has been turned from a couple of thoughts just kind of thrown out there to a full-blown dogma. They forget that many of the arguments and ideas that came out of it were philosophical in nature, not scientific. Even my prof was very dissapointed at this result, saying that “no one in the scientific community would ever consider its ideas much less take it seriously anymore.”
Intellegent Design wasn’t supposed to be a science OR a religion. It’s a shame that some zealots want to pass it off as both. I would rather just think of it as some interesting ideas and nothing more.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Chet Twarog said:
“‘God’ is just pretend, imaginary, and is a created being.”
an opinion stated as a fact. it leaves no room for negotiation or compromise, and is hardly constructive to any kind of debate. total and complete close-mindedness never helped anything, get a grip chet.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Don’t have much time so I’ll boil it down a bit.
ID= If you can’t explain something, stop investigating and put it down to a higher power, don’t try to understand because you can’t.
To Bush:
ID = Bad (It will stop your people from thinking)
Evolution & science = Good (It will keep your people thinking)
August 4th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
“Monsters from the ID” is the thought I had from the prior blog (Forbiden Planet). It is a similar thought here as the ID-ites struggle against the scientific force field, desperately attempting to enter the encampment of the “good guys” (usually in off-white baseball caps
).
Yet it’s rare when things are black & white, IMO. Creationists more than just believe in a likleyhood of God’s existance, they have committed faith. This faith can be a wonderful attribute such as when used to treat others better than normal. Incorporating ones religious views into work and understanding of the universe is only natural. In the days of Darwin, it was even encouraged by many, if not most, “science” leaders. I think it was called natural philosophy back then.
If it was considered philosophy, they probably had a better perspective than the IDites of today. Incorporating worthy ideas into philosophy and religion is fine, but it does not belong in science class. I.D. wouldn’t be so bad in philosophy/religion class, IMO. It is not science because it, apparently, does not allow much measurement, or at least, none that is favorable.
The belief that God is the creator is a wonderful act of faith. This is my belief as a creationist. I also believe the Genesis account is correct but must be interpreted with the enrichment of science.
So, let’s take the i.d. (imaginary dinosaurs) out of the ark, and the ID monster out of the science class.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:44 pm
If ID/creationism was given equal time in schools but told they had to use that time to talk about their own theories, and not simply bagging out evolution, what would they talk about? Do they only have religious dogma or is there more? (Assume evolution criticism has its own separate time)
Every time I see an ID/creationism website, it seems to be devoted to picking holes in Evolution rather than advancing theories of its own.
If ID/creationism is a “rival theory” with evolution, then I’d expect it would have more to it than simply “God did it”.
Christopher
August 4th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
In Gnosticism, one of the sayings we have is “wisdom destroys faith”. Mind you, it’s usually applied to things of pneumatic nature, but it works just as well in the observable/predictable universe that science deals with. Thousands of years from now, the human body of scientific knowledge and technique will (hopefully) be exponentially greater than it is today, and I see no reason why we should not eventually have the means to empirically prove once and for all the existence (or lack thereof) of God, fate, Unus Mundus, or anything else.
Proponents of ID/creationism are only going to hinder this progress. If ANY of their ideas are remotely correct, science will eventually arrive at those conclusions on its own. Not keep beating the proverbial dead horse, ID/creationism, on the extreme offchance they actually come out on top in this battle, will almost certainly ban any science that contradicts their three-thousand-year-old dogma, and in the most ironic twist in the story of history ever, prevent human beings from having the potential to validate the existence of the God they say is behind all of this. In science, the truth will always eventually become apparent, even if it takes centuries.
Additionally, I find creationism to be downright offensive in some regards. It laughs off all that life had to go through to produce a species capable of understanding its own past and the world around it. From single-celled organisms to sea life, to early primates, we fought for our very existence against mightier life forms, natural disasters, harsh climates, and even apocalyptic cometary impacts, over the course of four billion bloody and terrifying years to get this far. To say that we just popped up out of nowhere some time after the onset of our current interglacial period is to degrade the constant and unending struggle to continue existing that led us to be what we are today.
August 4th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Ahhh… ID again…
ID and Creationaism are logically unsound. The basic concept being that complex organisms cannot arise without an intelligent guiding force. However, like panspermia, these ideas simply move the problem back one step. What created ‘The Creator’? Who made god?
Reminds me of one of my favourite lines from the song Mankind Man by Barstool Prophets:
“Created by god, when it’s really the other way around.”
August 4th, 2005 at 10:29 pm
“Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”
- Isaac Asimov
“If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”
- Judith Hayes
August 5th, 2005 at 12:23 am
I am a believer in God and creationism. I wonder though, why it is that god couldn’t have created the universe and humans through evolution? The Bible never says how time differs between god and humans. One second to God could be a million years to us. The Bible doesn’t give specifics on HOW the universe was created, just that it was. If you get impatient, confused or bored easily, skip down to the last two paragraphs. I tend to ramble and zig zag while thinking.
The Bible speaks in parables, riddles and obscure references so that the information contained inside can continue to be applicable for the rest of time. Certainly there was a need to change the way things were done, so along came the New Testament. My point is, and yes I do have one, is that the Bible has time and time again proved to be historically accurate when checked against other historical documents of that time period. Scientists and archeologists also use the Bible to cross check information that they have BECAUSE it has time and time again proven to be one of the mot accurate documents in existence.
Quite frankly my dears, if anything, I would be trying to figure out how I could combine the sciences into one that INCLUDES the Bible. It seems to me that ALL sides have several valid arguments. Suppose that MY theory is correct and creationism is really how it DID happen but God used evolution to make it happen? It would be a shame if there was a 5 year old in some obscure school in some obscure part of the United states that could prove this theory correct with out a shadow of doubt but cannot because he was never taught the theory of creationism. Oh, by and by, it seems to me that EVERY scientific fact started out as theory and most of it was “crap” if you will.
Humans once thought the world to be flat until some one got enough guts to sail over the horizon line. Once people thought that an open flame was the only way to see in the dark. At one time, people died from horrible diseases and plagues that we only DREAMED there was a cure for. There was a time that you could murder some one and you’d likely NEVER get caught. Now its almost a certainty that you’ll mess up some how with DNA and get caught. DNA in itself was a “pipe dream” of some scientist somewhere. Once upon a time, there was a scientist that thought some weird science he liked to call “Cold Fusion” was something that could be achieved one day. Who are we to say that person is wrong? Because we have no absolute proof to back it up yet? That’s why they call it theory.
Theory:
Definition: [n] a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices”
[n] a belief that can guide behavior; “the architect has a theory that more is less”; “they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales”
[n] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory” (hyperdictionary)
Everything starts as an “insane idea of some zealous nutjob” but some actually DO pan out in the end. Personally, Id rather not be held responsible for holding back the “key that unlocks the mysteries of the universe” just because I get a bit offended about something that isn’t proven. Evolution cant be proven, yet Ill still allow it to be taught to my child. Why? I want my child to be as informed as he possibly can. I don’t want my child to be the key and miss the lock because I kept information from him. Do you? You know, come to think of it, perhaps we shouldn’t teach science theory at all. Perhaps we should wait to teach evolution, creationism, the big bang and all that blather until at least high school and just stick to the science that can be proven with out a doubt in the lower grades. That should be less confusing to everyone and help the children be protected from teachers that are ill equipped to handle the tough questions that our younger children might stumble upon.
That probably sounds as silly to you as keeping valuable information from my child sounds to me. In a nut shell, teach the children, let them learn, conduct their own experiments with the ever EVOLVING and new CREATIONS in technology. Instead of deciding for them what they will learn and what they wont, give them the same opportunity that you had to try and figure it out for themselves. Its like saying “cold fusion hasn’t been proven or achieved yet so there is no such thing, can never be done and is a waste of time to even dream about. Ill not teach you anything about it and you’ll never have the opportunity to do the experiments yourself. There. I’ve just saved you a life time of disappointment and frustration.”
Man, I wish my parents would have done that for me. *rolls eyes*
August 5th, 2005 at 6:30 am
A few thoughts again.
“ID and Creationaism are logically unsound. The basic concept being that complex organisms cannot arise without an intelligent guiding force. However, like panspermia, these ideas simply move the problem back one step. What created ‘The Creator’? Who made god?”
Your question is, “What created the uncreated?” It is not a valid question. God is by definition eternal. If I ask a steady-state theorist where did the eternal universe come from, that would not be a valid question either.
“If ID/creationism was given equal time in schools but told they had to use that time to talk about their own theories, and not simply bagging out evolution, what would they talk about? Do they only have religious dogma or is there more? (Assume evolution criticism has its own separate time)
Every time I see an ID/creationism website, it seems to be devoted to picking holes in Evolution rather than advancing theories of its own.
If ID/creationism is a “rival theoryâ€? with evolution, then I’d expect it would have more to it than simply “God did itâ€?.”
Than you have not read the Hydroplate theory or Dr Humphreys’ White-Hole cosmology theory
“As a European, it seems absolutely insane that this is even being considered. If any politician said something like this here their career would be over in a heart beat.”
Yeah, because being European really changes everything…??? I’m a Canadian and I’m not sure how my views change when I cross the border. Why don’t you tell that to Silvio Berlusconi?
“First off, I’m glad someone did play devil’s advocate here. And you did a good job with it too. The only problem is, I think you are in the minority here when you talk about teaching more points of views.”
Perhaps, but President Bush, Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute all want more evolution taught (the evidence for and against, this way the kids think for themselves).
“I try not to read too much about this or my head will explode–so I suppose this has been said many times, many ways. But—how CAN anyone believe in intelligent design if they just look around. Just look at the human race if you are ignorant about biology. if there was a designer he must have been either stupid or absent minded, there is very little evidence of intelligence in the physical and mental design of humans!”
The reason why I’m starting to leads towards Creation Science rather than with evolution is because of hateful ignorant comments like that. C’mon, you can do better than that. When I talk with creationists and try to explain evolution to them (or perhaps us, I don’t know where I stand), I don’t speak with scientific arguments, not religious or philosophical ones.
“ID= If you can’t explain something, stop investigating and put it down to a higher power, don’t try to understand because you can’t.
To Bush:
ID = Bad (It will stop your people from thinking)
Evolution & science = Good (It will keep your people thinking)”
Another ignorant, and possibly hateful, comment. Keep saying stuff like this; you’re only turning people off of science. I’m a 3rd year science student and I study Creation Science and evolution, I think about it. I consider myself an intelligent person. Get over it.
Again, I consider myself a scientific person, and ID is a worthy study. Forensic science deals with observations we make today, to make a plausible reconstruction of a past event. Origins science is the same, whether our origins are from a single cell, or Adam and Eve. The explanatory power of a global flood to explain geologic phenomena has scientific merit, so does 4.6 billion years. I fully intend to search this issue further, and if I determine Creation Science is more logical than naturalistic explanations than that is thinking.
My only problem with science today is that it rules out God from the start. If you want to play semantics and say Creation Science isn’t scientific, this doesn’t undermine any Creationist arguments, it is only demonstrating that you have a closed mind. If Creation Science isn’t scientific, that that doesn’t mean there is a problem with Creation Science, the problem is with science.
In conclusion, stop being hateful towards creationists, it only serves to hurt your position. If you truly want to make an impact, do the same thing I do when I talk to creationists, speak with science. Don’t try to rule it out using the definition of science, try to explain how evolution works and why scientists believe it. Resist the urge to call anyone stupid, because they go to Church, or because they don’t believe the mechanism for evolution are fully understood.
August 5th, 2005 at 6:32 am
Oh and one more thing. Please excuse any grammar errors, I went to a French school where English was considered a crime. My translation of certain terms may be a little shady too.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:15 am
“Perhaps, but President Bush, Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute all want more evolution taught (the evidence for and against, this way the kids think for themselves).�
This is disingenuous. They are asking for supposed “evidence against evolution� to be inserted directly into the science classroom, bypassing the whole scientific method (e.g., research, peer review)…�evidence� that has been refuted by mainstream science many times over. Their motivation is, as yours, a philosophical concern that science is limited to naturalistic explanations. This does not mean that science is atheistic.
“The explanatory power of a global flood to explain geologic phenomena has scientific merit, so does 4.6 billion years.�
I am puzzled at how you can compare the two. The geologic & fossil records do not support a global flood as described in Genesis.
“If you want to play semantics and say Creation Science isn’t scientific, this doesn’t undermine any Creationist arguments,�
If you can accept that Creation Science isn’t scientific (does not follow the scientific method), then (1) you must agree that the name is deceptive and (2) it does not belong in science classrooms.
“it is only demonstrating that you have a closed mind.�
No, it means Creation Science has yet to meet the standard required for inclusion in science education. With no standards, we could teach every creation myth known to the history of humanity as valid and let people decide for themselves. But that wouldn’t be a science class, would it?
“ If Creation Science isn’t scientific, that that doesn’t mean there is a problem with Creation Science, the problem is with science. “
This doesn’t even make sense. If you prefer some alternative method to understanding, that’s fine, but don’t call it science. If Creation Science wants to be a science, then it should behave as such. It’s not just semantics. Assuming CS is correct, then it should be able to put forth evidence to convince the scientific community. Instead, its method is to preach to the public.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:28 am
Christian,
“Your question is, “What created the uncreated?â€? It is not a valid question. God is by definition eternal. If I ask a steady-state theorist where did the eternal universe come from, that would not be a valid question either. ”
My question is valid since the theory in question, ID, is based upon the idea that complexity cannot arise on its own. To simply say, “God is eternal” is to sidestep the question. It is also an untestable statement with no offer of proof.
A Beliver of Crap,
You are right, the bible is an incredibly accurate historical document. I especially like the parts about talking with flaming bushes, flooding the world, and rising from the dead.
Give me a break.
August 5th, 2005 at 8:48 am
“I wonder though, why it is that god couldn’t have created the universe and humans through evolution?�
No scientific problem there. The theory explains how the evolution occurred. Since science can’t prove/disprove the existence of God, it remains silent on that matter.
“Scientists and archeologists also use the Bible to cross check information that they have BECAUSE it has time and time again proven to be one of the mot accurate documents in existence.�
Although note that history is different than science. The Bible is not written as a science textbook.
“It would be a shame if there was a 5 year old in some obscure school in some obscure part of the United states that could prove this theory correct with out a shadow of doubt but cannot because he was never taught the theory of creationism.�
No problem teaching creationism in its proper context (e.g., church, comparative religion class, etc.). The problem is the attempts to teach non-science in science classrooms.
“Who are we to say that person is wrong? Because we have no absolute proof to back it up yet? That’s why they call it theory.�
Some theories are more robust & well supported than others. Theories which have been vetted through the scientific process and continue to pass tests have earned the right to be taught as mainstream science. Other ideas (e.g., ID) have more work to do before entering the scientific mainstream. Other ideas (e.g., YEC) simply conflict scientific facts and should not be included in science classrooms.
“Evolution cant be proven,�
Although scientific theories are never 100% proven, they can be built upon a strong foundation of known facts and provide robust model that continues to pass experimental tests.
“I want my child to be as informed as he possibly can. I don’t want my child to be the key and miss the lock because I kept information from him. Do you?�
‘Course not. So have your child learn science in science class and religion in religion class.
“ You know, come to think of it, perhaps we shouldn’t teach science theory at all.�
The main goal of science is to develop theories. Facts are great, but those are collected in order to understand how things work. Laws are great too, but they just provide general descriptions and don’t provide explanations.
“That probably sounds as silly to you as keeping valuable information from my child sounds to me.�
So how do you want to define “valuable�? Do you have some screening process for the marketplace of ideas or do you think every idea ever produced is potentially valuable and should be taught? (e.g., flat earth, conspiracy theories, mysticism, etc.)
August 5th, 2005 at 10:10 am
Evalushin cain’t be true cuz life is so compliculated and if’n I cain’t understand it, ain’t no ways it evalushinned! Only possabel explainashin is GOD. If’n science done did it, we’d understand it completely. Since we cain’t it ain’t! How gosh durn hard is it to unnerstan that if’n you cain’t undnerstan how something works GOD hadda dun did it!
August 5th, 2005 at 10:14 am
“I’m a 3rd year science student and I study Creation Science and evolution, I think about it. I consider myself an intelligent person. Get over it.”
That’s nice. I consider you an ignorant retard. Shouldn’t you guys be lion food?
August 5th, 2005 at 10:16 am
I’m religious, but this creationism stuff just makes my head hurt. People act like there has to be an either/or situation here and it just doesn’t. I remember asking my dad when I was 9 about evolution and God and my dad’s reply was, “God uses natural process, if that’s the way it needed to be done then that’s the way it was done.” My parents loved science. My home was a haven for science and God, and the two didn’t conflict all that often.
What really kills me about creationists isn’t the bad science, is that they really, honestly believe God “Hocus Pocus”-ed the universe together. It’s not bad enough they ignore the world around them, but they have to bring magic into it. We have all these neat wonderful natural laws that run our world, why in the world would God ignore them and use MAGIC?!!!
August 5th, 2005 at 11:08 am
This creationist hogwash is pretty silly. They repackage it with the name “intelligent design” and say hey it doesn’t have to be God, just some intelligent entity who created life. OK, lets for a moment assume this stupid idea is true and life on Earth was designed by an intelligent creator. Where did that creator come from? Did that creator evolve somewhere? Was it created by another intelligent designer, and if so, where did THAT creator come from? Or was the creator just always there? The intelligent design idiots say that ID is the only way to explain life because its too improbable that it happened by random chance. Some ID fool on NPR yesterday was citing the mathematical probability of life evolving by chance. What is the mathematical probability of some intelligent being just magically existing with no cause and no origin? Oh, that’s right… ZERO!
Religion belongs in history books. The sooner these Intelligent Design morons, Al Qaida jihadis, and Utah polygamists marrying their 12 year old cousins all go join their brethren like the Spanish Inquisition and Aztec human sacrifice priests in the ash heap of history, the better off we’ll all be. It’s amazing that in this day of space travel and internet communications, we’re still forced to deal with these Bronze Age mythologies.
Science begins with the assumption “I do not know.” Faith is the antithesis of this. The term “creation science” is an oxymoron, and anybody espousing it is just a plain old moron.
August 5th, 2005 at 11:24 am
A problem with ID (there are too many to include them all) is that it is the old God of the gaps theory that had been rejected for centuries by theologians.
Newton couldn’t explain the anomalies in Mercury’s orbit, using the ID logic, we should throw up our hands and say, it is God. Does that make Einstein a heretic? Should we reject the theory of relativity? Do we declare that breakdowns between relativity and quantum physics as the province of God, and therefore all string theory research should be abandoned as heresy?
A great Rabbi was asked to explain the entire bible while standing on one foot. He said “do not onto others as you would not have them do unto you, the rest is commentary. Now go study the commentary.” Religion should be about giving us a moral compass, not science.
August 5th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
“My question is valid since the theory in question, ID, is based upon the idea that complexity cannot arise on its own. To simply say, “God is eternalâ€? is to sidestep the question. It is also an untestable statement with no offer of proof.”
No, something that is eternal has no beginning, therefore no creator. The question is not valid. Your question is still “what created the uncreated?�
“That’s nice. I consider you an ignorant retard. Shouldn’t you guys be lion food? ”
Oh good point. I clearly can’t compete with that. I’m way out of my intellectual league here… If you can’t make intelligent points, you are making your side look unintelligent. If your talking points include, “Idiot!” “Retard!” You really shouldn’t be wasting everyone’s time.
“You are right, the bible is an incredibly accurate historical document. I especially like the parts about talking with flaming bushes, flooding the world, and rising from the dead.
Give me a break. ”
Perhaps you should investigate the matter further. Of course many agnostic historians think much of the bible is filled with fairy tails, but it is also filled with a great deal of historical fact.
When I think about Creation Science I’m thinking I’ll be talking about time dilation due to Einstein Relativity to explain the starlight problem. I’m thinking I’ll be talking about the net effect of mutations, and explaining genotypes and phenotypes and whether or not we see evidence of evolution in zoology. I’m thinking I will be discussing whether or Australopithecines is a missing link. But oh no, I come here and get “you’re an ignorant retard.” I want to talk with people who make me think, not people who try to make me angry (that’s not scientific discourse, that’s making an ass out of yourself).
The only reason I haven’t become a full-fledged creationist out of this is because I have met creationists who are just as closed on the issue and use similar tactics when defending their ideology. It’s shame people are like that. The capacity for human stupidity…
August 5th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
The lion food comment may have been over the top, but I’ll have to agree with the “retard”… You seem to expect to come in and have a debate among equals, only you are not an equal. It is not a debate between different scientific theories, it is not even a debate. Creationists demanding to be heard in a debate over evolution is kind of like a McDonald’s fry cook showing up at a blue ribbon culinary academy and demanding… no, scratch that, at least a McDonald’s fry cook has SOME say in culinary arts. Creationism is the antithesis of science, and you simply do not deserve a voice in the debate. When you have some empirical, provable evidence of a Creator, then you can play. In the mean time, back to the Middle Ages with you, fool.
August 5th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
To Christian:
Complexity arises on its own (that is, within the boundaries of known physical laws) everywhere one looks in nature. Free electrons collide with nuclei consisting of protons/neutrons to form atoms with specific distributions of energy levels. Atoms combine to form molecules in a specific manner. Snowflakes form from individual molecules of water vapor. Molecules of water condense to form droplets, which then can organize themselves into thunderstorms, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Molecules arrange themselves to become proteins and then specialized parts of cells. Cells organize themselves to become organs. Stars form from collapsing clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. Galaxies form from the merging of giant star forming regions. The list is as endless as nature itself.
We don’t yet understand every step of these and the infinite variety of processes we find in nature (though, some much better than others), but nor does anyone find “aha, here a miracle has occurred, since no known laws of nature could have possibly produced such a result.”
The point is that almost none of these processes occur via the random convergence of electrons, atoms, molecules, etc (this is the standard strawman put up by creationists and IDers) – though such is not disallowed by the laws of nature. There are forces present in nature and their resulting potential energies. Feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative, along with chance often enter the mix. None of this is mysterious to a scientist (I happen to be an astronomer).
If you are really interested, there are several good books out there written for the layperson on the subject. But a solid foundation (even if not at the professional level) in the physical sciences is also a good place to start.
August 6th, 2005 at 4:56 am
Replying to Berkley’s comment about “BA assuming farming is a science”. I have to correct the assumptions about lifespan. 35 was not the mean life span during the stone age. That would have been much closer to 20.
Also, it really is modern science which carried lifespans much beyond 35. Athenians of Pericles’ era lived circa 40 years. Even with better sanitation the Romans of the Republican era lived little longer. Even as late as the 1960′s the mean lifespan of the Belgian Congo was 35 years. (perhaps 39, I don’t have the reference at hand)
August 6th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
“You seem to expect to come in and have a debate among equals, only you are not an equal.”
I’m not? How do you know? Most people who call me “retarded” are usually uneducated laypersons in science, I am not uneducated (despite your comments to the contrary) nor am I a layperson.
Furthermore, what everyone on this board seems to be doing is begging the question. You are saying creation science is not a valid theory, without debunking any important creationist theories. You debunk the Michael Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity; Behe isn’t even a creationist. The arguments I gave to attack evolution have not even been addressed.
“In the mean time, back to the Middle Ages with you, fool.”
Good point. It is highly scientific and worthy of merit. Perhaps you should send that into a technical journal. I want to talk about whether or not planetesimals can accrete mass, and the net effect of mutations on genetic variation, and you want to label peopel retards. hmmmm…I wonder who is being more scientific?
You realize I am not very good with English. Did I miss something in English class? Does fool also mean hereditary changes? Could it mean cosmic background radiation, perhaps?
Spaceman,
Hey, I like you. You want to talk about real science. Unfortunately I don’t have a degree in psychology or education, I’m not qualified to make judgements on people’s intelligence. But we are into science, so I can have a discussion with you in an area that I know something about.
First you trash the creationist view that complexity cannot arise in nature. I agree with you. I hear many creationists use the argument from entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. This is wrong, and you are correct.
But I take issue with two examples you cited: “Stars form from collapsing clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. Galaxies form from the merging of giant star forming regions.”
I do not believe either of those are so. My astronomy profs are always happy to give my photos of the Eagle nebula to show me a star forming, but really, do we see star formations? We are told of star formations that later turn out to not have enough gas to form a star.
When we see these photos of heating clouds but only one interpretation is given. We are told that gravity will cause a star to form, but there are other interpretations that are ignored. I would like to explore the other possibilities before I accept stellar evolution.
You also say: We don’t yet understand every step of these and the infinite variety of processes we find in nature (though, some much better than others), but nor does anyone find “aha, here a miracle has occurred, since no known laws of nature could have possibly produced such a result.�
And I agree with this. I don’t like the god of the gaps either. This takes away from the pursuit of science (a study that God Himself ordained). I once heard someone tell me the theory of everything is just God. I was ticked. I believe God created the universe; and I believe that He supersedes the physical laws He established, but this means that He established physical laws and we should try to understand them.
“The point is that almost none of these processes occur via the random convergence of electrons, atoms, molecules, etc (this is the standard strawman put up by creationists and IDers)”
You’re right it’s not random
“None of this is mysterious to a scientist (I happen to be an astronomer).”
Oh cool. I plan to leave my amature status soon.
There are many things science understands. But there are also things science does not understand. In the grand scheme of things, it turns out we don’t know much.
“If you are really interested, there are several good books out there written for the layperson on the subject. But a solid foundation (even if not at the professional level) in the physical sciences is also a good place to start.”
I have an entire bookshelf full of textbooks and books of interest, but if you have anything to recommend and give me a review, I’d be happy to take a trip to the university library. I’ll respond with my thoughts if you give me feedback on some creationist literature I suggest.
August 6th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Christian said:
“But I take issue with two examples you cited: “Stars form from collapsing clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. Galaxies form from the merging of giant star forming regions.â€?
I do not believe either of those are so. My astronomy profs are always happy to give my photos of the Eagle nebula to show me a star forming, but really, do we see star formations? We are told of star formations that later turn out to not have enough gas to form a star. ”
With *some notable exceptions* we don’t usually get to watch individual stars evolve. The time scales are just too long – as predicted by the same models, by the way. However, whether we’re talking about star formation or the evolution of a full fledged star, the theoretrical models make predictions about how a star of a given mass and composition should appear as a function of age: radius, luminosity, surface temperature, the structure of its atmosphere and the resulting spectrum, the presence and level of star spot activity, etc. All of these are time dependent. In the case of the Sun, we can even measure the predicted number of neutrinos emitted in the nuclear reactions. In the sun and nearby stars we are using measurements of subtle sound (pressure) waves bouncing around their insides to tell us about how their densities and temperatures (and even compositions) change with radius within the star.
For stars still forming, the models tell us about the presence of disks and their properties, jets and their properties, the environs of forming stars (insides of giant, dusty/cold giant molecular clouds = GMCs), and that they eventually blow away the remaining gas/dust and the jets shut down, their distributions on the H-R diagram as a function of time, etc.
Present models are sophisticated enough to follow the formation of a cluster of individual stars within a portion of a collapsing GMC until their arrival on the main sequence with the proper properties as a function of their mass. We don’t get to see any one star go through all of this – but nature has provided us with billions from which to study – and all at differing stages within their evolution. This is just like a visiting bunch of alien scientists trying to figure out the lives of human beings with a just short stay in New York City (try to imagine how they would do this). The models predict that we should see such and such stars having such and such properties as function of time. We look and find just what the models predict.
Your statement about there not being enough mass to form a star is just plain mistaken. We’re still learning from stars, but we have a solid understanding of how their basic workings.
I’ll get back to you on some books discussing how complexity arises in nature (this has been too long of a ramble).
August 6th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Murple–Jesus Is A Fairy Tale–whoa there boys! Take it easy. Christian is at least willing to look at some of the evidence. We shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that he’s a one-dimensional automaton like some of the ID crowd we love to hate.
Christian says:
When I think about Creation Science I’m thinking I’ll be talking about time dilation due to Einstein Relativity to explain the starlight problem. I’m thinking I’ll be talking about the net effect of mutations, and explaining genotypes and phenotypes and whether or not we see evidence of evolution in zoology. I’m thinking I will be discussing whether or Australopithecines is a missing link. But oh no, I come here and get “you’re an ignorant retard.�
I’m sorry, Christian. You have gotten a very knee-jerk reaction from us. I think the reason people do that is that 1) they’re reacting to treatment from the ID and CS folks who also do that, and 2) most of the evidence for ID and YEC has been examined by mainstream science and determined to be wrong (while being announced as correct by ID, YEC, and CS folks, most–though not all–of which are not experts in the relevant fields). So it’s a combination of reacting to how they’re treated, plus knowing the weight of science is on their side, plus the aggravation of knowing that people are denying scientifically-established ideas and insisting that their belief systems are scientific fact/theory.
It’s good that you come to this discussion with an open mind. It’s also very good that you would like to decide based on an honest evaluation of the relevant scientific questions. I would strongly encourage you to research some of those questions. Be sure to check out reputable scientific sources. Also be sure to check the claims made in these areas by ID/CS/YEC, and cross-reference them with scientific sources. Often you’ll see ID says that idea A can’t possibly be true, while B clearly is–while the scientific community says just the opposite. When you see that, focus closely on that, and find out what independent sources say on the issue. If you approach the subject in a rational manner, you can’t help but arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
August 6th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
Sounds like a good idea for a second book!
August 6th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
To all who are angry -
I’m not attempting to piss anyone off, but a few things need to be said.
I’ve studied ID, and quite a bit. And I do know that it’s not Creationism, that Creationists often have a serious problem with it because it doesn’t specifically mention a god, and that arguing that it shouldn’t be taught because it’s “not science” is wrong.
ID is science. It may not be right, but it adheres to all good principles of scientific study. Those who disagree might want to examine first the writings, and not the writings about them, of William Dembski, Ph.D, and Behe, Ph.D.
They’re wrong. But they’re not wrong for the reason that everyone has been mentioning. And when these reasons are parroted over and over (no evidence, worthless claims, refuted over and over, etc.), then the victim is evolutionary theory.
I’m not a Christian. I’m a historian, and an amateur historian of science. And criticizing ID for reasons that are untrue doesn’t help science – it makes the critics look like fools.
August 7th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Bush Clarifies his statement:
http://www.physorg.com/news5618.html
Now he’s saying ID should only be taught in creationism, and not be placed on equal footing with evolutionism. I’m glad he has come to his senses.
August 7th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Actually, it doesn’t sound like Bush clarified his statement, Marburger did. I wonder what will come of this… Bob Kirshner, president of the American Astronomical Society, just released a statement expressing disappointment in Bush’s original comments, as has the American Geophysical Union.
August 7th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
“Christian” says:
> Than you have not read the Hydroplate theory or Dr Humphreys’ White-Hole cosmology theory
Okay for those who don’t know, I’ve looked these Creationist theories up. Both incidentally have pages that step through them showing that they don’t match the evidence.
Hydroplate theory: The Earth’s crust originally entirely floated on a layer of water. When the crust was broken all the water erupted out and rained down for 40 days and 40 nights, but God warned Noah before he broke the crust so he could build the Ark and be safe.
Dr Humphreys’ White-Hole cosmology theory: seems to be mostly about gravity affecting time – being near the centre of the universe and a gravity well means that only 6,000 years has passed on Earth since the creation of the universe, despite stars etc being billions of years old. Also explains how the world was created in 7 days and that the speed of light is slowing down.
I’d like to know, when God zaps things into existence, how does he do it? What theories govern this? Do created creatures fade into view or do they appear right before your eyes?
If God were to create a fish into a full bucket of water, would the water overflow? Does God still create creatures? Under what conditions would God create animals for me?
August 8th, 2005 at 5:43 am
“I’m sorry, Christian. You have gotten a very knee-jerk reaction from us. I think the reason people do that is that 1) they’re reacting to treatment from the ID and CS folks who also do that”
Okay, that’s this is true
“most of the evidence for ID and YEC has been examined by mainstream science and determined to be wrong (while being announced as correct by ID, YEC, and CS folks, most–though not all–of which are not experts in the relevant fields).”
Maybe, but mainstream doesn’t mean correct. That’s no reason to believe something.
“criticizing ID for reasons that are untrue doesn’t help science – it makes the critics look like fools.”
If more people like, Spaceman, and the others who want to discuss science stand up, and people like Jesus Is Fairy Tails, and Murple shut up, Creation Science will go away (and would have in the 1950s, if it wasn’t for people who are so hateful). Remember the words of one of the 20th Century’s greatest intellects, C.S. Lewis, said, “What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.”
“Okay for those who don’t know, I’ve looked these Creationist theories up. Both incidentally have pages that step through them showing that they don’t match the evidence.
Hydroplate theory: The Earth’s crust originally entirely floated on a layer of water. When the crust was broken all the water erupted out and rained down for 40 days and 40 nights, but God warned Noah before he broke the crust so he could build the Ark and be safe.”
That’s not quite it, but close. I don’t believe Walt Brown ever claimed the Earth’s crust actually floated on a layer of water. The theory explains the existence of coal and oil, the mid-oceanic ridge, the ice age, the jigsaw fit of the continents, and many of other geological phenomena
“Dr Humphreys’ White-Hole cosmology theory: seems to be mostly about gravity affecting time – being near the centre of the universe and a gravity well means that only 6,000 years has passed on Earth since the creation of the universe, despite stars etc being billions of years old. Also explains how the world was created in 7 days and that the speed of light is slowing down.”
That’s close. But the biggest point of contention is that the theory has nothing to do with the speed of light slowing down. Humphreys has written about that in his book and explained he believes the speed of light is constant.
“I’d like to know, when God zaps things into existence, how does he do it? What theories govern this? Do created creatures fade into view or do they appear right before your eyes?”
I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at here. When God supersedes the natural laws of the universe there are no natural laws that govern this process. When God creates something using the natural laws of the universe than the theories that govern it are the theories He used.
“If God were to create a fish into a full bucket of water, would the water overflow? Does God still create creatures? Under what conditions would God create animals for me?”
What? Overflow? When does God create fish in buckets? Jesus once had Peter and his fishermen friends throw their nets over the boat one more time after a day of unproductive ventures, and the fish would overflow. Other than that, I really am lost.
August 8th, 2005 at 7:24 am
For those who who are new to the BA website and wish to discuss and learn about general astronomy or post topics of astronomical interest that are “against the mainstream” without having insults hurled at you, I suggest going to Bad Astronomy’s bulletin board. The Bad Astronomer (aka “the BA”, aka astronomer Philip Plait) does not allow the hurling of insults within the bulletin board, and shuts down the trolls and will lock up topics that have wandered to far off course.
August 8th, 2005 at 7:57 am
NoSeasPendejo, I’m afraid ID is creationism cloaked as science – that is what makes BA and others (me) so angry. The fact that it does not specifically mention god is the proponents’ method of cloaking. Anything that posits an intelligent designer or guide is by definition creationism. A god by any other name is still a god.
August 8th, 2005 at 8:18 am
Spaceman, you get an entire post to yourself from me.
“Your statement about there not being enough mass to form a star is just plain mistaken.”
I was referring to a specific example, in th Eagle Nebula. I refer to it because that seems to be the image ingrained in everyone’s mind of star formation (and it a reoccurring example given in my textbooks). But we were lied to, as the majority of the star formations within the Eagle nebula are not even star formations at all.
“We don’t get to see any one star go through all of this – but nature has provided us with billions from which to study – and all at differing stages within their evolution.”
Assuming stellar evolution takes place at all, than perhaps this is so. When we find close white dwarf binaries I wonder how they evolved from larger stars on the H-R diagram (I say close, because otherwise gravitational attraction would explain it)
Maybe more later,
God Bless,
Christian
August 8th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Well, what a lot of passion!
Christian, you seem to have taken an awful lot of flak. Hope it wasn’t too painful for you, but, while no-one deserves that kind of reaction, I think you should have expected it.
I have to say I disagree with most of what you have posted. There are several reasons for this and I hope that, by explaining why I disagree with you, I can swing your opinion a little.
First off, a little point: the famous picture of the Eagle nebula taken by Hubble shows at least one star in its T-tauri phase i.e. shortly after star “birth”. So it is a region in which star formation took place recently (i.e. within the last few million years).
On to evolution: that evolution takes place has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, to the point where it is accepted as a fact by the whole life-science community. Where there is a divergence of opinion, it is over detail, not whether or not evolution happens.
How was it proven? There are many diverse threads of evidence, but it can be boiled down to four major areas : the fossil record (including transitional forms); molecular evidence (similarity of the sequences of proteins performing the same function across many different phyla); a credible mechanism (random mutation and natural selection); and the timescale (radioactive dating of rocks using isotpoe ratios, particularly uranium, thorium, lead, potassium and argon). The evidence is discussed in great detail at Talk Origins, so I’ll leave you to go through the detail at your leisure.
Macroevolution (i.e. how new species arise from existing ones) is the only process proposed thus far that can explain all the evidence. Notice the word “explain”, as I feel this is very important. Microevolution (i.e. how a species acquires or loses a characteristic) can be observed in laboratory experiments, so I shan’t go into it here.
Note also that evolutionary theories do not claim to answer the question of how life arose initially. Evolution explains how one species can arise from another (or, more precisely, how one species can split into two species and how two species can hybridise to give rise to a third).
I’ll start with YEC, then move on to ID.
I believe that YEC is incompatible with both the established timescale and the fossil record (particularly the assertion in Genesis that all animals and plants were created as they are, since the fossil record clearly shows that there once existed species that have not existed for millions of years). For me, this much is conclusive, but there is plenty more evidence discussed elsewhere.
I have not read much of the detailed claims of ID, mainly because I have a problem with the central tenet : “there exists evidence that demonstrates that living things were designed by some unspecified higher being”. For any hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be both testable and plausible given the current state of knowledge. It is true that, in the past, some ideas that turned out to be right were initially (and, sometimes, quite vehemently) rejected by eminent scientists of the day. However, this does reflect the way modern science is conducted (any regular reader of New Scientist will notice that there are often articles about research into truly radical ideas, encouraging us all to keep our minds open). Any published idea will be tested independently, and the more outlandish it seems, the more people will attempt to repeat the work.
As far as I can tell, ID fails to *explain* the observed data. There seem to me to be two principle “branches” of ID : (1) evolution is God’s toolkit and (2) Organisms were designed and the various species observed in the fossil record are part of some unfathomable overall scheme. However, (1) is not compatible with the application of Occam’s razor. Should we believe a mechanism that we can explain in part and at least hope to explain in full at some future time, or should we believe an explanation that invokes some ineffable and unknowable designer? (2) does not work for me because it fails to account for such things as vestigial organs and such failures as cancer and autoimmune diseases (these objections can alos be applied to (1) but are stronger arguments against (2)).
A key failure of ID as a science is that it is not testable. The idea of a designer is not subject to any experimental test. Are there any predictions that ID makes that would clearly differentiate it from evolution? Talk Origins has a whole section pointing out ways in which macroevolution / common descent could potentially be falsified by new evidence. All of the predictions made by common descent / macroevolution have existed for decades, yet no evidence uncovered in that time has challenged the concept of macroevolution / common descent.
This is why I believe that evolution should be taught in science class as an accepted fact. Yes, there are points that can be made where we do not know how to account for certain details or aspects in particular instances, but the theory works across the whole of the rest of biological knowledge, which is a huge amount of information. I hope it also explains why I believe that ID is unscientific.
For your information, I have a PhD in biochemistry, but I don’t want you to take my word for it. What I wish for is that you would go and read about the evidence in detail, and see if you can find something that unequivocally highlights the need for a designer – is there *really* evidence that living organisms have been designed?
Best of luck, and remember – extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. They always have and they always will.
August 8th, 2005 at 1:25 pm
It seems to me that it’s not evolution that is being argued about. That, thankfully, is slowly settling into acceptance.
What is being argued now is the underlying causation. The belief that it is either totally random or that there is some sort of guidance to the process. How does one go about actually proving either arguement? How can you prove that something occured in a totally random manner? How can you prove it was intended? Philosophers and Theologins have been working on that since the dawn of our recorded history. We are not likely to arrive at any more conclusive answer than those learned individuals have.
In any case I see 4 possible permutations to the arguement. (And yes I know this is certainly a bone of contention too…(sigh) )
1. Totally Random
2. Mostly Random with an occasional nudge.
3. Somewhat Random with constant fiddling.
4. Nothing is Random.
Who cares?
However it happens…It Happens. We aren’t going to affect how it happens one way or another. I personally am going to study, investigate, and learn the wonders of it all. Whether you look at quantum physics, or a single celled organizam under a microscope, or look at the stars in an observatory, how/why it got there isn’t as important as the fact it is there and we have the ability and intellect to puzzle it all out. What an awesome gift! What an awesome responsibility!
So then, roll your dice, pick your number, or follow your faith and beliefs re: random/design. That’s right both, at this time, are articles of faith. It seems to me that you got a 25% chance of winning the bet in any case.
Pat
August 8th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Good points Nigel, but many of them are addressed in popular creation science literature, a good Christian sophist should be able to refute them (and a good naturalist sophist should be able to counter that).
Here are the common counters:
“the famous picture of the Eagle nebula taken by Hubble shows at least one star in its T-tauri phase i.e. shortly after star “birthâ€?. So it is a region in which star formation took place recently (i.e. within the last few million years).”
Remember, when dark nebulae (dusty nebulae) collide with emission nebulae (glowing gas) we see the result, and some of incorrectly interpreted this to mean a star birth. The dust and the gas combination (is that the right word, you Anglos help me out here
will compress and create a hotter edge, somewhere’s around the temperature of 10 000 degrees (K) (and this appears white). Gas at this temperature will disperse and not form a star.
This is the common creationist retort.
“On to evolution: that evolution takes place has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt”
This is begging the question
“to the point where it is accepted as a fact by the whole life-science community”
Popular opinion is irrelevant
“Where there is a divergence of opinion, it is over detail, not whether or not evolution happens.”
Tell that to the growing number of Creation Scientists
Okay, I have run out of time. I will be back tommorow to discuss this further. I really want to discuss this, because you understand the issue. And I have many questions, and I want your feedback.
God Bless,
Christian
August 8th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
“Popular opinion is irrelevant”
There is a difference between public opinion and a consensus of experts.
“Tell that to the growing number of Creation Scientists”
From what I understand, the list of a few hundred scientists who question evolution (a list presented by creationists in these debates) includes only 70 biologists. It’s a small group.
August 9th, 2005 at 6:22 am
“There is a difference between public opinion and a consensus of experts.”
That is a weak argument. I believe that creationists understand the majority of scientists accept the current dogma relating to our origins. But that doesn’t take anything away from their arguments.
“How was it proven? There are many diverse threads of evidence, but it can be boiled down to four major areas : the fossil record (including transitional forms)”
And if you ask a creationist they will tell you that the fossil record fits in well with their models too.
Paleoanthropology has many faults. The fossils we do have are usually skull fragments, or sometimes just teeth. Evolution cannot be reconstructed from the fossil record, because the fossils are reconstructed according to pre-conceived notions. Multiple interpretations are possible. Evolution is assumed on other grounds, so the fossil record is merely consistent with it.
The transitional fossils are not terribly telling. We have a serious lack of transitional fossils. Entire chains are still missing. 97.7% of living things are represented in the fossil record yet we only have a few, very few, questionable transitions. And even then the transitions can be attributed to our pre-conceived ideas.
Take human evolution as an example. Here are is the link:
Australopithecines- were unique creatures, but hardly a link. They did not walk upright as was originally suggested, studies on the anatomy of Lucy’s wrist have determined this.
Homo erectus- was distinct because of the cranial vault thickness. We now know that the cranial vault thickness is not enough to label Homo erectus a separate species.
Neanderthaloids and Cro-Magnon man – If I want to get to the rest of your post, I’ll have to skip these two. Let me just say, they were most likely human.
“molecular evidence (similarity of the sequences of proteins performing the same function across many different phyla)”
Similarities do not demonstrate a common ancestor. If you want to play semantics I could just say a common design equates to a common design designer. For example, if God created all creatures that were radically different from one another, what would we eat?
“a credible mechanism (random mutation and natural selection)”
Natural selection cannot explain the origin of the fittest. It eliminates genetic variation, not increases it. I’m not nearly as well informed about this as you are, but from the examples given to me by evolutionists I’m not sold on the ability of mutations to explains molecules to man. Antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution, it is an example of 1 bacteria in a billion having a disabled pump and which later gives rise to a new culture of disabled bacteria. This hardly makes me want to reinterpreted Genesis.
“and the timescale (radioactive dating of rocks using isotpoe ratios, particularly uranium, thorium, lead, potassium and argon)”
I’m sure creationists would take issue with this as well. But I radioactive dating seems like non-sense to me, as does creationists dating methods. But camps claim the miraculous alignment with other dating methods proves their dates to be correct, and the inconsistencies within the other camp disprove them. I don’t buy either. A Master Freemason once told me “Counting is not an exact science.â€? After seeing the debate between Creation Science and Evolution I’ve come to the conclusion that counting years is not an exact science.
“Macroevolution (i.e. how new species arise from existing ones) is the only process proposed thus far that can explain all the evidence. Notice the word “explainâ€?, as I feel this is very important.”
Whichever theory has the greatest explanatory power wins (in my mind). IMO both sides have a lot of work ahead of them.
I’m going to have a seperate post for ID because I believe it is a seperate subject.
August 9th, 2005 at 6:43 am
“I have not read much of the detailed claims of ID, mainly because I have a problem with the central tenet : “there exists evidence that demonstrates that living things were designed by some unspecified higher beingâ€?.”
Now I’m not playing Devil’s advocate. I am a devout Christian and am fully convinced of the existence of my God. I doubt you’ll be able to do anything to persuade me here. To me, Id is simply the belief that we were designed by an intelligent being, He may have used evolution, He might not have. It’s only the belief that we have a creator.
“For any hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must be both testable and plausible given the current state of knowledge.”
Whether or not something is scientific is irrelevant. If you define science so that it eliminates ID from the start, you saying there is something wrong with science (because it cannot include all possibilities), and you are not showing that there is something wrong with ID. I believe we have scientific evidence to point to something that we cannot test scientifically. Kind of like forensic science, you reconstruct the best explanation based on observations from the present. Macroevolution is what you believe took place, YEC is what Creation Scientists (a much smaller group) believes took place.
The reason I think you could teach the criticisms to evolution in a science class, and not teach the stork theory or the geocentric model is because both of those deal with the present, and we can demonstrate them to be false with photographs (and I’m sure some sick freaks would like to disprove the stork theory in school with photographs
“As far as I can tell, ID fails to *explain* the observed data. There seem to me to be two principle “branchesâ€? of ID : (1) evolution is God’s toolkit and (2) Organisms were designed and the various species observed in the fossil record are part of some unfathomable overall scheme.”
I think #1 is valid, but #2 is a strawman.
“(1) is not compatible with the application of Occam’s razor.”
Yes it is. Naturalism fails to explain all of the observed data (i.e. life) and ID does not. This isn’t the god of the gaps, it’s merely saying I believe in a creator, Occam’s razor does not eliminate a creator.
“Should we believe a mechanism that we can explain in part and at least hope to explain in full at some future time, or should we believe an explanation that invokes some ineffable and unknowable designer?”
Actually He is knowable. Not within the scientific relm, but to you as an individual He is knowable. I would love to tell you how that is so.
“(2) does not work for me because it fails to account for such things as vestigial organs and such failures as cancer and autoimmune diseases (these objections can alos be applied to (1) but are stronger arguments against (2)).”
#2 doesn’t work for anybody because it sucks
And your point on vestigial organs may not even apply to YEC. Perhaps at one point some organs, or components were not well understood and were thought to be the result of evolution, or devolution. But now that we know better we have found functions for many of these organs. The human appendix helps with antibiotic production and protects the intestines from infections and tumors.
“Talk Origins has a whole section pointing out ways in which macroevolution / common descent could potentially be falsified by new evidence.”
YEC have made predictions (and some of them are not even retroactive predictions like those made in macroevolution) as well. But both sides need to admit that origins science is not operational science.
I do go to Talk Origins frequently. I also go to ID and YEC sites frequently. They both have entire pages dedicated to discrediting the other. Both make me think. This is why I decided to take science. And this is why I think we should teach both sides, it raises interest and gets people thinking.
August 9th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Christian
“To me, Id is simply the belief that we were designed by an intelligent being, He may have used evolution, He might not have. It’s only the belief that we have a creator. ”
That’s why you’re not getting the discussion here. 1 – it is not the job of a PUBLIC school to tell us we were created by a “god”, most especially in a SCIENCE class.
2 – the proponents of ID want to teach we were created by such a super-being at the EXCLUSION of evolution
These ID proponents are not usually Catholics/Protestants/etc, they are generally “born-agains” like the president.
August 9th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
What’s the difference between a “born-again” and a Catholic/Protestant?
Most ID proponents that I have heard want the criticisms of evolution taught, as well as the evidence for evolution. This is exactly what I want. I don’t see a problem with this.
August 9th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
Christian:
You say:
“Actually He is knowable. Not within the scientific relm, but to you as an individual He is knowable.”
“Not within the scientific realm” is precisely why ID/creationism does not belong in science class.
August 9th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
“Most ID proponents that I have heard want the criticisms of evolution taught, as well as the evidence for evolution. This is exactly what I want. I don’t see a problem with this. ”
The problem is the attempt to teach non-science in science classrooms. The “criticisms” have not cleared the scientific bar.
August 9th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
“Evolution cannot be reconstructed from the fossil record, because the fossils are reconstructed according to pre-conceived notions. Multiple interpretations are possible. Evolution is assumed on other grounds, so the fossil record is merely consistent with it.�
Transitional features are found consistently in the fossil record in both time (younger/older rock layers) and space (geographic distribution) which sets some definite milestones to guide interpretations, which are then peer reviewed.
“We have a serious lack of transitional fossils. Entire chains are still missing. 97.7% of living things are represented in the fossil record yet we only have a few, very few, questionable transitions.�
Disagree. Check through TalkOrigins for many examples.
“Australopithecines- were unique creatures, but hardly a link. They did not walk upright as was originally suggested, studies on the anatomy of Lucy’s wrist have determined this.�
Please provide a reference. Lucy’s bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality. (http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html#found)
“Homo erectus- was distinct because of the cranial vault thickness. We now know that the cranial vault thickness is not enough to label Homo erectus a separate species.�
H. erectus was distinguished by more than just cranial thickness (e.g., protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, long/low skull, smaller brain size, more robust skeleton…)
“Neanderthaloids and Cro-Magnon man – If I want to get to the rest of your post, I’ll have to skip these two. Let me just say, they were most likely human.�
All species of the genus “Homoâ€? were “human”. Whereas Cro-Magnons were essentially ancient H. sapiens, the Neandertals had enough differences to identify a species or at least a subspecies division.
“Similarities do not demonstrate a common ancestor. If you want to play semantics I could just say a common design equates to a common design designer.�
But couple genetic similarities with genetic markers and fossil record distributions and you have evidence of changes through time via common ancestors.
“Natural selection cannot explain the origin of the fittest. It eliminates genetic variation, not increases it.�
By reducing variation and favoring the fittest, natural selection shifts the overall population to the fittest.
“ I’m not nearly as well informed about this as you are, but from the examples given to me by evolutionists I’m not sold on the ability of mutations to explains molecules to man.�
Mechanisms that increase genetic information include mutations (many types), gene flow, recombination, etc.
“Antibiotic resistance is not an example of evolution, it is an example of 1 bacteria in a billion having a disabled pump and which later gives rise to a new culture of disabled bacteria.�
Yes, it is an example. Adaptation of a population is part of evolution. But I assume you’re equating “evolution� with “macro-evolution�.
“This hardly makes me want to reinterpreted Genesis.�
Note that Genesis at least implies microevolution (appearance of new varieties of the “kinds�…example…all the human races from Adam & Eve).
“… A Master Freemason once told me…�
Probably not the best scientific reference, given the FreeMason’s mysticisms.
“Whichever theory has the greatest explanatory power wins (in my mind).�
Perhaps you already mentioned it…what are your thoughts on Theistic Evolution? No different than ID perhaps?
August 9th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
“Christian:
You say:
“Actually He is knowable. Not within the scientific relm, but to you as an individual He is knowable.�
“Not within the scientific realmâ€? is precisely why ID/creationism does not belong in science class. ”
I didn’t say, “teach how to know God in science class.” I said teach the evidence for and against evolution. Why doesn’t anybody understand this?
“Transitional features are found consistently in the fossil record in both time (younger/older rock layers) and space (geographic distribution) which sets some definite milestones to guide interpretations, which are then peer reviewed.”
No they’re not. “Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage” -Talkorigins.org
“Please provide a reference. Lucy’s bones are rife with evidence clearly pointing to bipedality.”
Seek and Ye Shall find:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/lucy.asp
“H. erectus was distinguished by more than just cranial thickness (e.g., protruding jaws with large molars, no chin, thick brow ridges, long/low skull, smaller brain size, more robust skeleton…)”
Somethings, like a low forehead and pronounced brow ridges are not unlike many modern men. I’m not an expert in the field, but this has been writen about at length.
“But couple genetic similarities with genetic markers and fossil record distributions and you have evidence of changes through time via common ancestors.”
Genetic similarities are not enough to prove evolution. Without the fossil record and genetic markers this argument is not valid. I am questioning (but not denying, remember that) the other two points.
“By reducing variation and favoring the fittest, natural selection shifts the overall population to the fittest.”
Yes it does. This fits in well with creationist models but does not explain the origin of the fittest.
““… A Master Freemason once told me…â€?
Probably not the best scientific reference, given the FreeMason’s mysticisms.”
I was not quoting him as an authority on science. Btw, I myself am a Mason and we have nothing against science.
I’ll have to post more later. I gotta jet,
God Bless,
Christian
August 9th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
Ok, step back a moment. It seems to me people are talking past each other a bit here, concerning ID.
I gather from the discussion here that there are two strains of thought that are labeled “Intelligent Design”:
1. The general thought that the universe must have been created by a higher being
2. The specific idea that the universe was created by a higher being who created all life as we see it today
#1 is simply the belief in a supreme being. That’s nothing especially controversial, and there’s nothing about it that’s necessarily against the theory of evolution. #2 is the warmed-up version of Biblical creationism with the overt religious references removed (the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing).
These are two different ideas, and since the people advocating #2 have essentially hijacked the “intelligent design” label (just as YEC has hijacked the term “creationism”), some confusion seems to be arising from that. Christian, I think part of the problem is you’re not entirely in the #2 camp but when you say “ID” people assume you are.
Christian, “born-again” refers to a particular brand of Protestant Christianity. It’s a very conservative flavor of Christianity, and tends to be extreme. Others can no doubt explain the nature of “born-again” better than I can. (But since no one’s spoken up yet, I’ve put in my 2¢.)
I think the heart of the issue here is simply that ID is not scientific, and that therefore, BY DEFINITION, it should not be taught in science classes in public schools.
As a people, we associate “scientific” with “good” or “correct”–hence “Christian Science”, “Creation Science”, “Scientology”, etc. But when it comes down to it, SCIENCE is SCIENCE. It’s not good or bad, though it can be used for good or bad purposes, and there is good or bad science in terms of whether research is conducted properly–but that’s not a moral judgement.
Art is not scientific. Religion is not scientific. Morals and ethics are not scientific. Enjoying the beauty of nature is not scientific. And on and on.
I don’t think anyone here would disagree that it’s wrong to commit murder, or to hurt other people, or to steal. And yet, none of those is a scientific idea. That doesn’t make them wrong. In fact, I plan to teach my daughter those very things.
Science exists to provide naturalistic explanations to naturalistic phenomena–period. That’s why it’s silent on moral and religious questions. It’s not that those are unimportant, just that they aren’t naturalistic questions.
By definition, science classes should teach scientific subjects, just as engineering classes should teach engineering, and history classes should teach history. Whether the universe came about without the help of a supreme being, or that being is using evolution to enact His will, is pretty much irrelevant in this context. The point, as far as a science class is concerned, is that evolution is the mechanism of change. How (and why) life began is a separate question altogether. But the second thread of ID (that a supreme being created everything as is several thousand years ago) is incompatible with science classes. Philosophy, perhaps, but not science.
NoSeasPendejo, ID is not science. That’s the problem. Its answer to naturalistic questions is not naturalistic but supernaturalistic, and it’s not provable or falsifiable. It can be made to fit all the facts, so it’s ultimately not testable. Any number of tests can be thought up that might falsify evolution, and it passes those tests (or at least most of them most of the time). ID, however, is broad enough that it can accomodate most any circumstance, without being falsifiable. It *can’t* be disproven (just as the existence of a God can’t be disproven), which doesn’t necessarily make it wrong; it simply makes it not science.
August 11th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Oh, boy, lots and lots of new posts! I don’t have enough free time to really get stuck into this. I’ll do my best to answer all the points.
Christian, Another Phobos et al., I’ll try to catch up. Please forgive me if I’m answering points that have already been answered.
Christian, my point about the Eagle nebula is slightly different from the point you seem to have answered. I’m sure that the scenario you describe can occur, but I do not believe it is capapble of creating a T-tauri wind. I am not familiar with the relevant calcs, but I trust astronomers when they point out the evidence in a nebula of an extraordinarily strong stellar wind. According to our present understanding of physics (which is pretty good, actually), only a newly-born star is able to create that effect. Ergo, it is evidence of recent star formation.
You are right to point out that popular opinion is irrelevant. However, this does not relate to my point. As Another Phobos asserts (and I agree), a consensus of experts is a wholly different animal from popular opinion. Science only progresses by peer review and consensus. It is the search for consensus that supplies the demanding criteria for the quality of evidence that is needed to establish a hypothesis as something firmer and more concrete. I want to make a big noise about this, because it is very important. Dissent among scientists drives the search for more and better-quality data. Once the evidence has reached a certain level (and this could be the sheer number of observations that fail to disagree with a hypothesis, or it could be one particularly brilliant and elegant experiment), the disagreement is laid to rest and the hypothesis moves on to become a theory or a law (or, more often these days, another small piece of a much larger body of knowledge). At this stage, the idea is accepted as fact by the relevant scientific community, and research moves on to new areas. To cite an example from biochemistry, no-one is researching the sequence of reactions that make up the Krebs cycle, because it is already well-established and accepted as fact by biochemists. The enzymes that catalyse these reactions may themselves be the subject of research (perhaps in relation to genetic diseases or pesticide development), but the sequence of reactions is accepted as fact. The opinion of non-experts is, as you say, irrelevant. If any evidence were to turn up that contradicts the currently-accepted sequence, the whole thing would need to be re-evaluated, but that is how science works.
Please can you explain to me what a Creation Scientist is?
Another Phobos – Thanks for the numbers. 70 out of several hundred thousand life-scientists worldwide. It makes me wonder “to what evidence are they party that none of the rest of us has seen?” Science relies on evidence being in the public domain. Interpretations can differ, but this leads to further experimentation in order to acquire better quality data to resolve the issues. It does not lead to the discarding of over a century’s worth of observation, experimentation and analysis.
Christian, you accuse the scientists of being dogmatic. My feeling about this is that it is groundless. All over the web, there are sites where scientists use evidence and data to refute the assertions of non-scientists on scientific topics. I would particularly direct you to Talk Origins, which is very extensive and very detailed. Take a couple of weeks to absorb what is there. I think it is worth it. Remember also that most scientists have progressed through an extraordinary amount of education and training to achieve their present positions – for me it amounts to about 15 years since starting my Bachelor’s degree course, and I was learning the whole time.
I think this is worth reiterating : a consensus of experts is important and it should carry more weight than you give it.
Additionally, the word “dogma” carries a strong implication of a stated opinion based on a priori assumptions rather than empirical evidence, and of stating an arbitrary (as opposed to considered) opinion. Therefore, modern science is not dogmatic. Individuals can occasionally be dogmatic, but science as a whole is not. Scientific conclusions are based on careful and considered analysis of empirical evidence. This also is a key point.
I am rather sorry to say that you seem to demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the fossil record as a whole. Your arguments about hominid fossils are based on taxonomy and biomechanics rather than paleontology. When discussing the fossil record, one fact is paramount : fossilisation is a rare occurrence. Of course sequences are incomplete. It would be astonishing indeed if we were able to trace the ancestry of any modern vertebrate through a complete sequence to, say, the early tertiary or late cretaceous (65 MYA). Overall, the fossil record is completely consistent with common descent, and there are hundreds of transitional forms. There is a website (I’m afraid I did not make a note of the URL, so I cannot tell you how to find it. I think I found it from a link at Pharyngula, but am not sure) in which the author refers to a paleontology paper describing a transitional fossil. Just one. He challenges anyone to refute just that one paper. He goes on to say that he has a hundred more references awaiting challenge if anyone successfully refutes the first paper. So far as I am aware, no-one has even made a serious attempt.
The key feature of the fossil record is that it shows a sequence of extinct organisms that is explained (there’s that word again!) only by common descent. Common descent would be easily falsifiable by the fossil record. A transitional bird-mammal fossil would do it. As would a T. rex in ordovician deposits. As would human remains in the Burgess Shale (Cambrian, I think).
Ever since it was first proposed, the idea of common descent has been tested by EVERY SINGLE FOSSIL UNEARTHED. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands or millions of fossils have been discovered in the intervening time, but each one has tested the concept of common descent, and it has passed every time.
You say that the fossil record is “merely” consistent with evolution and that evolution is “assumed” on other grounds. Well, that depends what you mean by evolution. My interpretation of the word is twofold : speciation, the process by which new species arise from existing ones; and the acquisition or loss of characteristics within a species. Of course, these are different facets of the same thing. The point I wish to make about the fossil record is that it shows new species arising and old ones disappearing. It also shows in-between stages at a higher level (i.e. at the level of phyla and classes). Yes, there *are* many transitional-form fossils at that level. A whole swathe of new dinosaur-bird intermediates has been uncovered over the last 10 years in China. Is this consistent with ID? Perhaps.
There is another thing the fossil record shows – dead ends. There are species (well, there are whole classes!) in the fossil record with no relatives in subsequent strata and no living relatives (but some of these have identifiable relatives in preceding strata). The most obvious examples are most classes of dinosaur (actually I may have that wrong – dinosaur might be a class and waht I should say is orders of dinosaur). A few of them have descendents after the K-T boundary while most do not. This is evidence in direct contradiction of any rational guidance to evolution. If there were a guiding intelligence, why are there so many dead ends? (Bear in mind also that, during the end-Permian extinction, 90% of all life disappeared).
On molecular evidence, you again display your ignorance. Go and read Talk Origins (particularly the pages dealing with the evidence that supports macroevolution). There are literally more ways to make a protein that can perform a specific task than there are words for the number. A googolplex (i.e. 10^10^100) is the largest number I am aware of with a specific name. It is too small. Given that there are so many similarities in proteins that perform the same function, yes, actually, it is evidence that they are related (in fact the amount of similarity also correlates very well with phylogenetic trees constructed on a taxonomic basis). However, if this is evidence of design, why are there so many differences? Any ubiquitous protein (such as cytochrome c, which is a widely-used example) has regions where it is astonishingly similar from one organism to the next; at the same time it has regions which are radically different even in closely-related species. The only explanation for this is common descent. Saying “God made it that way” does not *explain* the observation. We can measure mutation rates, and this, while not precise, does actually correlate with the amount of difference seen in the variable parts of cytochrome c in closely-related species.
No, you are not as well-informed as I am, otherwise you would actually know the mechanism of penicillin resistance! There are a dozen or more mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, not merely one. And, yes, the appearance of a new characteristic within a population IS evolution (it is microevolution, and I could actually design an experiment to demonstrate it if I could be bothered to spend the time on it). I never said the explanation was complete, I said it was credible. You seem to be dismissing either a huge amount of evidence, or the interpretation placed on that evidence by thousands of experts who pretty much agree with one another. Remember that the consensus of experts is not the same as popular opinion.
Natural selection does reduce genetic variation, but does not eliminate it. Consider recessive genes: if a recessive allele is disadvantageous, homozygotes for it may die young or fail to reproduce. However, the gene stays in the population because it confers no disadvantage to heterozygotes, which are able to reproduce and pass it on to half their offspring (on average).
Actually, radioactive dating IS an exact science. The decay of potassium-40 into argon-40 occurs at a rate that is very well understood (in fact, all radioactive decay is well understood, being explained in extraordinary detail by the theories of quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics). Just because one person you met could not understand it does not make it wrong. If it sounds like nonsense to you, that means you have not understood it. If you wish to be taken seriously, please do a bit more research in the areas you wish to debate.
Also, if I wanted to get picky I could tell you that counting is indeed not an exact science – it is far more exact than any of the physical sciences, by dint of being entirely definitive. 2 is not and never will be 3.
In your opinion, both sides have a lot of work ahead of them. Perhaps so, but bear in mind that science has a lot of work behind it, too. However, any attempt to explain natural phenomena that invokes the supernatural leads to questions with no answers.
I must stop here (time constraints). I will try to answer the rest of the points when I can.
August 11th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
“Christian, my point about the Eagle nebula is slightly different from the point you seem to have answered. I’m sure that the scenario you describe can occur, but I do not believe it is capapble of creating a T-tauri wind.”
You’re right, I missed that point. But I don’t believe you ever made it, so why blame me?
“If any evidence were to turn up that contradicts the currently-accepted sequence, the whole thing would need to be re-evaluated, but that is how science works.”
If that new evidence contradicts accepted science, scientists tend to be resistant. Especially evidence against a paradigm concerning our origins.
“Please can you explain to me what a Creation Scientist is?”
Yes, a scientist who believes in the creation account in Genesis.
“I would particularly direct you to Talk Origins, which is very extensive and very detailed. Take a couple of weeks to absorb what is there.”
I do, very often actually. But I’m curious, how much time do you spend reading the technical articles are answersingenesis.org, or icr.org?
Okay, more later. It’s 2:30 and I don’t think I can make sense right now in English.
August 12th, 2005 at 7:02 am
“Your arguments about hominid fossils are based on taxonomy and biomechanics rather than paleontology.”
They have still erroneously classified certain fossils.
“When discussing the fossil record, one fact is paramount : fossilisation is a rare occurrence.”
Yes, fossilization requires rapid burial. The fossil record is just as consistent, or perhaps more so, with a global flood than it is with macroevolution.
“The key feature of the fossil record is that it shows a sequence of extinct organisms that is explained (there’s that word again!) only by common descent. Common descent would be easily falsifiable by the fossil record. A transitional bird-mammal fossil would do it. As would a T. rex in ordovician deposits. As would human remains in the Burgess Shale (Cambrian, I think).”
That happens all of the time. IIRC, talkorigins.org counters that powerful creationist argument by saying the out-of-place fossil has eroded away from its proper rock and is incorporated into a recent age; or the fossil is downwashed into an older rock. I believe this process is called reworking.
Reworking has no scientific basis other than that we see a bizzare stratigraphic occurence of fossils. So I still consider it a valid argument against the modern dogma on the evolutionary/geological age system.
I highly recommend John Woodmorappe’s book, “Studies in Flood Geology” it explains the creationist position on many issues relating to the flood. In it he has a list of over 200 out-of-place fossils, which can also be found online at:
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html
“The key feature of the fossil record is that it shows a sequence of extinct organisms that is explained (there’s that word again!) only by common descent.”
Now you are showing your ignorance of creationist beliefs. I believe I asked a valid question in my last post, how often do you spend researching the other side? I think it is important if you are going to speak on an issue to know both sides. Personally, I think both have valid arguments, and I study both.
The creationist explanation of the origin of strata and layered fossils is interesting.
“A whole swathe of new dinosaur-bird intermediates has been uncovered over the last 10 years in China. Is this consistent with ID? Perhaps.”
It is consistent with ID, it is not consistent with creation science. I am fully convinced of ID (because I am a Christian) whether or not evolution can explain our origins, is up for debate (theologically and scientifically). Of course, when it comes to teaching this, theology is not appropriate.
“If there were a guiding intelligence, why are there so many dead ends?”
That’s a good argument against theistic evolution. However, this means you are forcing someone to choose between evolution and God, and you may win among agnostics, but this will do nothing to win over the authentic Christian community. I think if you really want to destroy creation science, you should align yourself with men like Dr. Hugh Ross and other Christians who are pleading with the Church to embrace evolution. You can have a powerful ally from the pulpit, and this is your target audience when you want to argue against creation science. If you don’t piss Christians off, we will be more apt to listen to you.
“However, if this is evidence of design, why are there so many differences?”
Your question is why did God create diversity. To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. I would sooner believe that God created us along with our diversity rather than diversity arrived here randomly. Because if that is so, than all of your thoughts are accidents and random, and in that case why should I believe you? Why do your accidental thoughts account for the rest?
“No, you are not as well-informed as I am, otherwise you would actually know the mechanism of penicillin resistance!”
Actually I do know of many mechanisms for antibiotic resistence. To my knowledge the one I cited is the most common. The others involve copying mistakes in genes as well.
The gene that controls the production of an enzyme that dostroys the antibiotic is disabled, hence creating more penicillinase to fight pencillin.
When streptomycin attaches itself to a bacterium’s ribosome, it stops decoding protein production. Sometimes there’s a mutation that degrades the surface of a bacterium’s ribosome.
These are examples of a change in a population over time. Evolutionists are ambiguous and claim that a change in a population over time equals molecules to man. This might be microevolution, and it might not be (because none of this involves new information, that is only semantics though). But it is not proof I should reinterpret Genesis.
“Natural selection does reduce genetic variation, but does not eliminate it. Consider recessive genes: if a recessive allele is disadvantageous, homozygotes for it may die young or fail to reproduce. However, the gene stays in the population because it confers no disadvantage to heterozygotes, which are able to reproduce and pass it on to half their offspring (on average).”
Okay, correct, but again that is semantics.
“Actually, radioactive dating IS an exact science.”
No it isn’t. There are many things that can interfere with radioactive dating; for example the industrial revolution and atomic bombs. And the fact that it often conflicts with other evolutionary dating methods is enough to tell me that it probably isn’t accurate.
“However, any attempt to explain natural phenomena that invokes the supernatural leads to questions with no answers.”
That is true. But excluding the supernatual from teh beginning can lead to the wrong answer.
I’ve spent way too much time on this board. But it’s been fun though,
God Bless,
Brandon
August 12th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Okay, Christian, I’ll carry on from where I left off and then try to come to your later comments.
Whether or not you or I believe in a creator is irrelevant. The debate is over whether or not ID should be taught in science classes. Therefore, it must comply with established scientific criteria for evidence.
You say “Whether or not something is scientific is irrelevant. If you define science so that it eliminates ID from the start, you saying there is something wrong with science (because it cannot include all possibilities), and you are not showing that there is something wrong with ID.” Actually, I define science as the pursuit of knowledge based on evidence that is open to independent verification. I am not aware of any actual evidence that supports ID. Everything I have seen or read or heard from ID proponents (yourself included, Christian) falls into one of two categories : direct attacks on Darwinian evolution; and citations of evidence in support of ID that supposedly excludes Darwinian evolution but fails to do so when critically examined.
You say “I believe we have scientific evidence to point to something that we cannot test scientifically”. What does that mean? For an idea to be proposed as a acientific hypothesis, it MUST be accessable to testing. A theory must propose the kind of evidence required for its own falsification. Again, I assert that if an idea is not testable (whether by experiment, observation, or whatever) it cannot, by definition, be considered scientific. Science is more than just the pursuit of ideas to explain the universe. It is the pursuit of ideas that can be verified by independent experiment or observation.
Yes, a lot of science is a bit like forensics : you use currently-available evidence to reconstruct (or model) what happened in the past. Based on the available evidence, evolution is the best explanation. Why are there fossilised remains of creatures that no longer exist? Why do different rock strata yield different types of fossils? Why are there so many obvious similarities between existing organisms? Why are there so many differences between existing organisms? Why is Australia’s fauna so different from other mammals? Why is it that penicillin no longer works? Why do the finches have different bills? And so on. All of these questions are explained by the concept of evolution through natural selection. There is no requirement to invoke anything supernatural, and there is (at present) no evidence that cannot be explained (in at least general terms) by the concepts of macroevolution and common descent.
Christian, you say “Naturalism fails to explain all of the observed data (i.e. life) and ID does not”. Well, that is a matter of opinion. It is also nothing to do with evolution. Darwinian evolution explains how speciation occurs. It does not, and has never claimed to, explain how life began in the first place.
“Actually He is knowable. Not within the scientific relm, but to you as an individual He is knowable”
As Michael pointed out, the whole debate is about the scientific realm, which is probably why the supporters of science get so vehement about it. I have no quibble with someone wanting to know God in whatever terms work for them, but this does not belong in a science class. It is religion, not science.
There are more vestigial organs than just the human appendix. Cave-dwelling animals often have fully-developed eyes that are covered over with skin, or have no optic nerve. This is very elegantly explained by evolution; it makes no sense in the context of intelligent design. Also, modern science generally knows the limits of its knowledge, so if an organ serves an unknown function, this absence would be known and people would be researching it. Vestigial does not necessarily mean non-functional. Sometimes, a vestigial organ will be turned to a different purpose, while retaining morphology resembling the fully-developed organ in related species and at the same time not prerforming a particularly efficient job of its new function.
In fact, macroevolution / common descent makes predictions that are tested every time a new protein sequence is determined, and every time a new fossil is unearthed. These are not retroactive. Also, no prediction is retroactive if it makes predictions about data that no-one has examined yet.
“Origins science is not operational science” … erm, well that depends what you mean. I think both sides need to acknowledge that Darwinian evolution explains how a species can arise from its ancestors, but makes no claims about the ultimate origin of life. In that sense, it is not origins science. In terms of how new species originate, it definitely is operational science (only a couple of weeks ago there was an article in New Scientist about some new research that had sown how rapidly a new species of parasitic insect had evolved as a hybrid of two parent species).
We should teach students about the evidence that has led to the theory of evolution. We should teach them to think critically about it. This we should teach in a science class. We should teach them about creation in church or in Sunday school or at home, according to their chosen faith. In the UK we have a specific class called Religious Education; this would be an apropriate place to teach creationism, provided that different faiths are given equal time.
Christian, the problem is not with teaching critical thinking. The problem is that organisations such as the Discovery Institute would have children taught things in a science class that do not meet the criteria for science, those criteria being that ideas be supported by evidence and open to testing and falsification.
“I said teach the evidence for and against evolution. Why doesn’t anybody understand this?”
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION. Everything I have seen related as evidence “against” evolution is either conjecture or semantic nit-picking. It is true that the theory is incomplete, but lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Progress is being made in answering the open questions. This does not mean that there is anything wrong with the central concept, and the proposed alternatives (ID and YEC) are simply not supported by any evidence. What I think should be taught is a cross-section of the evidence that pertains to the theory, and a critical analysis of that evidence and of the interpretation of the evidence. However, any alternative ideas proposed by the students should be analysed equally critically.
A bit of a double-quote here, I hope it makes sense:
Another Phobos said: “Transitional features are found consistently in the fossil record in both time (younger/older rock layers) and space (geographic distribution) which sets some definite milestones to guide interpretations, which are then peer reviewed.�
Christian said : “No they’re not. “Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineageâ€? -Talkorigins.org” I don’t see how the Talk Origins quote contradicts what Another Phobos wrote. A species-to-species transition is relatively rare compared to the number of species in the fossil record, but remember that fossilisation is itself rare. There are proportionately more transitional forms as one examines higher taxons. When you get to the level of orders and classes, transitional forms, while still a minority of fossils, are found consistently throughout the fossil record.
Christian, just because it is easy to criticise the proposed evolutionary path for hominids, does not invalidate the theory underlying the proposed sequence of events. As I understand the hominid fossil situation, it has recently been extensively reassessed in the light of newly-discovered hominid fossils and the proposed sequence of events is in a state of flux at the species and subspecies level. However, at the generic level, things are more stable. Even more so for the family and order levels. It seems that a lot of the criticism has more to do with the classification of hominid fossils than with evolution.
Christian wrote: “I was not quoting him as an authority on science”
Yes, you were.
Anyway, I’m running out of time. I think Leon Baradat’s points and summation are very relevant. I think, in trying to answer all the points raised by Christian, I obscured the central take-home message:
ID as a concept does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory. It is not testable or falsifiable. Until more and firmer evidence is available, or until an experiment can be conceived that will provide hard evidence for or against the existence of a creator, ID will not BE science. Therefore, it should not be taught as if it were science.
Thank you and good night.
August 16th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Murple, you’re not being helpful. In particular, lines like this:
“You are a fool, despite your illusions to the contrary,”
“Not “peopelâ€?… just creationists such as yourself. The label [retard] fits.”
“It could be, but the most likely explanation is simply that you are stupid. ”
These are not acceptable behavior on this forum. I am forwarding your remarks to the attention of the Bad Astronomer. He has made clear on numerous occassions that insults (i.e. ad hominems) are not acceptable on this blog. If you can’t remain polite, take it somewhere else.
August 16th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
I have disabled Murple’s ability to post. If (s)he circumvents, please let me know and I will take further action.
August 16th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Irishman, BA – well done. I went to some effort to present a rational, coherent and reasoned argument (as I hope is obvious). Murple does not help by following that with what amounts to personal abuse (even though we’re supporting the same corner).
August 16th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Nigel Depledge Said:
>>“Christian, my point about the Eagle nebula is slightly different from the point you seem to have answered. I’m sure that the scenario you describe can occur, but I do not believe it is capapble of creating a T-tauri wind.�
Christian Said:
>You’re right, I missed that point. But I don’t believe you ever made it, so why blame me?
Because you said:
“I was referring to a specific example, in th Eagle Nebula. I refer to it because that seems to be the image ingrained in everyone’s mind of star formation (and it a reoccurring example given in my textbooks). But we were lied to, as the majority of the star formations within the Eagle nebula are not even star formations at all. ”
You are the one who brought up the Eagle Nebula, and said it does not represent stellar formation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to understand why you reject that interpretation, and now you are saying that you reject that interpretation because you do not know what scientists who make the claim do know, that the Eagle Nebula shows T-tauri wind. Ergo, you are wrong.
Christian said:
> To me, Id is simply the belief that we were designed by an intelligent being, He may have used evolution, He might not have. It’s only the belief that we have a creator.
This is a critical point. The ID proponents tell us what they mean by ID, and it is more than what you mean by ID. They mean that there are indicators in studying nature, particularly life, that point at intentional structuring (i.e. design) versus natural processes of organization. This is more than a philosophical underpinning of a divine influence. This is a direct opposition to the ability of natural processes, including those of evolution, to provide for the conditions of the universe and life that we find. Stating that a god did it by using evolution, natural selection, mutation, gene transference, etc, is a non-provable but non-disprovable addition to evolution. Science can address the methods and the effects. Whether or not there was a deity behind it is irrelevant. ID, on the other hand, is declaring that the natural processes are not the whole story, there is something else. They then declare that something else is intentional design. That is where ID steps beyond mere christian belief into a declarative stance.
Pat Dougherty Said:
> What is being argued now is the underlying causation. The belief that it is either totally random or that there is some sort of guidance to the process.
What is interesting here is the inherent misunderstanding here of what science shows. This flawed understanding is behind the justifications for the anthropic principle, and it is partially why ID can get attention. The flaw is the statement that, for example, evolution is totally random.
It is true that random processes are involved, such as mutation and gene duplication. However, what makes evolution able to build and develop is that it is building a structure, and that later changes are built upon that structure. It is through this accumulation process that large, complex processes are developed. To say that it is totally random is to ignore the ordering processes that are occurring and guiding the development. These ordering processes are natural components, such as natural selection. They do not require an outside controller to provide a means of guidance to the developments that occur.
Christian said:
>> “(1) is not compatible with the application of Occam’s razor.�
> Yes it is. Naturalism fails to explain all of the observed data (i.e. life) and ID does not. This isn’t the god of the gaps, it’s merely saying I believe in a creator, Occam’s razor does not eliminate a creator.
Now your treading on ground that gets beyond testability. However, Occam’s razor can be used to eliminate a creator. This isn’t the best forum for that discussion, because it stretches beyond science. And once again, your interpretation of ID does not match up to the ID proponents’ interpretation.
Christian said:
> And your point on vestigial organs may not even apply to YEC. Perhaps at one point some organs, or components were not well understood and were thought to be the result of evolution, or devolution. But now that we know better we have found functions for many of these organs. The human appendix helps with antibiotic production and protects the intestines from infections and tumors.
Whether or not the appendix is a vestigial organ or plays a role we are only beginning to learn about, there are vestigial organs. Reticulating pythons have tiny, functionless legs. The human tail bone. Others cited by Nigel Depledge.
Nigel Depledge Said:
> Also, if I wanted to get picky I could tell you that counting is indeed not an exact science – it is far more exact than any of the physical sciences, by dint of being entirely definitive. 2 is not and never will be 3.
While technically accurate, you have missed the point of the statement. Counting in and of itself is definitive, but the technique in the applied case is not always so simple. For example, counting a room full of baby chicks that are in motion can be a real challenge. (Think 500 yellow blobs all moving about and intermingling.) The act of counting requires the counter to be able to identify the distinct delineations from one to the next. Anything that obscures that determination affects the count.
And then there’s the mathematicians’ joke about 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2. Hint: think rounding error.
Christian said;
>>“Please can you explain to me what a Creation Scientist is?�
>Yes, a scientist who believes in the creation account in Genesis.
The creation account in Genesis is not science, it’s poetry. If more people realized that, we wouldn’t have this ID problem.
Christian said:
> Yes, fossilization requires rapid burial. The fossil record is just as consistent, or perhaps more so, with a global flood than it is with macroevolution.
No. For example, bats and birds are not found in the same levels with small dinosaurs of the same size, where they would be intermingled based upon sorting by fluid dynamics.
This link addresses the topic as well.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/whereanimals.htm
Christian said:
> That happens all of the time. IIRC, talkorigins.org counters that powerful creationist argument by saying the out-of-place fossil has eroded away from its proper rock and is incorporated into a recent age; or the fossil is downwashed into an older rock. I believe this process is called reworking.
> Reworking has no scientific basis other than that we see a bizzare stratigraphic occurence of fossils. So I still consider it a valid argument against the modern dogma on the evolutionary/geological age system.
Yes, it is called reworking, but you are wrong there is no scientific basis. Reworking is identifiable because of characteristics of the fossils. For example, pollen samples get darker and murkier over time, so older re-embedded samples stand out from newer samples. Fossil segments get damaged, worn, eroded during the exposure and fall to the new layer.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar00.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar04.html (scroll down to “Out Of Place Fossils).
August 18th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
Here is an easy way to reveale intellegent design to be creationism. Raise the question of who created the designer
August 22nd, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Nigel says:
ID as a concept does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory. It is not testable or falsifiable. Until more and firmer evidence is available, or until an experiment can be conceived that will provide hard evidence for or against the existence of a creator, ID will not BE science. Therefore, it should not be taught as if it were science.
Well said, Nigel. That sums it up pretty well, I think. When reading that paragraph, though, people should bear in mind a couple things. Lack of hard evidence for a creator is what makes religion religion. It’s what makes faith so important–if you could Prove the existence of a creator with hard evidence, then Christianity would cease to BE religion.
At the same time, remember that when we say there is no evidence for a creator, or that ID is not science, or that evolution has been essentially *proven*, we’re not saying there is no God. But we are saying the universe wasn’t created as we see it a few thousand years ago. Christianity is compatible with science because it answers different questions. ID is not compatible with science because it denies the answers that science provides.
August 23rd, 2005 at 9:43 pm
You know, I read all of this and the same pattern is starting to appear over and over again. This tells me several things.
1. When people become adamant about things, they tend to become insulting or use big words and ideas.
2. We’ll never know the answer for sure until we die.
3. People are saying that creationism and ID (Crap for short)
should be taught in a “religion” class.
4. You mention the Bible and people start defending themselves and how it’s wrong.
So, I guess the question we should be asking ourselves then is… In order to keep my child as well informed as possible and make sure that they have all the knowledge they need to make their own Intelligent Decision, should all schools have a religion class and should my child be forced to take it…you know, so that I’m not forcing MY beliefs on my child. I mean, If we DONT teach them “crap”, isn’t that forcing a main stream idea (correct or not) on them because that’s what the parent happens to believe?
If we separate the “crap” from the “intelligent theories” and not every child hears all the information about each one, then we are forcing our views on impressionable people. I always thought science was about exploring the possibilities and finding new and exciting discoveries.
Kinda reminds me of the Lee Strobel books. He’s a journalist that sets out to prove there is no God and in fact, becomes a believer himself. How ironic is that?
As I said before, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were ALL right? How do we prove it if your little scientists are segregated from mine? How can YOUR children be truly informed if you deny them this information because, lets be honest, are you REALLY going to send your children to a religion class or a private Christian school JUST to learn ID and Creationism? Probably not. Little Dick and little Jane will just have to go uneducated.
August 24th, 2005 at 11:21 am
Leon Baradat Said:
> Well said, Nigel. That sums it up pretty well, I think. When reading that paragraph, though, people should bear in mind a couple things. Lack of hard evidence for a creator is what makes religion religion. It’s what makes faith so important–if you could Prove the existence of a creator with hard evidence, then Christianity would cease to BE religion.
Let’s quibble over what is meant by religion. I suggest that if we could prove a creator with hard evidence, that’s when Christianity would stop being silliness and become a religion. Suddenly you get to look the object of worship directly in the face and evaluate if he’s so worthy of all your attentions. “Hey God, what’s that part about anihilating the Canaanites again? Did you really sanction genocide? Did you really send Aron in and tell him to slaughter all the people, including the children, and even the goats and sheep and cattle?” Etc. Oh, sorry, that’s “Old Testament”. For Christianity we have to look to the New Testament, because even though God is eternal and never-changing, we can’t go by his actions in the Old Testament, they don’t apply. Erm, what?
That’s a point many religious people seem to miss. Even if there is a creator, what makes him worthy of worship? Merely because he created us? So if he’s evil, we still have to worship him and do what he says? Or is it because he’s good? But then, we’re not allowed to evaluate his actual actions and words on their merits and determine our own evaluation of good or bad, we’re just supposed to take his word for it? We worship him because if we don’t, we’re going to hell – so you’re saying God is a vindictive petty tyrant who gets his way or else. Gee, that’s worthy of worship.
August 24th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Believer of crap Said:
> You know, I read all of this and the same pattern is starting to appear over and over again. This tells me several things.
> 1. When people become adamant about things, they tend to become insulting or use big words and ideas.
Not sure I follow you. You seem to be equating the use of big words and ideas with being insulting, or putting them on the same moral level. You seem to imply that the topic is simple and that the big words and ideas are being inserted as a diversion or something.
> 2. We’ll never know the answer for sure until we die.
The answer to what: is evolution real? Is ID false? Is there a God? (Those are not the same questions.) We may have to wait till death for the third one, but the first two are addressable in this life.
> 3. People are saying that creationism and ID (Crap for short) should be taught in a “religion� class.
People are saying that creationism and ID should not be taught as science, because they are not science. They are taught in religion classes – at the appropriate churches and synagogues and houses of worship. Teaching creationism and ID as beliefs in public school is inappropriate. Teaching about creationism and ID in a survey of religion or religious evaluation and philosophy class might be appropriate.
> 4. You mention the Bible and people start defending themselves and how it’s wrong.
How the Bible is wrong? How it is wrong to mention the Bible? Defending themselves for mentioning the Bible, or defending themselves for not mentioning the Bible? It’s a little difficult to parse your meaning sometimes.
I suggest that the reason mentioning the Bible is constroversial is that the topic in question is science, and the Bible doesn’t really have a role there, except in some limited ways in archeology and history. It’s a bit like inserting “The Brothers Grimm” or “Mother Goose” into the discussion – fairy tales don’t belong in a discussion of evolution, either.
Of course, the debate of religion vs. atheism surfaces frequently in these discussions, for a number of factors. Both sides are prone to insert it, even when they shouldn’t.
> So, I guess the question we should be asking ourselves then is… In order to keep my child as well informed as possible and make sure that they have all the knowledge they need to make their own Intelligent Decision, should all schools have a religion class and should my child be forced to take it…you know, so that I’m not forcing MY beliefs on my child. I mean, If we DONT teach them “crap�, isn’t that forcing a main stream idea (correct or not) on them because that’s what the parent happens to believe?
As I said before, there might be some value in including a comparitive religion class in public school, to survey religious beliefs, their codes of ethics, their creation myths and afterlife stories. But then, it would be very difficult to do something like that without resorting to a critical evaluation of truth claims, without performing a “who’s right and who’s wrong” type of comparison. And that probably wouldn’t be advocated by the majority of religious believers – what if my kids decided my religion was wrong? Given the needs for other things – like science and math and English and such – it is hard to justify doing something like that in Jr high or High school. Not sure as much of the value below then.
> If we separate the “crap� from the “intelligent theories� and not every child hears all the information about each one, then we are forcing our views on impressionable people. I always thought science was about exploring the possibilities and finding new and exciting discoveries.
New and exciting discoveries in ancient, unchanging dogmas?
> As I said before, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were ALL right? How do we prove it if your little scientists are segregated from mine? How can YOUR children be truly informed if you deny them this information because, lets be honest, are you REALLY going to send your children to a religion class or a private Christian school JUST to learn ID and Creationism? Probably not. Little Dick and little Jane will just have to go uneducated.
There is a distinction between learning a religion and learning about a religion. I don’t need to teach children to believe in deities to teach them about the teachings of the religions in question. Just like a Catholic might explain Hinduism or Mormonism to their child without expecting their child to believe in it.
August 26th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Irishman says:
Of course, the debate of religion vs. atheism surfaces frequently in these discussions, for a number of factors. Both sides are prone to insert it, even when they shouldn’t.
-ahem- I’d been avoiding putting it quite so bluntly, but that probably *did* need to be said, as it keeps bubbling to the surface. The merits of Christianity are not the ax we’re here to grind in this discussion.
Irishman says:
As I said before, there might be some value in including a comparitive religion class in public school, to survey religious beliefs, . . . . Given the needs for other things – like science and math and English and such – it is hard to justify doing something like that in Jr high or High school.
I’m not so sure. Judging by the way Americans have responded, and continue to respond, to Middle Easterners since 9/11 (and considering maintream America’s attitudes about religion in general), I think a vast amount of good would be done by including comparative religion studies in junior high or high school. Compative religion classes would need to include instruction about most major religions–Christanity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many others–not just the first one, two, or three as some would probably prefer.
August 27th, 2005 at 8:48 am
this is crap think of this how is evolution true the great explosion sure ya but what caused the great explosion when you find that out then you can talk about evolution beacuse its like having a broken watch putting it in a box shaking it up with dinamite letting it explode then it has a new perfect watch so answer that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 27th, 2005 at 8:59 am
I read your article and as I did, something struck me. This is not science, this is not “the truth” it is just a load of evolutionist propaganda. You do not make valid arguments, quoting from one source only. I find it hard to believe that “true science” can have only one website to back it up. You don’t seem to care about the fact that creationism might have some valid points, you want to find a way to justify your mud-slinging hate of Christians and Christianity. So you attack creationism. I noticed as I read that you are just spouting off against creationist indoctrination of students. Did it ever occur to you that many Christian parents feel that way about evolution? I’m not here to promote Christianity, I’m here to make that point that creationism and evolution CAN be taught side by side.
And as a parting thought. Do three things. Get five evolutionists from different areas of the world, who do not work together, and ask them how old the world is. Secondly, true science is what can be observed. How can ANY theory of the world’s origion be proved as true science, none of us were around to witness it. And thirdly, Shut. The. Heck. UP!
August 27th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
I’m always happy when antiscientists bring the level of discourse up. Sigh.
As usual, such nonsense makes me understand just how much farther we have to go, and how much harder I have to fight.
August 29th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
sick of bs,
Your example of how evolution takes place, like “blowing a broken watch” repeatedly to get a good one is correct for one part, and that is, introducing some degree of randomness in the system by those explosions. However, there’s other important things you need for evolution to take place. First of all, you have to have many watches for evolution to operate on. Evolution does not take place on just a single organism, it is rather in a sense, a statistical process involving large number of individuals (watches). Second, you cannot “blow up” the entire watch, rather only small parts of it at a time, so that the performance of your watch is relatively stable from one generation (“explosion”) to another. And third, there has to be a system of selecting which watches will undergo further explosions and reproduce (I dont know how that works with watches though) and which will be discarded based upon their performance or in your terms: how “new and perfect” they are.
Evolution does not apply to biological processes only. Believe it or not, it can be used (rather sucessfully) to train robots to do neat things that would probably need programmers quite some time to figure out. See this page:
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/051904/Evolution_trains_robot_teams_051904.html
and this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_robotics
this is stupid!,
“True science” can be found in many places, not only in wonderfully large number of websites, but also in books in libraries and so on. The problem is that many creationists dont bother to look at them before finding out what’s wrong with science, and you sure are one of them. Creationism sure has one key advantage – ITS SIMPLE! Simple things have to be true right? I mean come one people, why should the world be complicated, when we can just pretend it is simple and ignore the complexity of nature by pushing it under the rug of divine intervention. To your address and to all other creationists and concerned christian parents I can say, you are lazy, and your lazyness perpetuates your ignorance on matters of direct concern to you. In other words, simple explanations tend to fare better with simple minded people.
August 29th, 2005 at 1:59 pm
Why dont you read “Brief History of Time by Stephen W. Hawking as a start, it might give you some insight on what the world is about, thought for evidences you might start checking out scientific publications and journals, which are much harder read.
August 30th, 2005 at 11:10 am
Another interesting read:
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html
August 31st, 2005 at 7:53 pm
Re. blowing up watches etc. (ie, the randomness issue):
One of the common objections to evolution is the rhetorical question “How can a more complex and better system be created just by a series of random events?” After all, everyday experience tells us that random happenings create *less* well-organized systems; they create chaos. So, it’s a valid question.
…except that it’s based on a major misunderstanding (not to use the “i” word) of how evolution occurs. Evolution isn’t just random events. To simplify, it’s composed of two parts. Mutations provide the random element–but then, natural selection provides the nonrandom part–it guides the changes. Individual animals provide changes that may or may not be helpful, and Mother Nature selects for those that are helpful.
This really isn’t so far out of line with our everyday experience. Remember, we do the same sort of thing ourselves–it’s called “artificial selection”. When a plant or animal shows characteristics we want, we select that specimen and others like it to breed for the next generation. That’s how we’ve created seedless grapes and watermelons, large juicy fruits, big beefy cattle, etc. It works much faster than natural selection because we’re much more systematic about it–but the basic idea is the same.
September 1st, 2005 at 8:21 am
Very interesting reading. It’s also interesting to note that Sir Isaac Newton believed the world is ‘young’ and created by God or “Intelligent Design”. In fact, didn’t he calculate out the age of the earth using, among other things, the Bible? Surely he was no crackpot, nor did he have any agenda to get his religion into schools. Hmmmm…I’m thinking I’ll stick with the likes of Newton.
September 1st, 2005 at 11:51 am
Joy, Isaac Newton was a genius, but a man of his times. I have little respect for a call to authority; because he was a scientific genius doesn’t mean he knew what he was talking about when it came to cosmogony.
September 1st, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Good answer, BA! Similarly Einstein was a genius and made substantial contributions to physics, but could never bring himself to accept quantum mechanics. That doesn’t mean quantum mechanics isn’t accepted or useful, or that it shouldn’t be taught in physics courses; it just means Einstein himself was mistaken on that point.
It happens. Mistakes are made. But in science, mistakes are also eventually corrected. That’s what puts science so much apart from false sciences like astrology.
September 7th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Natural selection does occur. The only problem is that it has been well demonstrated to stay within a species. You may look at the evolutionary diagram of camels in a textbook and say it’s good evidence until you notice that it is still a camel. Also, the ordering of proteins and DNA would be pure random chance, and far, far, far less likely than the random assembly of a watch. DNA is much like a book or a comand, and it has to be correct, no matter how simple you make the organism (which isn’t that simple, really). If you randomly pressed buttons on a keyboard, would the result be of much use? No. Likewise, if you saw a book you would not assume someone randomly pressed letters on the keyboard. In the case of DNA, it is made even more unlikely for several reasons. First, no matter how good your argument, the second law of thermodynamics would take it’s toll on the complex and fragile DNA, which would not last long in an ocean with water. Nor will protein, as many proteins are partially sensitive to water, or in other words water will mostly destroy the protein before it is finished. Add to that that proteins are always made by other proteins. Amino acids will much more readily bond with other molecules, so it becomes even more unlikely. Irreducible complexity can not be avoided when dealling with the most complex of things, the cell.
By the way, go to
http://www.pathlights.com
and check the part on evolution. Read it. Find problems with it. There are some, but many of the statements on that website are undeniably true.
Also, read the book “The Case for Faith” by Lee Strobel. Dispute what you find in it.
September 7th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
Oh wow, all kinds of levels of rejection of science. Your argument that DNA is inherently unstable and it will dissolve into the water of the oceans is somewhat right. First of all it is not the water that breaks up the DNA, it is mostly active chemical components such as atomic oxygen, fluorine and so on, and also cosmic rays. So yes, DNA left by itself will eventually disintegrate. But not from water. Just for your information, the human body is more than 2/3 water, if you watch Startrek you might remember the “mostly bags of water” expression on the address of humans. HOWEVER, DNA and RNA (the latter is believed as far as I know to have originated first), can replicate themselves so that their “correctness” or “near-correctness” is ensured. Allow me to make an analogy with a analog tape versus a CD. The analog tape has signal recorded in continuous form, which over time under different influences like external magnetic fields and shifting of the magnetic coating will degrade and the problem is that there’s no way to tell what the original looked like. On the CD however, the information is discrete, meaning that for relatively small disturbances of the signal, its correct state can be restored. Very roughly speaking, information on an RNA is discrete just like the information on a CD and that allows it to be copied and preserved reliably. Have you ever tried copying an audio tape more than 20 times? I bet that even with the most advanced equipent you’ll be getting lots of noise in the end. And how about mp3s which are discrete pieces of data? You can copy them pretty much as many times as you like without loss of quality. Same thing with genetics.
As far as camel turning into a dog? First of all evolution does not work “horizontally” as to transform one contemporary species to another. Rather all species are descended from a common ancestor, which by now is most likely extinct. Cammels might take very long time to evolve into something else, but with bacteria the process is much shorter, in a matter of months maybe even days through natural selection one can get strains of bacteria with very different shapes, sizes and so on if one subjects them to the apporpriate conditions.
So your arguments thus far are very flawed, and just to mention the “irreducible complexity”, well that’s another story but it is worth mentioning that half-educated folk like creationists forget that evolution does not always allow for making organisms more complex, but sometimes it makes them more simple if that helps their survival and reproduction.
September 7th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Wikipedian, you forgot it’s “UGLY bags of mostly water”
Good points about discrete versus continuous memory recording.
M Duke, about DNA and randomness, remember that evolution isn’t based on the idea thata series of totally random occurrences (dice rolls, if you will) produced a series of increasingly complex organisms. That is, and should be, laughable.
What evolution suggests is that DNA is remarkably accurate in copying itself, but not surprisingly for a 4-billion-character sequence, it’s not *perfect* at copying itself. The occasional mistake/change (ie, mutation) does occur, and those are random. But, then the results of that mistake/change are tested against nature: are they helpful, harmful, or neutral to that organism’s survival in that environment? The results of that aren’t random.
As I mentioned above about “artificial selection” (another term might be hybridization), you have a random factor which is selected for/against by something nonrandom (person or nature). It’s just that artificial selection works much more quickly and effectively because it’s more selective than is natural selection.
September 8th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
I know natural selection is not very random. But, DNA, if formed, will need to be right, as once its formed, it will replicate itself in whatever correctness it has. Also, the first proteins must be correct. DNA cannot make proteins without other proteins. So the complex proteins must be there. Combine that with a need for the rest of the cell structure to form inside a membrane by random chance. It will not form chemically into a cell, no matter how simple, because it would form mostly bits of junk chemically.
Also, there is a flaw in natural selection as the origin of the species: we do not see it today. Sure, point to bacteria. It reproduces another of the same bacteria, but the offspring may have a new charecteristic that maybe will allow it to survive. But it is still the same species. As you said, DNA makes almost perfect copies of itself. It makes perhaps a few mistakes. This is not enough to change a species, because if it were I would perhaps have a different amount of DNA than you. I don’t believe I do.
September 8th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
A different *amount* of DNA? Where did that come from? We’re talking about changes of sequence, not adding and subtracting (except perhaps over very extended sequences of time, like millions of yrs).
DNA making a few mistakes here and there is not enough to change a species in a brief period of time–it takes a long time. Just because we haven’t yet observed speciation is hardly conclusive–we’ve only been looking for that time for a tiny, tiny fraction of time. Similarly, it’s no surprise we haven’t found any evidence of extraterrestrial life. If it exists, it’s going to take a long time to find and we’ve been searching for less than a century.
I don’t think anyone (on the evolution side) is suggesting that DNA appeared out of nowhere. It developed from simpler substances.
September 9th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
A different amount of DNA is important to making new species. If the evolutionary theory were true, we would either: a) all (every species included) have the same amount of DNA or b) we would see varying amounts of DNA per organism.
If DNA were simpler at first, it would still need order. Also, how would it change? Can you change all the hardware of a computer as the machine is runing and you are using it?
Also, remember that there are many different species and organisms on this planet. If it were slow, it would be seen in at least one generation of a species, if not several. But their DNA count all stay the same.
September 13th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Lost Said:
>August 4th, 2005 at 2:41 am
>P. Edward Murray Said:
>>Scientists have told us there was indeed a real Eve.
>>They gained that insight through the study of Mitochondrial DNA…
>Scientists didn’t have to study mitochondrial DNA to gain the insight that all humans share a common female-line ancestor; that’s just common sense. Mitochondrial DNA is peculiar in being passed along the female line only, and Eve is just a name that has been given to the common ancestor from whom all humans living today inherited their mitochondrial DNA. There’s certainly no suggestion that mitochondrial Eve is the same person as biblical Eve. They share a name and that’s all.
1. “Mitochondrial Eve” was named that as an allusion to the Biblical Eve. It is metaphorical.
And this comment is a good example of why I hate it when scientists wax poetical with religious allusions in their naming of things. It is misleading, tends to confuse the uninitiated, and frankly is hubristic. The “God Particle”, reducing god to a mere subatomic particle? Religious people should find that insulting, not confirming of their beliefs. “Know the mind of God”? You presume there’s a god with a mind to know.
2. Mitochondrial Eve is a concept that isn’t quite so solid a footing as presumed. True, all samples collected from diverse populations showed the same mitochondrial DNA, suggesting a common ancestor. However, other genetic factors indicate that the earliest human population had to have several hundred people minimum. If a small group of closely interbreeding members could all acheive the same mitochondrial source.
Another question comes to my mind – mitochondria are a very early cellular feature for such a late development as humans. I’m wondering about that common ancestor for humanity occurring some time much earlier in the human development, such as not long after the split from chimpanzees. I wonder how much that’s been studied.
September 13th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
You know, looking through what this thing is about, I think I’ll state my opinion. I think neither evolution nor ID nor YEC should be taught. What should be done is cover the basic ideas of them, then have students research it on there own. Then, the kids write an essay based on their reseach. Anyway, in college, they are likely to be taught evolution by proffesors, so just leave it there. Or, if it’s so important, teach how the mechanisms apply today, just skip the theory. Save time, avoid public chaos. Works for me, as some of the basics of the evolutionary theory (natural selection, etc.) are used on both sides, and in science. How the world came to be really will not help us, unless you are either curious or religious.
You know, what I’ve just said will probably look like bogus to most people…
September 14th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Leon Baradat Said:
>Lack of hard evidence for a creator is what makes religion religion. It’s what makes faith so important–if you could Prove the existence of a creator with hard evidence, then Christianity would cease to BE religion.
I think, perhaps, that some discussion is in order on this point. What is the defining essence of religion? Is it *belief*? I submit it is not mere belief. After all, many christians believe in Satan, that does not make them Satanists. I submit that the defining essence of religion goes beyond mere belief, it is *worship*. Christianity is not mere belief in God (and Jesus), it is the worship of that God (typically in prescribed manners). Islam is not just belief, it is worshipping Allah, following the teachings of the Koran, etc. In the same way that the Romans were required to placate their gods with sacrifices – worship, not just believing in their existence.
Faith is a critical component of religion only because there is not clear-cut evidence. Religion relies upon “divine inspiration” and emotional experience because that is inherent to how it is experienced, but the point of religion is not just belief, it is following the practices and worshipping in the manner described.
I submit that if evidence were ever available to prove the existence of a deity, that would not be the end of worship for that deity, but the beginning.
September 14th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
Leon Baradat Said:
> Judging by the way Americans have responded, and continue to respond, to Middle Easterners since 9/11 (and considering maintream America’s attitudes about religion in general), I think a vast amount of good would be done by including comparative religion studies in junior high or high school. Compative religion classes would need to include instruction about most major religions–Christanity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many others–not just the first one, two, or three as some would probably prefer.
Are you speaking of Comparative Religion, or multicultural awareness? The two are not identical. I would think the second is more important for what you are concerned over. Though certainly some of the second would likely happen through the first, Comparative Religion is more about analyzing the structure and form of the different beliefs, similarities, differences, origins, etc. Multicultural awareness would be more about the people, how they live, what they think and why. Religion would be a (large) part of that, but not the whole, and not the focus.
sick of bs Said:
> this is crap think of this how is evolution true the great explosion sure ya but what caused the great explosion when you find that out then you can talk about evolution beacuse its like having a broken watch putting it in a box shaking it up with dinamite letting it explode then it has a new perfect watch so answer that one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This post is nearly incoherent, and certainly difficult to understand, but the one element that seems to come out is a very badly mangled distortion of a faulty analogy used against evolution.
1. Evolution has random elements, so the randomness of shaking the box is somewhat appropriate. However, where does the dynamite fit into the explanation? Dynamite would destroy pieces in the box, not just shake them about. There’s no parallel in the processes of evolution.
2. Besides randomness, evolution requires a process of gradual selection. Selection in the form of testing the results of the random arrangements in some manner to determine which is “better”. For evolution, “better” means reproduces more offspring that survive to reproduce. For the watch in the box, “better” would seem to be “able to tell time”, though the analogy gets stretched very thin for that. But I also said *gradual*. Gradual selection means the selection process is not all or nothing, throw everything away and mix it all up again. Rather, it means improvements in a step-wise manner, bit by bit. Shake the watch bits up, then evaluate what’s there. Keep what works, mix the rest up and try again. The analogy again struggles because there does not seem to be a way to keep the components together that are starting to work but have them available for the rest of the components to mix with.
A better analogy is trying to roll five heads with five coins. Take five coins, toss them simultaneously, try to get all five heads. Probability comes up with some huge number if you keep tossing all five every time. But evolution doesn’t work that way. Instead, it looks at the first toss, and sets aside any heads you find. Found 2? Great, next roll you only toss the remaining 3 coins. Keep the heads, retry the tails. By that method, you’re almost guaranteed to have all five heads in five tosses. That’s gradual selection. The selection is for heads, the gradual means peicemeal, cumulative results, not each throw independently.
this is stupid! Said:
> You do not make valid arguments, quoting from one source only. I find it hard to believe that “true science� can have only one website to back it up.
Faulty logic. The number of references cited for an informal essay hardly has any meaning to the merit of the science position explained in that essay. The references on evolution are too numerous to count (literally). Many are in actual books, but there are dozens if not hundreds on the web. The BA picked a couple.
> You don’t seem to care about the fact that creationism might have some valid points, …
What valid points can creationism have in a scientific discussion? Creationism is the belief “god did it”. That is an untestable premise (how do you disprove God?” It also has no explanatory power. Saying “God did it” doesn’t even explain how he did it, much less any part of the process. At least “Bewitched” lets us see Samantha wiggle her nose.
If you mean points that creationists have about evolution, they may or may not. Those points, however, have to be more than “god did it”. They have to be explanations. And the explanations provided by creationists do not measure up. They are flawed reasoning, or they contradict the evidence used to justify them, or they contradict other evidence. If you’re speaking of critiques of some specific arguments or data points or evidenciary claims, then those need to be addressed in the specifics by the scientific merits.
>… you want to find a way to justify your mud-slinging hate of Christians and Christianity. So you attack creationism.
No. You are incorrect. The BA has not expressed hatred of christians or christianity. He has expressed anger toward those who use their religion to distort science for political and social reasons. If you are equating that with hating christiantity, then I think the problem is your definition of christianity.
>I noticed as I read that you are just spouting off against creationist indoctrination of students. Did it ever occur to you that many Christian parents feel that way about evolution?
That’s part of the problem – Christian parents shouldn’t feel that way about evolution, and the fact that they do is based upon ignorance about what evolution really says and means, and by distortions by people pushing political and social agendas beyond science.
>I’m not here to promote Christianity, I’m here to make that point that creationism and evolution CAN be taught side by side.
Once again, I think words are not being used the same way. Creationism for most of us using it is not just belief in God, it is not just saying that God works through evolution, it is statements about how god does things and is exclusionary to evolution. Creationists such as the ICR and young-Earth creationists describe life origins as a (specific) literal interpretation of Genesis. Some versions allow the “Day-age” interpretation of the 6 days of creation, but they still take the story as essentially literal. This is incompatible with the findings of science – not just evolution, but geology and astronomy and cosmology and anatomy and physics. If you’re using “creationism” to mean “belief in God” or “belief that God is the cause”, then I have no quibble with you about the two being compatible, merely a disagreement over your word choice as a source of confusion. If you mean “creationism” in the sense I have described, then the two are not compatible.
>And as a parting thought. Do three things. Get five evolutionists from different areas of the world, who do not work together, and ask them how old the world is.
They’ll all state the world is about 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old, maybe as old as 5 billion years. And note that Evolution is not really about the age of the Earth, that’s more of a geological question than biological one.
>Secondly, true science is what can be observed. How can ANY theory of the world’s origion be proved as true science, none of us were around to witness it.
You have a serious misconception of science. There are two types of science. One is the type that can be carried out by experiments – physics and chemistry, for example. The evidence here is garnered through data collection by experimentation. The other type of science relies on historical data, looking at evidence that can be garnered from existing sources. Astronomy largely falls into this category, as well as anthropology, archeology, paleontology, etc. We cannot create a star to watch the processes and collect data on how it works, nor can we find one and watch it – the life spans are just too long. But we can survey the skys and take statistical data on all the different types of stars and piece together an explanation and theories that tie them together. This is science, and the same kind of science applied to studying fossils.
>And thirdly, Shut. The. Heck. UP!
What a well-reasoned argument. No one made you come here.
September 15th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
M Duke Said:
>Also, the ordering of proteins and DNA would be pure random chance, and far, far, far less likely than the random assembly of a watch. DNA is much like a book or a comand, and it has to be correct, no matter how simple you make the organism (which isn’t that simple, really). … In the case of DNA, it is made even more unlikely for several reasons. First, no matter how good your argument, the second law of thermodynamics would take it’s toll on the complex and fragile DNA, which would not last long in an ocean with water. Nor will protein, as many proteins are partially sensitive to water, or in other words water will mostly destroy the protein before it is finished. Add to that that proteins are always made by other proteins. Amino acids will much more readily bond with other molecules, so it becomes even more unlikely. Irreducible complexity can not be avoided when dealling with the most complex of things, the cell.
You assume DNA would of had to evolve before cells did. Scientists are rather of the opposite opinion – DNA didn’t come along until after there were primitive cells. What did cells use before DNA? Perhaps an earlier form of RNA that no longer exists because DNA replaced it.
> But, DNA, if formed, will need to be right, as once its formed, it will replicate itself in whatever correctness it has. Also, the first proteins must be correct. DNA cannot make proteins without other proteins. So the complex proteins must be there. Combine that with a need for the rest of the cell structure to form inside a membrane by random chance. It will not form chemically into a cell, no matter how simple, because it would form mostly bits of junk chemically.
There’s that random chance thing again. You seem to think that the earliest cells had to look exactly like modern cells, with all the same internal structures and chemistry. You seem unable to conceptualize piecemeal development of a cell with simpler structures, that have been replaced by more successful, changed forms. Scientists don’t propose that the first complete modern cell sprang into existence directly from simple molecules. The manner isn’t fully understood yet, but concepts focus on first simple organic molecules forming from available energy – chemical structures follow simple rules and organic molecules are abundant in space. There’s a class of meteorites, carbonaceous chondrites, that are organic molecules. These simple molecules forming more complex amino acids by more energy (lightning, impacting meteors, volcanic heat in undersea vents, etc – these have been demonstrated in a lab to occur). Amino acids would then combine into simple proteins through similar processes, or perhaps some other unknown process. The formation of proteins leads to the development of the cell walls, and then the various components in the cell begin to develop. Mitochondria, for instance, are actually a separate organism that found a more comfortable home inside other cells, acting as the energy factory in return for food. Or perhaps it was the larger cells absorbing the mitochondria to leech off their excess energy. The symbiosis drove more efficient and productive mitochondria, and cells that could become more complex.
Some improvements supplemented the previous methods by which those tasks were accomplished. The less functional method then adapted to do something else, which removed the redundancy and left the more complex path we now see that looks “irreducibly complex”.
>A different amount of DNA is important to making new species. If the evolutionary theory were true, we would either: a) all (every species included) have the same amount of DNA or b) we would see varying amounts of DNA per organism.
What is your justification for that statement? You’re making a false dichotomy. Why doesn’t evolution allow what we see – different types of organisms have different amounts of DNA, different numbers of chromosomes, but within a species the chromosome counts are pretty consistent?
>If DNA were simpler at first, it would still need order. Also, how would it change? Can you change all the hardware of a computer as the machine is runing and you are using it?
DNA changes during cell splitting. During the mitosis (and meiosis as well), the chromosome pairs split into two halves. Sometimes during this process the genes in the cells get scrambled. Sometimes they get reordered a bit. Bits move from one place on the chromosome to another. And then there’s an encoding error where the whole DNA sequence is duplicated and merged together.
>Also, remember that there are many different species and organisms on this planet. If it were slow, it would be seen in at least one generation of a species, if not several. But their DNA count all stay the same.
DNA count all stay the same? We’ve just barely begun sequencing the DNA of species on this planet. If you’re talking about chromosome counts, we’ve actually doubled chromosome counts in the lab. There are biological processes that make it happen. There are also biological processes within the cells that combat it.
September 16th, 2005 at 3:45 am
I know how, in theory, the first cell would have been very simple compared to modern cells. In theory, it would have used RNA, no nucleus wall, simpler structure, would have been an archeobacteria (or whatever it was supposed to be like), et cetera. But, again, how does one make the switch between RNA and DNA? That would happen between one generation. That would be like changing the hardware of a computer while it is still running. Also, chance does play a role here. Sure, a DNA or RNA can replicate, but it needs proteins to cary out many of it’s tasks and I believe replication. So the proteins would have to form randomly, and they are also unlikely and complex, no matter how “simple”.
September 16th, 2005 at 11:51 am
M Duke Said:
> But, again, how does one make the switch between RNA and DNA? That would happen between one generation. That would be like changing the hardware of a computer while it is still running.
Why? You assume modern DNA and modern RNA are in the same form they’ve always been, that there have been no modifications to structure or function, that earlier forms weren’t more similar.
September 17th, 2005 at 10:36 am
Modern DNA and RNA are very similar, but the differences are crucial. DNA, double stranded. RNA is one stranded. How could they be more similar in that? Think about what would happen if, at one time, a cell split but the new RNA didn’t seperate. Wow! DNA. But, the rest of the cell is set up to work with RNA. A whole new step and process of unzipping DNA to duplicate would have to be made, which I doubt the cell is capable of doing. It would be kind of like… having all of the gas stations switch to hydrogen without having the cars made for it. It may be better, but it won’t help if nothing can use it.
Also, saying things were much more simple then has a limit. Some things don’t really reach simple, ever. Cells are always complicated, and even if the nucleic acids can be simpler, proteins can’t. Some proteins do the same thing in all forms of life, such as assembling other proteins, working with nucleic acids, catylising reactions. To add to that, the strange thing about proteins is that, at the present moment, we know of only one thing that can assemble protein: the cell. We currently cannot synthesize proteins. Proteins in the cell assemble proteins, stick them together and connect them through dehydration synthesis. The amino acids are not just put in order and left to connect. It won’t work. Then, of course, you have sheer chance for having the correct sequence of amino acids. Random chance is everything here, as proteins don’t duplicate, they just work. And you need a lot of proteins to make even a simple cell work.
October 2nd, 2005 at 8:26 pm
Wow I certainly missed a lot. Anyone care to give me an update?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Another name for evolution is birth defect.
February 8th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Andrew – You must be a birth defect then : )
July 12th, 2006 at 4:07 am
I happened to come across this blog and noticed an incorrect reference to Dr. Hugh Ross. The statement was made that Ross believes in evolution. Well, this may be true in some minor sense, but Ross does not believe in that evolution was the major cause of new species. Instead, he believes that God created each of the species — with a few evolutionary exceptions. Ross is pretty unique in the evolution vs I.D. debate in the sense that he is willing to make TESTABLE statements, that over time, will be proven true or fales. You should check out his web site at http://www.reasons.org and search for “Testable creation model” or simply “testable”. Here is a guy who is willing to stick his neck out.
He also made bet with Richard Hoagland (See “God Man and E.T.” that the new Mars photos would not show girders on mars (they shook hands in the video). Since then, the photos have shown that there are no girders on Mars, but I doubt Ross ever collected on his bet.