NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand. You don't like evolution because you don't understand it, right?

A mosquito wouldn't become a 'different' thing... it's offspring would inherit certain characteristic.... which they would pass on to their offspring... which THEY would pass on... etc. After a few thousands/millions of years, you'll have a mosquito-ish creature which isn't a mosquito.

Kind of like the evolution from Miacids into cats, dogs and bears.

What is it about the anti-Evolution crowd that so desperately wants to see a fish evolve into a banana, before they'll accept it?

So WHERE in the fossil record are the thousands/millions of years worth of missing links that should be there?

The fossil record should be TEEMING with whatever man was before we evolved into man.

Hawkintom']
Ok, doubt away. But please enlighten me. Why is irreducible complexity not an argument against evolution?

And I'm really dumb I guess, but please explain this as well... Let's say GREEN EYES was a huge advantage to a ZEBRA (I'm just using easy to grasp examples here.)

One day a ZEBRA mutuates to have GREEN EYES. It mates (more than others, since this is a positive trait), but GREEN EYES are a recessive trait. And since there are no other GREEN EYED ZEBRAS (unless mutation struck twice in the same area at the same time, etc...) How will any of its offspring have GREEN EYES?
It would be, if it actually existed. Damn shame that it doesn't. By the way, it's actually near impossible for a recessive trait to mutate into being and exibit itself. But (gg= green eyes, GG= wild type)


gg x GG = 4Gg

Gg x Gg = 1 GG, 2 Gg, 1 gg.


One after two generations per mating pair of Gg.

Hawkintom']So WHERE in the fossil record are the thousands/millions of years worth of missing links that should be there?

The fossil record should be TEEMING with whatever man was before we evolved into man.
I gave you a whole list. Cheers. Here it is again.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).


The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).


The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

The point is that evolution isnt given an exalted status in the classroom. Its taught in science because evolution is a scientific explaination. ID can be taught in a religion class or a philosophy class but not a science class since its hypothesis can not be tested or falsified. This means that ID is not a scientific arguement and hence should not be in a science class.

How convenient...

Evolution is a theory. It is taught as such, when it it taught scientifically.

Thus, it IS tempered by our uncertainty, and then fact that we may never know.

That still is no excuse to introduce spiritualism into the science classroom.

Now you are assigning spiritualism to ID again...

Hawkintom']How convenient...
Yes, how convenient that things actually have definitions. It'd be so much better if we could just pull meanings out of our asses and assign them to words.

Hawkintom']How convenient...

WTF type of response is how convenient? Science is a way of knowing/ figuring out the natural world(measurable universe). So how the hell does finding out about a deity which exists in the metaphysical world fit into that? You know what here I'll challenge you to prove me wrong about the ID failing to be a scientific hypothesis. Show me how we can measure god and tell me how you can falsify the claim that god created man.

I gave you a whole list. Cheers. Here it is again.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.


Real life calls. I've saved your post and I'll look into it. I am open-minded.

Gotta go for now. Have a nice day and don't turn into anything we wouldn't recognize anytime soon.

;)

Hawkintom']Now you are assigning spiritualism to ID again...

ID isn't anything more than a weak hypothesis. It predicts nothing, it models nothing, contains no evidence, and argues that if there are any flaws in evolutionary theory or the mountains of evidence that support evolution, that it must default to ID.

ID isn't science, no matter how you slice it.

Yes, how convenient that things actually have definitions. It'd be so much better if we could just pull meanings out of our asses and assign them to words.

But we do - like the word evolution. :p

Seems convenient to me to set up the rules so that only your way of thinking fits into science so only your way of thinking can be taught in courses that are required...

Regardless of how you see it, the results are that your way of thinking gets taught to people and the other way is not widely exposed to them in a classroom setting.

Don't worry, I'm just one person and most people won't see the wizard behind the curtain so you'll be able to continue to get away with it. :p

ID isn't anything more than a weak hypothesis. It predicts nothing, it models nothing, contains no evidence, and argues that if there are any flaws in evolutionary theory or the mountains of evidence that support evolution, that it must default to ID.

ID isn't science, no matter how you slice it.

Just a question. Asking you to be open-minded and think creatively here.

WHAT IF, aliens came along next year and showed how they were seeding the universe and we were one of the planets they had seeded.

What would ID be then? (Besides correct?)

That's the point. It might be right. Evolution (in some form) might be right. Creationism, in some form, might be right.

But the powers that be want to only teach one of them. None of them are provable. All have holes. But by defining one as scientific, you can throw creationism right out the door, and heck, include ID with creationism too and only your side gets taught.

Hawkintom']Now you are assigning spiritualism to ID again...

Same thing.

It relies on unfalsifiable quantities.

Whether it be god, greenmen, or goblins, ID relies on 'faith'.

Hawkintom']But we do - like the word evolution. :p
Evolution has been defined in the same way for over 150 years. Try again, kid.

Seems convenient to me to set up the rules so that only your way of thinking fits into science so only your way of thinking can be taught in courses that are required...
You do realize that science has never dealt with the supernatural for as long as it has existed, don't you? Open your eyes and discard your whackjob conspiracy theories

Regardless of how you see it, the results are that your way of thinking gets taught to people and the other way is not widely exposed to them in a classroom setting.
I see what you're saying. How dare those damn science teachers only teach that the Earth revolves around the Sun! The children must also be taught that the Sun revolves around the Earth!

Don't worry, I'm just one person and most people won't see the wizard behind the curtain so you'll be able to continue to get away with it. :p
Yes. There's this gigantic evil atheist evolutionist scientific conspiracy. You found us. Good job.

Yes. There's this gigantic evil atheist evolutionist scientific conspiracy. You found us. Good job.

Quiet you fool we havent finished the floride in the drinking water plan yet.....

Hawkintom']Just a question. Asking you to be open-minded and think creatively here.

WHAT IF, aliens came along next year and showed how they were seeding the universe and we were one of the planets they had seeded.

What would ID be then? (Besides correct?)

That's the point. It might be right. Evolution (in some form) might be right. Creationism, in some form, might be right.

But the powers that be want to only teach one of them. None of them are provable. All have holes. But by defining one as scientific, you can throw creationism right out the door, and heck, include ID with creationism too and only your side gets taught.


*sigh* What if all life on earth was started by a giant, invisible, farting space weasel? "What if" means very, very little to science unless there is evidence to support such a hypothesis. ID has no evidence. None. Evolution has tons of peer reviewed evidence to support it. There are flaws, but that's not unreasonable, because if the theory was flawless, it would be an absolute, and therefore we wouldn't need to keep investigating. We keep investigating to refine our knowledge, patch the holes, and better explain things. If something is found to be wrong, it's discarded. THAT is science. And so far, you have not presented any explanation for the current evidence that invalidates evolution. You want ID to be taught as science? Then present evidence that can be examined and thereby verified or discarded. It's that simple.

Hawkintom']Come on now... engineering DNA isn't way beyond our capabilities right now. Vast space travel is, but we can already "theorize" ways that might be possible. Let's say something like wormholes existed and a race learned how to use them. They wouldn't have to be godlike to seed planets with life.

Advanced sure, but by godlike, I would assume we are talking about something that could have created the UNIVERSE, not just travel around from world to world and seed planets.

We're playing semantics games. My point is that you don't have to believe in a "Christian God" to believe that ID is a fair argument over evolution.


Mapping the genome is NOTHING like engineering a new lifeform - certainly not a complex thring ecosphere.

No - you don't have to beleive in the Christian God to believe ID. But, you DO have to believe something equally as un-falsifiable.

Hawkintom']
...or a universe of matter and energy that came from nothing or has always been here or...

Hey, I'm the first to tell you that creationist arguments that something had to create the universe are circular and they quickly turn to a God that has always been. But that is the point, we cannot comprehend the circumstances in which we find ourselves in right now. It's great to try to understand them, but for one side to say they know and that the other side is just WRONG is folly.


But, the ONLY group saying they KNOW, is the Creationist group.

Hawkintom']
I'm simplifying, but that's still more or less the same logic of any evolutionary theory. Something amazing had to happen at some point. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.


Organic material arriving on space-faring rocks. Not that amazing, really.

Hawkintom']
The fossil record... Most life appears at the "Cambrian Explosion." Evolution would predict a slow, but somewhat steady increase in the variety of life.


No - a lot of faossils have SURVIVED from that time. That doesn't mean there was nothing earlier... the fossils just aren't found in large numbers, no?

Hawkintom']
Random mutation. No mutation ever observed has added to the genome. Some take away, and even occasionally this will result in some sort of survival benefit within the species, but it does not create something new.


Actually, you are wrong. Mutation has been seen, and duplication has been found. And, what would be the 'effect' of duplication AND mutation?

Hawkintom']
Someone metioned Pepper Moths. That wasn't evolution. In some areas, darkening of the moths preceded the darkening of the tree bark.


Pepper Moths were always bicolour - but the previous colouring was black-speckled-on white. Post industrial Pepper Moths are white-speckled-on-black.

Hawkintom']
Furthermore, moths don't normally rest on the trunks of trees the way the textbooks taught. They had to GLUE THEM ON to try and support the theory.


Where do you get this crap?

Source, please?

Hawkintom']
The Pepper Moth genome already included the ability for the moth to change color when the environment changed.


All life forms have the capacity to adapt. That is the basis of evolution.

Hawkintom']It wasn't evolution. It was adaptation within rules that the genetic makeup of the moth already allowed for.


The species made a microevolution from mainly-white to mainly-black entities. Don't call it evolution if you prefer.

Hawkintom']
I most certainly realize that. Furthermore, you are making assumptions again, since I have not SAID any such thing. My point, which is apparently more difficult to understand than I imagined, is that evolution does not deserve exalted status in the classroom. It is no better than ID and if it is going to be taught, so should ID.


You aren't listening. Right OR WRONG, evolution is based on the scientific method - that is why it 'belongs' in science.

ID ISN'T based on the scientific method - that is why it doesn't 'belong' in science.

Hawkintom']
Ok, doubt away. But please enlighten me. Why is irreducible complexity not an argument against evolution?


Not a credible argument.

Hawkintom']
And I'm really dumb I guess, but please explain this as well... Let's say GREEN EYES was a huge advantage to a ZEBRA (I'm just using easy to grasp examples here.)

One day a ZEBRA mutuates to have GREEN EYES. It mates (more than others, since this is a positive trait), but GREEN EYES are a recessive trait. And since there are no other GREEN EYED ZEBRAS (unless mutation struck twice in the same area at the same time, etc...) How will any of its offspring have GREEN EYES?

You really DON'T understand evolution, do you?

Brief, almost pop-corn science, explanation.

Zebra with Green eyes: Genetic probability of passing on the green eyes - let's assume 25%.

Therefore, the Green eyed Zebra has roughly one green-eyed offspring, for every three non-green offspring.

Let's look at the next generation - we have four Zebras, one with green eyes, but four Zebras carrying a genetic possibility for green eyes.

When those four zebra interbreed, they linebreed that trait.

Now - you said it was a survival characterisitc, yes? Then there is some advantage to be gained? (otherwise it just arises from time to time as an oddity).

So - let's assume..... I don't know... Green eyes give the Zebra better twilight vision, so they are more likely to survive predators in the half-light?

In the same generation, our three non-green zebras die long before the green-eyes, through predation. Our green eyes therefore produces FAR MORE offspring than the non-green zebras... and every one has the potential for green eyes.

Continue this process for a few years, with the green-eyed zebra always outlasting the non-green. They will always outnumber the non-green. They will always outcompete the non-green. The non-green will be the first winnowed through predation.

A few years later, ALL your remaining Zebra will have green eyes - except for the occasional throw-back.

Where do you get this crap?

Source, please?

He's right. The moths were glued onto the tree trunk. Sadly for him, almost all wildlife photos are staged. The chances of one finding both a white moth and a black moth next to each other are extremely low. So they staged the photo for the purposes of comparison.

Hawkintom']So WHERE in the fossil record are the thousands/millions of years worth of missing links that should be there?

The fossil record should be TEEMING with whatever man was before we evolved into man.

You haven't done even the most cursory research, have you?

There ARE thousands/millions of years of 'missing links'.

What is it about the ID-freaks that they think ignorance of facts is the same as proving them wrong?

He's right. The moths were glued onto the tree trunk. Sadly for him, almost all wildlife photos are staged. The chances of one finding both a white moth and a black moth next to each other are extremely low. So they staged the photo for the purposes of comparison.

I haven't seen any comparison shots like that.

The faking of one 'publicity shot' is not the same as saying that Pepper Moths never land on trees - or that the scientific basis of the Pepper Moth scenario is about glued lepidoptera...

Edit: I'd also be kind of interested to see sourcing for it, anyway...

Hawkintom']Seems convenient to me to set up the rules so that only your way of thinking fits into science so only your way of thinking can be taught in courses that are required...
When science is defined within nature, it would be imprudent to look beyond nature for explanations of science. D'uh.

Hawkintom']Regardless of how you see it, the results are that your way of thinking gets taught to people and the other way is not widely exposed to them in a classroom setting.
The "other way" is not science. Let it be taught elsewhere, but not in science class.

Hawkintom']Don't worry, I'm just one person and most people won't see the wizard behind the curtain so you'll be able to continue to get away with it. :p
You mean God?

I haven't seen any comparison shots like that.
Oh! Haven't you heard....? They can tell something's been Photoshopped now just by looking at it...

The question that bothers me is.... Why do ID'ers want science to be something more than it is? Why do they want it to embrace their beliefs? Why is being accepted by science so important to them?

Oh! Haven't you heard....? They can tell something's been Photoshopped now just by looking at it...

:D

The question that bothers me is.... Why do ID'ers want science to be something more than it is? Why do they want it to embrance their beliefs? Why is being accepted by science so important to them?

I don't know.

My gut tells me: It's because ID is basically Creationism in sheep's clothing, and it is looking for a backdoor into the one place that mysticism isn't allowed - i.e. the world of clinical observation.

I don't know.

My gut tells me: It's because ID is basically Creationism in sheep's clothing, and it is looking for a backdoor into the one place that mysticism isn't allowed - i.e. the world of clinical observation.
Well, I do have a suggestion... just the opposite, really... That science is demonstratably true within nature, and hence if God affects nature at all, the supernatural must be too.

I wonder if that's why people believe in ghosts....?

Well, I do have a suggestion... just the opposite, really... That science is demonstratably true within nature, and hence if God affects nature at all, the supernatural must be too.

I wonder if that's why people believe in ghosts....?

Maybe it's a ground-floor thing (said he, cryptically)...:)

Maybe this annoying tendency that science has of being demonstrably true, hold some appeal to some of those who must live from faith...?

I don't know.

My gut tells me: It's because ID is basically Creationism in sheep's clothing, and it is looking for a backdoor into the one place that mysticism isn't allowed - i.e. the world of clinical observation.

ID is Creationism in new suit. It looks slick and well-dressed to the casual observer, until someone with knowledge points out that tinfoil does not a hat make.

The ID crowd is supported by those who want to find wedge to teach some variation of Creationism in the classrooms, such as the Young Earth crowd that insists the world is only 6000 years old (tell that to the Chinese, who's history goes back nearly 10,000). They can't find an audience to buy into their radical version of the origins of Life, the Universe, and Everything beyond the suckers that currently believe in it, and are afraid their world-view will be further discredited by the teaching of something with credible evidence. After all, the Earth was created in six days (the Bible says so), never mind the mountains of independent peer-reviewed evidence that strongly says otherwise.

That's what it boils down to- these people are afraid that their world-view might prove to be wrong, and thus make their existance a hollow mockery (or something). So, they do their best to destroy anyone or anything that threatens their world-view. Since your average slob knows little of actual science, and it all seems so complicated, it isn't hard for religious whack-jobs to convince the unwashed masses that a simple, quasi-logical "explanation" is better than a well-supported complex explanation. I mean, ID *sounds* rational, right? Except that it isn't. Most people don't have the background in science to tell the difference.

Sad, isn't it?

i'm getting annoyed at this nonsense. but first,
1. its got nothing particularly to do with me
2. i am loathe enough to engage in religious debates (such as the creationism vs evolution arguements that are ever popular of late), yet alone start one... but in reading this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441380) thread something hit me that i had already thought, but not been aware of (if you know what i mean)
3. this isn't a thread bashing the many religious debate threads out there at the mo
4. i wrote this many hours before this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441513) (now locked) thread... however the news article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html) from it comes in most handy now


so with that out the way, lets make some assumptions about the school system (as i understand it in america)

1. school is a place of learning
2. a place of learning for all - religious or not.

i would like to assume that religion should play no part in governance or the state, and have no place in education - but evidently this is the hotly contested issue (now you know where i stand)

so why do i say this?
to answer, lets make some assumptions about the theories of evolution and creationism (ID, whatever its all one and the same really - at least for the purposes of this thread)

1. evolution is a scientific theory that has large amounts of evidence - both physical and theoretical (but provable within the laws of physics) - that means it is the best means it is the best theory we've come up with yet. it could be wrong, but - scientifically - this is unlikely (only in small details).
it is an a-theist (seperation intended) idea in that it does not require faith or belief in the existance of some kind of god.

2. creationism has no concrete physical evidence. any theoretical evidence comes from a 2000 year old book, whose authors we don't know. many of its assumptions are impossible under the laws of physics. without faith it makes no sense - it requires belief in god. it is not a comparable scientific theory to evolution.

-------------

so, assuming these assumptions are true, i argue strongly that religion has no place in the classroom.
firstly, the fact that creationism is not of comparable theoretical calibur to the evidence, facts and coherence presented by evolution, says to me that creationism should not be taught at all. strictly comparing the two 'theories' on a scientific or rational basis, teaching creationism makes about as much sense as teaching an old, defunct scientific theory... like the earth is flat or the earth is the center of the universe, for example (though those actually have more evidence than creationism does anyway lol - so therein lies my point). if creationism is being presented as an alternate 'theory' to evolution, then let it be treated as such a theory - and comparatively, as a theory, it does not stack up against evolution, and should not be taught as a theory - but as a religous myth (see below)



secondly, if school is open for all - theists or a-theists, religious or not, surely teaching a 'theory' that relies on personal faith as its cornerstone makes no sense. it is a waste of time for those without faith. if a school is a place of learning, it should teach just the facts (which is evolution if the above assumptions are true) and the school should not have this religious bias on it that is unfair to non-believers.



now, understand, i'm not saying creationism shouldn't be taught at all, just not in the same way as, or alongside, evolution. teach it in Religious Studies if you must (or your equivalent over there)

or, preferably, don't teach it in school at all. RE or philosophy classes should perhaps make you aware of the theory, but certainly not teach it as fact. the class should similarly make the student aware of the different creation myths from the other main religions of the world.
if you want to learn about creationism, as fact or coherent 'theory', you can be taught it at sunday school or in your place of worship - NOT in school.



i know this subject has been done to death, but i wanted to present my own slightly annoyed viewpoint. i also know that not every state is pushing for creationism to be taught in schools, but nonetheless i was annoyed enough at the whole issue to go write this.

to summarise: religion should not be taught alongside credible science.
so, agree, disagree?

Hi Pure-Metal, I dont believe I have ever responded directly to one of your threads-so Hey.

I am a :
United States Citizen
I am a Christian, Protestant, Born Again(if you are familiar aith the term)

Now, first allow me to say that I feel under no circumstance does Creationism belong in the science class room.
It is not science but indeed a philosphical view point based on religion and ultimately personal faith--not science.
It can not be proven by science, nor can it be logically approached by science.

On that matter I think we agree one hundred percent.

On the matter of personal faith--
While indeed Evolutionary Theory is based on scientifc observation--it remains completely unproven, there by it is in the matter of FAITH in the scientifc community(because I doubt anyone here has done serious evolutionary scientifc work) and FAITH in the work of those scientists to whom present said proofs of the various parts of the Theory.

Many things are FACT- Evolution is not one.

I as a matter of course firmly believe Evolutionary theory belongs in the science class room.
Perhaps one can make Intelligent Design part of Social Sciences as religion is touched upon in those classes.

In this particular arguement people have reduced themselves to attempting to insult and discredit their opponent. This is the wrong approach, Science and religion can co-exist quite fine, if approached with a little common sense.

For the record I do indeed believe God created the Universe, as to the time frame of creation? who is to say science hasnt already made a good guess?
As to the patterns of that creation ? Who is to say God did not indeed give us the intelligence to detect his algorythms--but whatever.

Hi Pure-Metal, I dont believe I have ever responded directly to one of your threads-so Hey.

I am a :
United States Citizen
I am a Christian, Protestant, Born Again(if you are familiar aith the term)
I never really understand what boran again means when its attached to a christian sect.

Now, first allow me to say that I feel under no circumstance does Creationism belong in the science class room.
It is not science but indeed a philosphical view point based on religion and ultimately personal faith--not science.
It can not be proven by science, nor can it be logically approached by science.

On that matter I think we agree one hundred percent.
Yep

On the matter of personal faith--
While indeed Evolutionary Theory is based on scientifc observation--it remains completely unproven, there by it is in the matter of FAITH in the scientifc community(because I doubt anyone here has done serious evolutionary scientifc work) and FAITH in the work of those scientists to whom present said proofs of the various parts of the Theory.

Many things are FACT- Evolution is not one.
So do you have to take gravities existance on the basis of faith? Evolution is a scientific theory which has presented evidence that has been peer reviewed numerous times. Science believes that evolution is the best answer for the question we have at the present time. Of course a better explainaition could come along or facts could come to light which disprove evolution. But sofar none have and because of that we stick with evolution.

I as a matter of course firmly believe Evolutionary theory belongs in the science class room.
Perhaps one can make Intelligent Design part of Social Sciences as religion is touched upon in those classes.
I agree ID should be in a philosophy class or a religion class.

In this particular arguement people have reduced themselves to attempting to insult and discredit their opponent. This is the wrong approach, Science and religion can co-exist quite fine, if approached with a little common sense.
Yep I agree here to. Science doesnt go around trying to disprove god and many scientists have no problem with faith and religion.

For the record I do indeed believe God created the Universe, as to the time frame of creation? who is to say science hasnt already made a good guess?
As to the patterns of that creation ? Who is to say God did not indeed give us the intelligence to detect his algorythms--but whatever.
Everyone has different beliefs and is entitled to have them. You believe what you want and I believe what I want.

For the last time, Creationism is not a theory, it is not science, it is not philosophy. It is not non-sectarian, ergo not to be taught in public schools. It's only place is in a theology/mythology course, or for hicks being homeschooled.

This has been another B.R.O., brought to you in part by common sense.

For the last time, Creationism is not a theory, it is not science, it is not philosophy. It is not non-sectarian, ergo not to be taught in public schools. It's only place is in a theology/mythology course, or for hicks being homeschooled.

This has been another B.R.O., brought to you in part by common sense.

Thank you captain obvious. Now back to your regularly scheduled programing. :rolleyes:

For the last time, Creationism is not a theory, it is not science, it is not philosophy. It is not non-sectarian, ergo not to be taught in public schools. It's only place is in a theology/mythology course, or for hicks being homeschooled.

This has been another B.R.O., brought to you in part by common sense.
Creationism is not by Definition Christian--it is religious--I am unaware of any religion which does not hold a creationist doctrine--Creationism is not sectarian.

Creationism is not sectarian.

You're right. My bad. It doesn't belong in a theology course. Just a mythology course.

Creationism is not by Definition Christian--it is religious--I am unaware of any religion which does not hold a creationist doctrine--Creationism is not sectarian.

Alright then, how do you propose we teach it to satisfy the beliefs of every religion and non-religion in the United States?

Evolution, etc. should be taught in history class (including Social Studies) Science can cover some of the topics

Evolution, etc. should be taught in history class (including Social Studies) Science can cover some of the topics
On what grounds? You do realize evolution is used quite a bit in biology, right?

Creationism is not by Definition Christian--it is religious--I am unaware of any religion which does not hold a creationist doctrine--Creationism is not sectarian.

nobody means just any old creation story when they use the phrase 'creationism' or call themselves a 'creationist'. it is explicitly sectarian. so much so that even among the one group pushing creationism, there are like 5 different 'creationisms' (young earth, intelligent design, day-age, gap, stark raving loony, etc). proponents of each want their particular idea taught instead of science to the exclusion of the obviously true creation account that atum masturbated things into existence.

Alright then, how do you propose we teach it to satisfy the beliefs of every religion and non-religion in the United States?

Well if you had bothered reading my first post you would see I presented the most resonable solution.
There is never anyway to satisfy all parties in an arguement completely.

Second according to modern philosophical study, the study of Creationism and indeed religion as a whole or individual sects does fall under the sphere of Philosophy.

Theology and philosophy differ in the angle of approach to a subject, the philosopher who studies World Veiws is not seeking to prove the correctness of one faith, the theologian is seeking to prove TRUTH.--Of course that is taught in every first year philosophy class.

Now as one studies different cultures in Social Studies (speaking now in terms of Middle School) it is reasonble to touch on the concept of Intelligent Design in those type of classes.

It is not reasonable to teach any type of Creation myth(for those who do not understand the use of the word MYTH, I suggest you read Ninian Smart, one of the greatest modern philosophical teachers of our day-Myth does not mean true or untrue-it is a sacred story nothing more nothing less--no inherit truth implied or denied) in a science class, as Creation myths are without fail not ever addressed in a scientific manner nor can they be.


Your obvious inability to grasp that Creationism is not Christian/ or for that matter purely Abrahamic in nature demostrates your true lack of any real formal education on the matter.

Hindus have a Creation Myth, Buddhists, each little Animist tribe along the Amazon has a Creation Myth--the concept of Intelligent Design is completely non-sectarian, it is only when one teaches a specific religion's or sect of a religion that it becomes such.

The solution to this problem is simple-teach science in science class--nothing more, nothing less. God should never be addressed in science class.
Of course my first post said this but you too worried about bold posting in over sized letters incorrect statements on your part.

I suggest you blather a little less and read a little more.

nobody means just any old creation story when they use the phrase 'creationism' or call themselves a 'creationist'. it is explicitly sectarian. so much so that even among the one group pushing creationism, there are like 5 different 'creationisms' (young earth, intelligent design, day-age, gap, stark raving loony, etc). proponents of each want their particular idea taught instead of science to the exclusion of the obviously true creation account that atum masturbated things into existence.
The fact that large numbers of people misuse a word does not change the meaning, if one wishes to be academic, then one must use the words in their proper academic meaning. I will not reduce my understanding of the subject or the dialect simply because it is common to do so, that is the problem.
Poor communication, people use words and have no understanding of their meaning or application.
People talk about philosophy but have never studied it under proper direction.
People talk about Evolution as if they were themselves the scientists doing the work.

Dont try to sound intelligent by not using words for what they mean, if you call these people loony, then why duplicate their use of language?

I cant imagine why it is o easy to pick apart the quasi-intellectual arguements here.
Most are nothing but gloried normative statements, which in the study of Philosophy as it applies to addressing world veiws is completely non-academic and totally unprofessional.

I will not be ignorant, just because everyone else chooses to be.

On what grounds? You do realize evolution is used quite a bit in biology, right?
Used quite a bit in biology nothing. Evolution is the very foundation of biology. Without it, biology is utterly worthless.

Used quite a bit in biology nothing. Evolution is the very foundation of biology. Without it, biology is utterly worthless.
Understatement is the key :D

Well said.

Understatement is the key :D
Yep. You must admit, our two posts made a nice effect, in an 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' sort of way.

The fact that large numbers of people misuse a word does not change the meaning, if one wishes to be academic, then one must use the words in their proper academic meaning.

Which is all peachy keen - except that the only 'creationism' being pushed in classrooms, in this case, is the Christian Genesis version.

Which kind of makes any OTHER talk of creationism irrelevent, and off-topic, no?

The fact that large numbers of people misuse a word does not change the meaning, if one wishes to be academic, then one must use the words in their proper academic meaning.

have some examples of any academic uses of the terms 'creationism' or 'creationist' that aren't restricted to interpretations of the genesis account?

Your obvious inability to grasp that Creationism is not Christian/ or for that matter purely Abrahamic in nature demostrates your true lack of any real formal education on the matter. Hindus have a Creation Myth, Buddhists, each little Animist tribe along the Amazon has a Creation Myth

A nice play of definitions. You are correct in that every major religion has a creation story.

However, with the effort to invade the science classroom, it is pretty much Christians pushing for it. So on that matter creationism is a christian thing. Especially when 3 or 4 major personalites trying to push ID are Christians.


--the concept of Intelligent Design is completely non-sectarian, it is only when one teaches a specific religion's or sect of a religion that it becomes such.

Correct. They had to "de-Christian" it to make it fly under the Constitutional radar and it not turn people away from the arguments.

It is still Creationism wearing a mask.


The solution to this problem is simple-teach science in science class--nothing more, nothing less. God should never be addressed in science class.
Of course my first post said this but you too worried about bold posting in over sized letters incorrect statements on your part.

I suggest you blather a little less and read a little more.

Ahh but there is the effort of ID. It's not about God right? It's just an intelligent designer after all.

have some examples of any academic uses of the terms 'creationism' or 'creationist' that aren't restricted to interpretations of the genesis account?
Yeah, take a first year Philosophy class.

Read Ninian Smart "World Veiws".

Ninian Smart is currently the leading authority where both teaching and studying Religions(more correct World Veiws) is concerned(in philosophical setting).EDITED--red

I am not mincing definitions, Creationism is not Christian--simply because certain Christian groups have Hijacked the term does not change that.

Slack-jawwed ebonics speakers use the word "bad" to mean "good" however that does not change the meaning of the word.

Black Forest, yes I use the word God when speaking of Intelligent design--news flash--God is not a purely christian word either.
Deity, there is that fluffed enough for you.

Intelligent Design in form based on any religion requires a Deity to be present--a God.

Wittgenstein noted that in most philosophical debate it was not the premise which was being countered by one party or another --but the language with which that premise was being presented.
That most modern attempts at philosophy were actual word games, and that clear language and experssion were essential for actual understanding of any idea but most especially in the arena of philosophical debate.
Intersting how you went after my words and not my ideas.
Of course since no one here seems familiar with the Academic usage of most of these words, rather they are web logged and wikki'd into a stupor of parroting old threads and topics from forums because true intellectual discourse has long become beyond them I should not be surprised.

The addition of Mandelian genetics to prove the mechanism of natural selection.

grr.

mendel showed (using a a mathematical argument) how traits are passed on from individual to individual; we didn't really understand why until we discovered it was through genes, dna.

he certainly did not prove natural selection.

Evolution has been defined in the same way for over 150 years. .

although that's not untrue, the word is latin and has certainly changed meaning over the last 1500 years.

You do realize that science has never dealt with the supernatural for as long as it has existed, don't you?

this is simply false. ask thales.

Quiet you fool we havent finished the floride in the drinking water plan yet.....

you might want to actually research that; the accepted history of why there's fluoride in the water we drink is really rather shocking.

basically, some nazi scientists thought it would create a more pliable populace. hitler was the first to introduce it. as these scientists were observing their test subjects - the general population - they began to realize that a major side effect was that it was good for your teeth, so western governments picked up the practice, it ended up in toothpaste, etc.

however, the gathered evidence actually supported the original intent.

this is simply false. ask thales.
Since, by its very definition, science cannot deal with the the supernatural, my statement was not false.

*sigh* What if all life on earth was started by a giant, invisible, farting space weasel? "What if" means very, very little to science unless there is evidence to support such a hypothesis. ID has no evidence. None. Evolution has tons of peer reviewed evidence to support it. There are flaws, but that's not unreasonable, because if the theory was flawless, it would be an absolute, and therefore we wouldn't need to keep investigating. We keep investigating to refine our knowledge, patch the holes, and better explain things. If something is found to be wrong, it's discarded. THAT is science. And so far, you have not presented any explanation for the current evidence that invalidates evolution. You want ID to be taught as science? Then present evidence that can be examined and thereby verified or discarded. It's that simple.

why do people have such a hard time understanding that

1) id is impossible without evolution. you cannot accept id unless you accept evolution first. it is not creationism or at least not biblical creationism.
2) evolution does not in any way counter the perfectly reasonable hypothesis that life began when some aliens dropped it off. it doesn't even consider how life began. to really piss you off, i'll point out that we've actually found extra-terrestrial lifeforms on a couple of crashed asteroids.

id is perfectly reasonable and does not in any way contradict evolution; it actually supposes it. it is a perfectly possible replacement for natural selection, although it's not scientific and shouldn't be treated as such.

perhaps you iders should start saying "evolution by intelligent design" or "evolution by supernatural selection" so that uninformed people can actually understand what your revised evolutionary theory actually is and not lump it together with naive and ancient mythology.

to avoid any stupid responses, no i don't accept intelligent design and i'm as atheist as they get.

Yeah, take a first year Philosophy class.

did that. got the major. went to grad school for it. thanks.

you are just playing with words. creationism in any sort of relevant sense is explicitly motivated by the genesis myth.

Slack-jawwed ebonics speakers use the word "bad" to mean "good" however that does not change the meaning of the word.

racist much?

you are just playing with words. creationism in any sort of relevant sense is explicitly motivated by the genesis myth.


Agreed.

[QUOTE=The macrocosmos]

On the contrary, the very simple premise that probability AFTER the fact is ALWAYS 1, is EXACTLY the point that needed to be made.

'Oh, tigers are just TOO unlikely'... well they can't be TOO unlikely, because they are here. They are obviously just likely enough - regardless of how you BELIEVE they got there.

you were trying to say that it doesn't matter what the probability of life developing on earth is because life did develop, so even though the theory says it shouldn't it doesn't matter because it did. hence, it is a good theory and the original poster shouldn't waste their time worrying about it.

that's completely and utterly pathetic.

your flaw, however, was earlier corrected; the theory does not say that there is a low probability of life developing on the earth.

However I do disagree with your assessment of my playing cards. The playing cards are not an analogy to creation - they are an example of probability. No matter WHICH card is drawn, the odds are 1 in 52 - which is probably not odds you would want to bet on. I don't need to compare this with some cosmic card-player - I am just showing how unlikely even everyday events can be - if you EXPECT a certain result.

i don't think you understand what you're saying at all. you should have said:

"grab a deck of cards, think of a card in your head. you have a 1/52 chance of pulling that card. you may pull it and you may not, but the chances are not good that you will."

not

"grab a deck of cards. pull a card. look, you had a 1/52 chance of pulling that card and you did! unlikely things happen all the time!".

this is completely.....stupid.

although it is true that you had a 1/52 chance of pulling that card, this is meaningless unless you decide which card you want to pull first. you are committing the very error you are arguing against in that you are measuring the probability of an event happening after it's happened. if you do not decide what you want to pull first, no event has been measured other than pulling the card itself....and the probability of you pulling a card out of a deck of cards in your hand given that you wish to do so is really quite high.

i think i'm outta here.....it was a well wasted week or so.

did that. got the major. went to grad school for it. thanks.

you are just playing with words. creationism in any sort of relevant sense is explicitly motivated by the genesis myth.



racist much?
First you are the one playing with words-- I use them correctly you use them commonly.

Creationism in the relevant philosophical sense has nothing to do with the Christian myth-beyond that the Christian myth falls in the catergory.

My point is again proven-and by a supposed Major in philosophy that I am talking to neophytes who have not even grasped basic ideas of Wittgenstein which is also first year philosophy.

You claim to have a degree in a subject whose terminology escapes you, and I am playing with words?

If that were the case then I challenge you to cut me up, exercise that major.

I must say so far all I have seen is regurgitated internet pablum.
As far as being racist, laughable diversion from the fact you fail to present any real arguement against my logic--misuse of a word does not change its meaning.
Also, you appear to be racist--I myself was unaware that poor speech patterns were a function of race as you have implied.

Now your ignorance about social interaction aside, back to you having majored in PHL please by all means show me your amazing handle on the subject.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442337

Anytime Free Soviets.

You claim to have a degree in a subject whose terminology escapes you, and I am playing with words?

If that were the case then I challenge you to cut me up, exercise that major.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

your 'correct use' doesn't appear to be the one the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy felt worth discussing. interesting that, no?

Creationism in the relevant philosophical sense has nothing to do with the Christian myth-beyond that the Christian myth falls in the catergory.

Wow. I guess if you make up your own definitions; I guess you are right.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

your 'correct use' doesn't appear to be the one the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy felt worth discussing. interesting that, no?

perhaps you'd have better luck with bron taylor's project, the encyclopedia of religion and nature (http://www.religionandnature.com/). oh damn, it has an article on "creationism and creation science", which also finds the 'common' definition to be the one worth discussing instead of your 'correct' and 'scholarly' one. that is odd, isn't it?

perhaps you'd have better luck with bron taylor's project, the encyclopedia of religion and nature (http://www.religionandnature.com/). oh damn, it has an article on "creationism and creation science", which also finds the 'common' definition to be the one worth discussing instead of your 'correct' and 'scholarly' one. that is odd, isn't it?

maybe you can find some help from ronald numbers' book, "the creationists"? damn, foiled again. all he talks about are those pesky genesis-based types.

Creationism is not by Definition Christian--it is religious--I am unaware of any religion which does not hold a creationist doctrine--Creationism is not sectarian.
Other religions have creation myths, but that doesn't automatically make them a part of the Creationism movement, which is pretty much limited to fundamentalist literalist Christians.

As far as I am concerned, I was created some time ago. Unfortunately or fortunately for me, I evolved into what I am today.

My creation was a mechanical one, but there are many theories about my evolution.

Trouble is, it's only a theory. A theory is a theory never a fact, since when it has been proven, it inevitably will enter the realm of the absolute.

Creation is somewhat different as it is not a theory, but an absolute. The mechnical fact (conception) is proof enough for the absolute statement above. You cannot argue with that.

Of course you can ask yourself why creation occurs. My theory is that it is based on Lust.

Lust leads eventually to Orgasm, therefore it leads to creation. Creative orgasm therefore is the mother of evolution.

I am an expert so to say. Practical demonstrations are available on request. Please apply.

Trouble is that right wing religious dopes cannot enjoy life and deny lust and they have to spoil it for everybody else. :fluffle: :sniper: :mad:

Other religions have creation myths, but that doesn't automatically make them a part of the Creationism movement, which is pretty much limited to fundamentalist literalist Christians.
EXACTLY!!!!
The Creationist Movement--is not Creationism--it is a Political Movement run by people with a sectarian agenda.
Since you seem to understand that, you understand that when I say Creationism spoken of in an academic way must be the proper all inclusive definition.

As in all Americans are Republicans--not all Americans are part of the Republican Party.
America is a Republic, just incase you didnt put the analogy together.

If Creationism is to be taught, why not teach the ancient Egyptian myth of creation?

Humanity was masturbated into existence!

If Creationism is to be taught, why not teach the ancient Egyptian myth of creation?

Humanity was masturbated into existence!
I agree--in a Social Studies Class, History(for cultural color), or Mythology.

I agree--in a Social Studies Class, History(for cultural color), or Mythology.
Hmm. I wish I knew the answer to life the universe and everything and could state with absolute certainty how things came to be.

Teach evolution in science and religion in religious studies, can't see what the problem is.

EXACTLY!!!!
The Creationist Movement--is not Creationism

yes it is. it is the only relevant definition to the matter at hand. and, in fact, is pretty much the only definition that anyone finds to be worth talking about. which is why your strange interjection seems even more bizarre; for some reason, you want to change the subject and claim that this new subject is the 'academic' subject when it clearly isn't.

you argue like a creationist, actually.

yes it is. it is the only relevant definition to the matter at hand. and, in fact, is pretty much the only definition that anyone finds to be worth talking about. which is why your strange interjection seems even more bizarre; for some reason, you want to change the subject and claim that this new subject is the 'academic' subject when it clearly isn't.

you argue like a creationist, actually.
Really, so I while I use the Academic definition, you cling to Christianity--yet I argue like a Creationist.
Again Free Soviets, very inept attempt to attack my language and not my idea.

Grad school you say, I would have thought they would have covered these weak skills by then.

...but i've got to ask :(

ID people seem to be saying "evolution is wrong, ID proves it".
But all ID seems to say is that god snapped is fingers and then there was life. But everything seemed to evolve after that? is that correct?

Also does it not bother people that GOD is used as an answer for a question? Whether there is a god or not, i'm not going to find out until i die so whats the point? So using him/her/it as an argument is like saying "because we have not found out exactly how life started, then HE must of done it".

Now religious people i know alot of you are willing to beleive in evolution but that it was inspired by god. And if he did start life, would he have not done it in a manner that would be in keeping with his universe and done it through the process that scientists have a theory for, or if the theory turns out wrong, in some equally natural way?

EDIT: had to write fast, ideas all a bit jumbaled.,.

...but i've got to ask :(

ID people seem to be saying "evolution is wrong, ID proves it".
But all ID seems to say is that god snapped is fingers and then there was life. But everything seemed to evolve after that? is that correct?

Also does it not bother people that GOD is used as an answer for a question? Whether there is a god or not, i'm not going to find out until i die so whats the point? So using him/her/it as an argument is like saying "because we have not found out exactly how life started, then HE must of done it".

Now religious people i know alot of you are willing to beleive in evolution but that it was inspired by god. And if he did start life, would he have not done it in a manner that would be in keeping with his universe and done it through the process that scientists have a theory for, or if the theory turns out wrong, in some equally natural way?

EDIT: had to write fast, ideas all a bit jumbaled.,.
The Creationist Movement attempting to alter the course of public education in this country is based in Fundamental Christianity--God created everything there is in Six days--the Earth is roughly Six thousand years old.

Traditional ID is that an intelligence--a Deity if you will, initiated creation--it does not conflict with evolution--at least it shouldnt.
That however doesnt mean it bleongs in a science class.
So within this movement are various extremes of zealots who wish to sneak Christian--more correctly Abrahamic Creation Mythos into the Science room under the guise of ID--none of it bleongs in the Science Class room.

Really, so I while I use the Academic definition

you aren't. or do you think that the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and michael ruse (who wrote the article - good guy, ever met him?) were not being academic in their article on the subject?

The Creationist Movement attempting to alter the course of public education in this country is based in Fundamental Christianity--God created everything there is in Six days--the Earth is roughly Six thousand years old.

Traditional ID is that an intelligence--a Deity if you will, initiated creation--it does not conflict with evolution--at least it shouldnt.
That however doesnt mean it bleongs in a science class.
So within this movement are various extremes of zealots who wish to sneak Christian--more correctly Abrahamic Creation Mythos into the Science room under the guise of ID--none of it bleongs in the Science Class room.

but it makes no sense to me.
Even saying its theory. ID'ers seem to say, "its a theory like evloution so it should be taught as well!!"
The difference is evolution could be proved wrong if the evidence/better theory was shown. (don't think so but who knows)
what are you going to do with ID, prove that life was not started by god but by gods. you would not be able to counter the "theory". Its as if some religious scieintists got pissed of with not being able to work out what started life, so they thought "sod it, we know it was god, let's leave it at that!".

but it makes no sense to me.
Even saying its theory. ID'ers seem to say, "its a theory like evloution so it should be taught as well!!"
The difference is evolution could be proved wrong if the evidence/better theory was shown. (don't think so but who knows)
what are you going to do with ID, prove that life was not started by god but by gods. you would not be able to counter the "theory". Its as if some religious scieintists got pissed of with not being able to work out what started life, so they thought "sod it, we know it was god, let's leave it at that!".
I dont understand it either, and I am a Christian.
My reasons for not understanding it morethen likely differ from yours a little, but the long and short of it is this.

Evolution is science-theory or absolute it makes no difference it is still science.

Any religious Creation Myth no matter how watered down to be all encompassing is still just theist based philosophical conjecture--nothing more.

As person of faith, I myself dont need God proven.

These people need to stop embarrasing their children.
I believe in God and my bought my a copy of Darwin's theory (I collected books) when I was ten with no fear of ruining my faith.

to quote someone from another thread-they need to "Lighten Up".

Evolution has been defined in the same way for over 150 years. Try again, kid.

Again, the personal attacks. How old do you think I am?


You do realize that science has never dealt with the supernatural for as long as it has existed, don't you? Open your eyes and discard your whackjob conspiracy theories


http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/definition.htm

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~crypt/other/pavly.htm

Hmm, it appears that science has investigated the paranormal (Something that is beyond the range of normal human experiance or scientific explanation).


I see what you're saying. How dare those damn science teachers only teach that the Earth revolves around the Sun! The children must also be taught that the Sun revolves around the Earth!


Nope, you said that. I didn't. It is a clever method of debate though, to try and make it appear that the person you are debating with made a statement that is clearly idiotic, and then attack the statement that they didn't make.

We know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Evolution is a theory that has not been proven and has huge flaws. It is likely unprovable given the state of the fossil record as we know it right now.


Yes. There's this gigantic evil atheist evolutionist scientific conspiracy. You found us. Good job.

Again, you make false assumptions about me and mistake my motives. I've been pretty clear. I'm not a creationist, I'm an agnostic. Why the vicious attack? I am always amazed at how defensive people get when their beliefs are QUESTIONED or not believed by someone else. In many ways, it is no different than the way creationists react to their beliefs.

Rabid belief in the unproven - how different are you than the creationist really?

"i'm sick of this! (creationism vs evolution in the classroom)"

You're not alone! Groan! :(

He's right. The moths were glued onto the tree trunk. Sadly for him, almost all wildlife photos are staged. The chances of one finding both a white moth and a black moth next to each other are extremely low. So they staged the photo for the purposes of comparison.

And more...

http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/moth.htm

Where is the Peppered Moth?
As strange as it may seem, no one knows where the peppered moth lives during the day. Clarke's sighting of two moths in 25 years is more than other authors can claim. How, then, have the moths been studied? Researchers enter the forests at night and turn on bright lamps that attract nocturnal insects. In this way they capture the moths. They also set up so-called assembling traps housing virgin females that release pheromones into the air, attracting males into the traps. The males only fly into the assembling traps at night; they are never caught during the day. Since one rarely, if ever, sees these moths during the day, it is assumed they are resting somewhere in the forest, becoming active at night.
If the moths aren't observed during the day, where do the beautiful photographs of the moths on trees come from? In general, authors don't report the conditions under which the photos were made. I have found references only in an article by Lees and Creed (1975). They describe how the moths are killed, glued to the tree surfaces, and then photographed. Most photos in textbooks are reprints from Kettlewell's work (like the ones shown above); he does not state how they were made. Since the light and dark forms are so ingeniously placed to show camouflage or lack of it, I suspect he might have used dead specimens and or at least arranged the moths accordingly. Readers will normally (and perhaps naively) assume, unless otherwise informed, that they are looking at a natural phenomenon. The impressive image of camouflage in the peppered moth sticks in the mind, especially when the image is accompanied by a text like the one quoted above, which gives no hint that we are looking at an artificially constructed situation. And as the textbook states, the explanation of industrial melanism appears in view of such images almost "self-evident." This self-evident explanation dissolves when we learn that researchers don't find the moth during the day and that the pictures are composed by the researchers themselves.

Kettlewell (1955, p. 323) stated: "Yet after more than twenty-five years of observation and constant enquiry, I have found no single instance in this country [Great Britain] in which anyone has witnessed a bird detecting and eating a moth belonging to a protectively coloured (or cryptic) species while sitting motionless on its correct background." Kettlewell knew Great Britain was a land of good observers, with many bird watchers and ornithologists. What he doesn't state is that some moth species -- like the peppered moth -- are almost never seen at all during the day. If one glosses over this fact, it is much easier to have a simple explanation, but what one is explaining is not the natural situation itself. Cyril Clarke summarizes: "They might be resting anywhere. The latest story is that they rest on the leaves in the top of trees, but it's not really known. The answer is that, either way, they're very good at hiding" (quoted in Kaesuk Yoon 1996).

Hawkintom']And more...

http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/moth.htm

Where is the Peppered Moth?
As strange as it may seem, no one knows where the peppered moth lives during the day. Clarke's sighting of two moths in 25 years is more than other authors can claim. How, then, have the moths been studied? Researchers enter the forests at night and turn on bright lamps that attract nocturnal insects. In this way they capture the moths. They also set up so-called assembling traps housing virgin females that release pheromones into the air, attracting males into the traps. The males only fly into the assembling traps at night; they are never caught during the day. Since one rarely, if ever, sees these moths during the day, it is assumed they are resting somewhere in the forest, becoming active at night.
If the moths aren't observed during the day, where do the beautiful photographs of the moths on trees come from? In general, authors don't report the conditions under which the photos were made. I have found references only in an article by Lees and Creed (1975). They describe how the moths are killed, glued to the tree surfaces, and then photographed. Most photos in textbooks are reprints from Kettlewell's work (like the ones shown above); he does not state how they were made. Since the light and dark forms are so ingeniously placed to show camouflage or lack of it, I suspect he might have used dead specimens and or at least arranged the moths accordingly. Readers will normally (and perhaps naively) assume, unless otherwise informed, that they are looking at a natural phenomenon. The impressive image of camouflage in the peppered moth sticks in the mind, especially when the image is accompanied by a text like the one quoted above, which gives no hint that we are looking at an artificially constructed situation. And as the textbook states, the explanation of industrial melanism appears in view of such images almost "self-evident." This self-evident explanation dissolves when we learn that researchers don't find the moth during the day and that the pictures are composed by the researchers themselves.

Kettlewell (1955, p. 323) stated: "Yet after more than twenty-five years of observation and constant enquiry, I have found no single instance in this country [Great Britain] in which anyone has witnessed a bird detecting and eating a moth belonging to a protectively coloured (or cryptic) species while sitting motionless on its correct background." Kettlewell knew Great Britain was a land of good observers, with many bird watchers and ornithologists. What he doesn't state is that some moth species -- like the peppered moth -- are almost never seen at all during the day. If one glosses over this fact, it is much easier to have a simple explanation, but what one is explaining is not the natural situation itself. Cyril Clarke summarizes: "They might be resting anywhere. The latest story is that they rest on the leaves in the top of trees, but it's not really known. The answer is that, either way, they're very good at hiding" (quoted in Kaesuk Yoon 1996).
What the hell does this have to do with anything?

ID is Creationism in new suit. It looks slick and well-dressed to the casual observer, until someone with knowledge points out that tinfoil does not a hat make.

The ID crowd is supported by those who want to find wedge to teach some variation of Creationism in the classrooms, such as the Young Earth crowd that insists the world is only 6000 years old (tell that to the Chinese, who's history goes back nearly 10,000). They can't find an audience to buy into their radical version of the origins of Life, the Universe, and Everything beyond the suckers that currently believe in it, and are afraid their world-view will be further discredited by the teaching of something with credible evidence. After all, the Earth was created in six days (the Bible says so), never mind the mountains of independent peer-reviewed evidence that strongly says otherwise.

That's what it boils down to- these people are afraid that their world-view might prove to be wrong, and thus make their existance a hollow mockery (or something). So, they do their best to destroy anyone or anything that threatens their world-view. Since your average slob knows little of actual science, and it all seems so complicated, it isn't hard for religious whack-jobs to convince the unwashed masses that a simple, quasi-logical "explanation" is better than a well-supported complex explanation. I mean, ID *sounds* rational, right? Except that it isn't. Most people don't have the background in science to tell the difference.

Sad, isn't it?

What is sad is that the only thing you can do to defend your position is to attack the people who disagree with your position.

I don't make assumptions as to why you believe what you do, nor do I attack you personally in my debate. Have you NOTICED? It is obvious. About every other post is an assumption that I am some fanatical creationist that believes in a 4,000 year old Earth (thus, suggesting to any observers that I am an idiot, attempting to discredit me) in SPITE OF the fact that I have clearly told you where I am coming from.

I am agnostic. Militant agnostic. I don't know, and NEITHER DO YOU. (You either, if you are looking in on this!)

Some of the evolutionists are just as "faithful" and defensive as the creationists they attack.

As I have SAID BEFORE, I find huge flaws in evolution. I don't like how it is presented as near fact, with almost no mention of its flaws, in the classroom. If the evolution BELIEVERS are so determined that it should be taught in this manner, then ID should be taught alongside it.

:headbang:

What the hell does this have to do with anything?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
He's right. The moths were glued onto the tree trunk. Sadly for him, almost all wildlife photos are staged. The chances of one finding both a white moth and a black moth next to each other are extremely low. So they staged the photo for the purposes of comparison.



I haven't seen any comparison shots like that.

The faking of one 'publicity shot' is not the same as saying that Pepper Moths never land on trees - or that the scientific basis of the Pepper Moth scenario is about glued lepidoptera...

Edit: I'd also be kind of interested to see sourcing for it, anyway...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Grave_n_idle : Yesterday at 8:45 PM.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9581236&postcount=268

Used quite a bit in biology nothing. Evolution is the very foundation of biology. Without it, biology is utterly worthless.

You have to be kidding, right? Before Darwin there was no study of biology - it was worthless.

Biology cruises along just fine without the THEORY of Evolution.

I suppose astronomy is worthless without Releativity?

Please enlighten me as to how you can defend your statement...

So learning about immune systems, reproduction, t-cells, white and red blood cells, photosynthesis, etc... is worthless without the Theory of Evolution? :confused:

Hawkintom']Quote:
Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
He's right. The moths were glued onto the tree trunk. Sadly for him, almost all wildlife photos are staged. The chances of one finding both a white moth and a black moth next to each other are extremely low. So they staged the photo for the purposes of comparison.



I haven't seen any comparison shots like that.

The faking of one 'publicity shot' is not the same as saying that Pepper Moths never land on trees - or that the scientific basis of the Pepper Moth scenario is about glued lepidoptera...

Edit: I'd also be kind of interested to see sourcing for it, anyway...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Grave_n_idle : Yesterday at 8:45 PM.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9581236&postcount=268
http://mason.gmu.edu/~jlawrey/biol471/melanism.pdf

Since, by its very definition, science cannot deal with the the supernatural, my statement was not false.

Where exactly are you getting your definition of "science?" You seem to base an awful lot of your attack on ID on your definition of science so what is it?

I found this... Science: a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways.

Seems to me that if you can observe evidence that life may have been created by ID, then you can use scientific method to explain those observations.

Otherwise, Science falls short in that it is unable (or not allowed, in your definition) to try and understand or explain everything that is observed.

More likely, it appears to me that you choose certain things that you don't want to be considered, and declare them "not scientific" that way you can exclude them from being considered.

But really, Science - in its purest form - is about people observing things, and trying to find a way to explain them.

i agree religion has no place in schools but if so wished should be toaght seperately and independantly by whatever religious sect the person chooses to follow this to be done in the same building but on sunday so as not to clash with regular school days

as for people being sick of the name calling done by cerian people read a few of my posts an see how far the rabbit hole goes

http://mason.gmu.edu/~jlawrey/biol471/melanism.pdf


"In truth, we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths."

Isn't that the whole premise of why the Peppered Moth "evolved" to have dark coloring instead of light?

They can't even observe the most basic part of the premise.

And again, the Peppered Moth didn't evolve, it already had the ability to change color in its genome. It merely had to be activated. It didn't evolve any more than you evolve when you tan in the sun.

Hawkintom']"In truth, we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths."

Isn't that the whole premise of why the Peppered Moth "evolved" to have dark coloring instead of light?

They can't even observe the most basic part of the premise.

And again, the Peppered Moth didn't evolve, it already had the ability to change color in its genome. It merely had to be activated. It didn't evolve any more than you evolve when you tan in the sun.
You have highly selective reading. What happened to the peppered moth is the equivalent of the entire population swinging to all blue eyes to all green eyes, then back to all blue eyes. We don't know exactly where they hide, but we do know the predation rates and the genotype/phenotype ratios found in the wild. It's an example of natural selection...

Hawkintom']You have to be kidding, right? Before Darwin there was no study of biology - it was worthless.

There wasn't. I'd recommend that you read This is Biology by Ernst Mayr. Biology did not exist as a discipline until Darwin formulated the Theory of Evolution.

Hawkintom']Nope, you said that. I didn't. It is a clever method of debate though, to try and make it appear that the person you are debating with made a statement that is clearly idiotic, and then attack the statement that they didn't make.
Rejecting the ToE is like rejecting the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System. Both of them are extremely well supported. Hell, the ToE is one of the single most well supported scientific theories in existance.

We know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Evolution is a theory that has not been proven and has huge flaws. It is likely unprovable given the state of the fossil record as we know it right now.

Fine. Name the flaws. You have yet to do that.

Hawkintom']What is sad is that the only thing you can do to defend your position is to attack the people who disagree with your position.

I only attack those who choose ignorance over the weight of evidence. It's like claiming the Earth is flat, when mountains of evidence say otherwise. You can still choose to believe the Earth is flat, but you'd look like a dope to anyone with a rational brain.

I don't make assumptions as to why you believe what you do, nor do I attack you personally in my debate. Have you NOTICED? It is obvious. About every other post is an assumption that I am some fanatical creationist that believes in a 4,000 year old Earth (thus, suggesting to any observers that I am an idiot, attempting to discredit me) in SPITE OF the fact that I have clearly told you where I am coming from.

I know it's hard for you, but try to pay attention, okay? I didn't mention you as a YE, did I? Nor did I even suggest it. If you choose to defend yourself from a position of ignorance, that's your choice.

I'm still waiting for your alternate explanation of the current evidence, by the way. I and many other scientists await your visionary insights with breathless anticipation.

I am agnostic. Militant agnostic. I don't know, and NEITHER DO YOU. (You either, if you are looking in on this!)

I never claimed I did, but I go by weight of evidence, until something credible presents itself as a reasonable alternative. ID fails on all scientific grounds, and carries no weight outside of a philosophy class.

Some of the evolutionists are just as "faithful" and defensive as the creationists they attack.

Some are. You're point?

As I have SAID BEFORE, I find huge flaws in evolution. I don't like how it is presented as near fact, with almost no mention of its flaws, in the classroom. If the evolution BELIEVERS are so determined that it should be taught in this manner, then ID should be taught alongside it.

:headbang:

If ID supporters wish it taught in a science class, then they must present actual science to support it.

Keep banging the ol' head, though. Perhaps something might get in as a result.

There wasn't. I'd recommend that you read This is Biology by Ernst Mayr. Biology did not exist as a discipline until Darwin formulated the Theory of Evolution.

do not trust ernst mayr until you read his biography. you must double check everything he writes.

i will not explain why here. don't bother asking.

do not trust ernst mayr until you read his biography. you must double check everything he writes.
Funny, I'd have thought that the one of the most respected biologists ever would be respected for some reason.

i will not explain why here. don't bother asking.
In other words, don't bother asking me for sources, because I'm just making shit up.

You have highly selective reading. What happened to the peppered moth is the equivalent of the entire population swinging to all blue eyes to all green eyes, then back to all blue eyes. We don't know exactly where they hide, but we do know the predation rates and the genotype/phenotype ratios found in the wild. It's an example of natural selection...

No, natural selection would have said that some moths mutated or happened to be born dark. Since the new, polluted environment favored them, they would have survived, while the old white moths died out.

There is NO evidence (not proof - EVIDENCE) that this actually happened. It was merely assumed by people who wanted it to prove their point. (Much like the religious fanatics you deride.)

The researchers knew (and still don't) almost nothing about the moths. They didn't know where the moth rests during the day... What are its natural predators? How far can it fly? How long do the moths live?

Yet they were confidently able to arrive at the conclusion of the Peppered Moth as an example of proof of the Theory of Evolution. (Because they believed in Evolution and that was what they wanted the evidence to show?)

For decades the peppered moth has been a standard classroom and textbook example of evolution. Millions of students have learned this "living proof" of natural selection. The story they have been, and are, being told is most likely false, or to put it more mildly, filled with half-truths. This is not because teachers and writers are intentionally lying, or hiding and bending facts, but because the example is only brought to prove a point, so that complications appear extraneous to the argument (if not to the truth). Moreover, the idea of natural selection has become so ingrained into the modern mind that it can become like a pair of spectacles that one doesn't remove anymore.

http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/moth.htm

There wasn't. I'd recommend that you read This is Biology by Ernst Mayr. Biology did not exist as a discipline until Darwin formulated the Theory of Evolution.


http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Darwin.htm

"Darwin is one of the first EVOLUTIONARY Biologists..."

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/hist_sci.htm

"In 1665, Robert Hooke was the first person to see and name cells. He examined (dead) cork bark with a primitive microscope and saw little cubicles which he called cells (cell = room, cubicle).

Anton van Leeuwenhoek was the first person to observe sperm cells and with his very primitive microscope,

In 1668, Francesco Redi did an experiment with flies and open vs. closed flasks which contained meat. His hypothesis was that rotten meat does not turn into flies. He observed these flasks to see in which one(s) maggots developed. He found that if a flask was closed with a lid so adult flies could not get in, no maggots developed on the rotting meat within. In a flask without a lid, maggots soon were seen in the meat, followed by more adult flies.

Karl von Linné lived from 1707 to 1778. As was the custom among scholars of that time, he Latinized his name, which became Carolus Linnaeus. He gets credit for our present-day classification scheme and the system of two-part scientific names for organisms, thus has been given the nickname, “The Father of Taxonomy.”

In either 1802 or 1809, Jean Baptiste Lamarck published his theory of evolution.

In 1828, Karl von Baer published on the developmental stages in mammalian eggs. He was able to show that an undifferentiated, single-celled egg grows into a many-celled embryo in which the cells all have different functions.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, more commonly known as The Origin of Species."

I'm quite confident that tomorrow, if evidence were to arise that completely disproved the Theory of Evolution, Biology would go right on existing as a science...

Hawkintom']http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Darwin.htm

"Darwin is one of the first EVOLUTIONARY Biologists..."

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/hist_sci.htm

"In 1665, Robert Hooke was the first person to see and name cells. He examined (dead) cork bark with a primitive microscope and saw little cubicles which he called cells (cell = room, cubicle).

Anton van Leeuwenhoek was the first person to observe sperm cells and with his very primitive microscope,

In 1668, Francesco Redi did an experiment with flies and open vs. closed flasks which contained meat. His hypothesis was that rotten meat does not turn into flies. He observed these flasks to see in which one(s) maggots developed. He found that if a flask was closed with a lid so adult flies could not get in, no maggots developed on the rotting meat within. In a flask without a lid, maggots soon were seen in the meat, followed by more adult flies.

Karl von Linné lived from 1707 to 1778. As was the custom among scholars of that time, he Latinized his name, which became Carolus Linnaeus. He gets credit for our present-day classification scheme and the system of two-part scientific names for organisms, thus has been given the nickname, “The Father of Taxonomy.”

In either 1802 or 1809, Jean Baptiste Lamarck published his theory of evolution.

In 1828, Karl von Baer published on the developmental stages in mammalian eggs. He was able to show that an undifferentiated, single-celled egg grows into a many-celled embryo in which the cells all have different functions.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, more commonly known as The Origin of Species."

I'm quite confident that tomorrow, if evidence were to arise that completely disproved the Theory of Evolution, Biology would go right on existing as a science...
Note that nothing you posted has any bearing on the existance of biology as a discipline. All you did was post accounts of work that would today be considered biology.

Teach evolution in science and religion in religious studies, can't see what the problem is.

The problem is the Theory of Evolution is not taught as theory, but fact - often with glaring problems, like the "textbook example" of the Peppered Moth which turns out to be a false example. Science is REQUIRED.

Alternate theories on the development of species are relegated to "optional" classes that are not required.

Hawkintom']The problem is the Theory of Evolution is not taught as theory, but fact - often with glaring problems, like the "textbook example" of the Peppered Moth which turns out to be a false example. Science is REQUIRED.

Alternate theories on the development of species are relegated to "optional" classes that are not required.

I hear this bullshit from ID proponents all the time. Time for a fact update, junior:

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Hawkintom']The problem is the Theory of Evolution is not taught as theory, but fact - often with glaring problems, like the "textbook example" of the Peppered Moth which turns out to be a false example. Science is REQUIRED.

Alternate theories on the development of species are relegated to "optional" classes that are not required.
I showed you a paper that refutes your statement that it is a 'false' example, just the way textbooks represent it is simplistic. It is a perfect example for natural selection. Again, to repeat, the swings in the phenotypes exibited by that moths as a result of air pollution is the equivalent of the entire human race having a white skin, then having a black skin, then going back to having a white skin (over many generations).

Hawkintom']The problem is the Theory of Evolution is not taught as theory, but fact - often with glaring problems, like the "textbook example" of the Peppered Moth which turns out to be a false example. Science is REQUIRED.

Alternate theories on the development of species are relegated to "optional" classes that are not required.

*groan* Not this crap again.

Ok do post proof where a professor said evolution is a fact?

The only claims I have heard are from the creationist/IDiots who parrot that claim all the time.

*groan* Not this crap again.

Ok do post proof where a professor said evolution is a fact?

The only claims I have heard are from the creationist/IDiots who parrot that claim all the time.

Actually, it's both a theory and a fact- read my post above.

Fine. Name the flaws. You have yet to do that.

FLAWS:

The improbability of abiogenesis, that is, the origin of the first life forms.

The implausibility of such a complex system evolving. For example, Behe documents the complexity of flagella and argues that they are "irreducibly complex," meaning that the system cannot function unless many parts appear, and all these parts could not have arisen at once by evolutionary processes.

(Someone said if I used the irreducibly complex argument they would doubt my rationality. I said, "Fine - doubt away, but please enlighten me to why that is an invalid argument. They haven't responded to that yet.)

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, and many other arguments commonly used against the theory of evolution.

(Note: I've seen microevolution evidence here, but no macroevolution - which is what I have difficulty believing in - presented here. I believe in "survival of the fittest" within a species, but I don't believe in macroevolution.)

Additionally, the fossil record and the pro-evolutionists arguments are based on a "science" that is very suspect. These are folks who didn't realize that Piltdown man was a HOAX for 40 YEARS!

Dinosaurs have suddenly become pre-birds.

Entire versions of "man" are presented to us from a single jawbone or femur and since we are just "laypeople" we are supposed to believe that they got it right, even though time and time again they eventually have to admit that they didn't.

I might as well be Catholic as be a blind follower of the Theory of Evolution. The similarities are striking. I'm a layperson. I can't be trusted to think for myself, so you will tell me what to think. I can't question evidence that doesn't support the party line...

*groan* Not this crap again.

Ok do post proof where a professor said evolution is a fact?

The only claims I have heard are from the creationist/IDiots who parrot that claim all the time.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9589253&postcount=345

I showed you a paper that refutes your statement that it is a 'false' example, just the way textbooks represent it is simplistic. It is a perfect example for natural selection. Again, to repeat, the swings in the phenotypes exibited by that moths as a result of air pollution is the equivalent of the entire human race having a white skin, then having a black skin, then going back to having a white skin (over many generations).


Hey, Chameleon lizards do it every day. Care to explain the mechanism to that? Use science, not faith.

The research was fundamentally flawed. It used assumption to fill boatloads of lack-of-knowledge and of course it ended up proving the initial assumption.

And still, best case scenario, you are talking about microevolution and then ASSUMING - with no evidence at all - that because microevolution might be able to occur, that macroevolution occurs.

Hawkintom']http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9589253&postcount=345


And your not so well-articulated point would be?

Hawkintom']Hey, Chameleon lizards do it every day. Care to explain the mechanism to that? Use science, not faith.

The research was fundamentally flawed. It used assumption to fill boatloads of lack-of-knowledge and of course it ended up proving the initial assumption.

And still, best case scenario, you are talking about microevolution and then ASSUMING - with no evidence at all - that because microevolution might be able to occur, that macroevolution occurs.
Your ignorance is showing. A chameleons ability to camouflage itself has nothing to do with the change in the frequency of alleles in a population. Stick with engineering.

It used no assumptions, it collected evidence in the amount of animals showing each phenotype over time, and using known reasons of predation, showed that the only way that the phenotypes could have swung that rapidly (generally, they don't move. Remember the H-Q equation) is through natural selection.


Pray tell, what barriers to speciation are there? You are also ignoring the fact that speciation has been observed many times, and you are ignoring the numerous times in which I have posted lists in which specation has occurred.

Hawkintom']http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9589253&postcount=345

Yes I am well aware of Stephen's work. You need to re-read it again.

There is a differents between facts and "truth"

Irreduceable complexity is an absurd argument. "We don't how this happened, therefore it didn't!". Creationists used to use this argument to claim the eye couldn't have evolved, becase it has many parts, all of which are needed to function. The fact is we can find proto-eyes in nature, starting from light-sensitive cells. Scientists have modelled the eye evolving over about 200 generations, each change to the eye increases complexity and usefulness, and is a viable eye. The fact that we have blind spots caused by the optic nerves, and that the retina (I think it's the retina I'm talking about...) is back to front support gradual development far better than the idea that the eye was designed.

Hawkintom']The improbability of abiogenesis, that is, the origin of the first life forms.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the ToE.

The implausibility of such a complex system evolving. For example, Behe documents the complexity of flagella and argues that they are "irreducibly complex," meaning that the system cannot function unless many parts appear, and all these parts could not have arisen at once by evolutionary processes.

(Someone said if I used the irreducibly complex argument they would doubt my rationality. I said, "Fine - doubt away, but please enlighten me to why that is an invalid argument. They haven't responded to that yet.)
IC is a textbook example of an argument from incredulity - a logical fallacy. Not to mention that supporting structures destroy IC.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, and many other arguments commonly used against the theory of evolution.
There is no lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Does the name Archaeopteryx mean anything to you? What about Australopithecus?

(Note: I've seen microevolution evidence here, but no macroevolution - which is what I have difficulty believing in - presented here. I believe in "survival of the fittest" within a species, but I don't believe in macroevolution.)
Macroevolution is speciation. Speciation has been observed. Ever heard of the nylon bug?

Additionally, the fossil record and the pro-evolutionists arguments are based on a "science" that is very suspect. These are folks who didn't realize that Piltdown man was a HOAX for 40 YEARS!
In short, you're claiming that paleontology is a hoax. Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

Dinosaurs have suddenly become pre-birds.
Well, gee. I guess changing our view based on the evidence makes us wrong.

Entire versions of "man" are presented to us from a single jawbone or femur and since we are just "laypeople" we are supposed to believe that they got it right, even though time and time again they eventually have to admit that they didn't.
Name the species then. All of the species in the human family tree are known from excellent fossil evidence.

I might as well be Catholic as be a blind follower of the Theory of Evolution. The similarities are striking. I'm a layperson. I can't be trusted to think for myself, so you will tell me what to think. I can't question evidence that doesn't support the party line...
Flaming 1 billion people is not going to help your case.

Actually, it's both a theory and a fact- read my post above.

Oh I know ;)

I was just baiting. Usually when they talk about fact they usually mean "truth"....

there is no way that science and inteligent design belong in the same classroom they are both of two different schools of thought altogether

Oh I know ;)

I was just baiting. Usually when they talk about fact they usually mean "truth"....

Well as you or anyone else knows (those who are rational, that is), the theory of evolution is based on quite a lot of well-researched evidence. As I posted above, it's a fact that things evolve. What is not quite so clear is the process in which they evolve. We have some good, educated ideas on the process, but it's still an idea that's being worked on.

just thought id throw in this. btw i fully agree with it.

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

just thought id throw in this. btw i fully agree with it.

I dunno, maybe God created the species mentioned in the Bible, while evolution created the vast number that are not mentioned, and couldn't possibly have fit in the Ark. How's that as a compromise?

Hawkintom']FLAWS:


i was following you just fine and agreeing with you on several points before you posted this. i am not a biologist and will not argue in anything but the most basic biological language. i am, however, a mathematician with a strong interest in evolutionary biology amongst other things. i take exception to your decision that certain things are unlikely.

for somebody else: ernst mayr spent a great deal of time arguing against many of the mathematical methods that were once thought to be useful in studying biology. in the process of doing so he displayed a surprising lack of mathematical knowledge and committed a lot of terrible errors that few biologists picked up on for some time. his motives here were to remove mathematics from biology as he found it distasteful but since his retirement mathematics has certainly found it's way back into the field and often times in ways that mayr specifically argued against. his philosophy, however, has not been, which is disturbing - we take away his argument but we accept his conclusion? very weak.

ernst mayr more than anyone else has led to most of our scientific misconceptions about natural selection, which is an unproven axiom which the science develops from and not a result - proveable or not - of the actual theory.

you may say that nobody cares whether ernst mayr understands mathematics or not but coming from somebody who has studied the way that dna replicates - from a few textbooks in the post-mayr field of mathematical biology and not from actual experiments - i may say that the complete randomness of genetic mutation greatly challenges the philosophical concept of natural selection.

the example of the peppered moths is not complete yet. all we know is that, at the moment, one colour is dominant over the other because of an obvious advantage; some were lucky enough to be born the better colour. colour changes, however, do not lead to speciation, mutations do, and no mutation took place here as the two colours were already present in the original population. it may be that one colour will permanently win out over the other but until some major morphological event occurs no evolution will have taken place. so, we have natural selection without evolution and no indication that this natural selection will lead to evolution, and a theoretical framework that argues for the opposite. this is a perfect example of the field advancing well beyond the theory but being too dogmatic to actually change the theory until somebody actually formulates a complete alternate theory for the field. this is common in all of the sciences.

i do not source because i don't fucking feel like googling everything that i write and because many of my words are written fron my own mind. natural selection is not a scientific concept but a philosophical one so in this case that's perfectly fine - our best tool here is logic and not evidence as there can be no evidence of natural selection outside of outright speciation which is impossible to prove by the theory. hence the "show me the evidence" arguments are effectively a circular loop - you won't accept anything else unless you get evidence to overturn what we have but what you accept is stated by the theory itself to be impossible to empirically observe.

furthermore, it's your responsibility to educate yourself further when i explain something to you that you don't understand, not mine. this isn't a formal essay written to nature....it's a bunch of people rambling to each other on an internet message board because they have nothing fucking better to do with their time and/or just came home and are trying to work off their beer buzz before sleeping to prevent a nasty hangover. if it's too complicated for you, don't come whining to me about it. look it up your fucking self.

i speak in broad strokes to simplify things because i understand that few people here have honours degrees in pure mathematics. you're not going to understand the math anyways so why waste my time explaining it?

apologies to hawkintom. i got a little carried away. back to the point:


The improbability of abiogenesis, that is, the origin of the first life forms.


1) evolution talks about what happened after the abiogenesis. it doesn't claim anything at all about abiogenesis.
2) let's say there's a one in a billion chance that abiogenesis occurs on any planet. according to m theory, there are billions of universes meaning that life has likely developed billions of times. furthermore, there are perhaps billions of planets in our universe where life could possibly have developed. hence, abiogenesis is certainly not improbable.


The implausibility of such a complex system evolving. For example, Behe documents the complexity of flagella and argues that they are "irreducibly complex," meaning that the system cannot function unless many parts appear, and all these parts could not have arisen at once by evolutionary processes.


they could under a punctuated model.


The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, and many other arguments commonly used against the theory of evolution.


punctuated model.


(Note: I've seen microevolution evidence here, but no macroevolution - which is what I have difficulty believing in - presented here. I believe in "survival of the fittest" within a species, but I don't believe in macroevolution.)


the best argument is again through punctuation which i do recognize is an idea of ernst mayr and just an idea at that. i never said he was worthless, just untrustworthy in his synthesis.

now when we speak of punctuation in correlation with mass extinction, and i recognize there is a time lag but only a fool would expect the effect to be immediate; the correlation stands, it becomes clear that the primary mechanism of major evolutionary change should be randomness - both at a genetic level and at the level of the species itself. natural selection is still an observable phenomenon, it's just not as good an explanation of the actual evolution as chaos is.

Name the species then. All of the species in the human family tree are known from excellent fossil evidence.


many are known only by skulls or shards of teeth. one is australopithecus africanus, the skull found by raymond dart.

As I posted above, it's a fact that things evolve. What is not quite so clear is the process in which they evolve. We have some good, educated ideas on the process, but it's still an idea that's being worked on.

i'd just like to point out that this is the best paragraph i've yet to read in this thread, although "fact" is perhaps a bit strong.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~jlawrey/biol471/melanism.pdf

Did I miss the bit about gluing moths?

Hawkintom']"In truth, we still don't know the natural hiding places of peppered moths."

Isn't that the whole premise of why the Peppered Moth "evolved" to have dark coloring instead of light?

They can't even observe the most basic part of the premise.

And again, the Peppered Moth didn't evolve, it already had the ability to change color in its genome. It merely had to be activated. It didn't evolve any more than you evolve when you tan in the sun.

The 'most basic part of the premise' is that the Peppered Moth colouring responds to industrial pollution.

And the figures STILL bear that out, even today. Even as the effects of pollution reduce, so do the Pepper Moth colour variations 'reduce'.

you may say that nobody cares whether ernst mayr understands mathematics or not but coming from somebody who has studied the way that dna replicates - from a few textbooks in the post-mayr field of mathematical biology and not from actual experiments - i may say that the complete randomness of genetic mutation greatly challenges the philosophical concept of natural selection.


Why would the randomness of genetic mutation challenge the theory of natural selection? The theory does take into account random mutation. Only a very tiny proportion of mutations provide benefits to the organism, and these mutations contribute to evolution.

many are known only by skulls or shards of teeth. one is australopithecus africanus, the skull found by raymond dart.
Whoop-de-freaking-doo. We don't have a near complete skeleton for one species of Australopithecus. It's not like the human evolutionary tree relies on A. africanus. A. afarensis is far more important to it.

Whoop-de-freaking-doo. We don't have a near complete skeleton for one species of Australopithecus. It's not like the human evolutionary tree relies on A. africanus. A. afarensis is far more important to it.

Do you honestly think they have it right? Look at the latest news about the dinosaurs today. How long were dinosaurs scaly, reptilian, creatures according to the paleontologists? And we had lots of fossil evidence on them.

Meanwhile, you have scientists who are looking for the "missing link(s)" who are willing to create a whole species of man from a couple of shards of bone and teeth. Of COURSE they are going to support evolution.

Furthermore, just looking at modern skeletons, you cannot tell things like intelligence from cranial capacity. Sure, if you had hundreds or thousands of skulls, you might be able to infer that one species had a larger average cranial capacity and that it might have been more intelligent. But to infer that from one incomplete skull is ludicrous.

Once again, it takes a great deal of FAITH to believe that the extremely small human fossil record supports the Theory of Evolution.

Hawkintom']Do you honestly think they have it right? Look at the latest news about the dinosaurs today. How long were dinosaurs scaly, reptilian, creatures according to the paleontologists? And we had lots of fossil evidence on them.

Meanwhile, you have scientists who are looking for the "missing link(s)" who are willing to create a whole species of man from a couple of shards of bone and teeth. Of COURSE they are going to support evolution.

Furthermore, just looking at modern skeletons, you cannot tell things like intelligence from cranial capacity. Sure, if you had hundreds or thousands of skulls, you might be able to infer that one species had a larger average cranial capacity and that it might have been more intelligent. But to infer that from one incomplete skull is ludicrous.

Once again, it takes a great deal of FAITH to believe that the extremely small human fossil record supports the Theory of Evolution.

Dinosaurs were 'scaly' for as long as that seemed most likely. Basically, they were mainly large, quadraped egg-layers... the most LOGICAL assumption is that they would be close to reptiles. However, I remember a couple of decades back, murmurs that certain findings implied they might have been warm-blooded... and the theory changed a little then. And, recently, bone-structure analysis has revealed 'flight-bone' type structures... and now, possibly, even feathers.

It would be idiotic to maintain the cold-blooded reptile claim in the face of evidence.

I guess that's the difference between science and religion... science is willing to admit it is wrong.

What is wrong with determining data from fragmentary evidence? If you can find enough components to make good assumptions - how is it flawed? Especially when MOST of the evidence is better than the 'occasional fragment'. But - if you had two types of skeleton, dated a few hundreds of thousands of years apart, with VERY different dentition, and corresponding different body types... and you found remains that fit (chronologically) BETWEEN those remains, and that ALSO have intermediary-looking dentition... is it not a REASONABLE assumption that an intermediary form existed?

You make it sound like the modern scientist just digs up any old tooth, and comes up with a pre-historic-sounding name for it.

Hawkintom']Do you honestly think they have it right? Look at the latest news about the dinosaurs today. How long were dinosaurs scaly, reptilian, creatures according to the paleontologists? And we had lots of fossil evidence on them.


It's the self correct aspect of science. The T-Rex was once thought to stand up straight. Later better evidence suggested otherwise.


Meanwhile, you have scientists who are looking for the "missing link(s)" who are willing to create a whole species of man from a couple of shards of bone and teeth. Of COURSE they are going to support evolution.

Missing link is oh so 70s.

And again the selfcorrecting aspect you ignore is that if a more complete fossil shows otherwise, said connection will be dropped.


Furthermore, just looking at modern skeletons, you cannot tell things like intelligence from cranial capacity. Sure, if you had hundreds or thousands of skulls, you might be able to infer that one species had a larger average cranial capacity and that it might have been more intelligent. But to infer that from one incomplete skull is ludicrous.

Actually the measure the cranial capacity to estimate the size of the brain. Large brain tends to suggest a higher intelligence. Yet their other aspects that beg the question. The Neandertals had a larger cranial capacity then we do.....

It's an estimate and many people don't belive it completely. My Phys antro professor would tell you the same. However, the people made their pitch and showed and estimate of the timeline and suggest they are a part. Being able to "design" a creature from a jawbone is indeed stretching it.

However, the jawbones in question suggest a primate and that is why they are "accepted" in the line.

Now if a more complete skeleton is found and disproves the argument, then yes it will be dropped.


Once again, it takes a great deal of FAITH to believe that the extremely small human fossil record supports the Theory of Evolution.

Ahhh but the evidense suggests something rather then taking it on FAITH that a guy said "abracadabra" and man appeared.

Whoop-de-freaking-doo. We don't have a near complete skeleton for one species of Australopithecus. It's not like the human evolutionary tree relies on A. africanus. A. afarensis is far more important to it.

that was merely one example. you said human family tree, not human evolutionary tree.

orrorin tugenensis is known only from a few scattered bone fragments - limbs, mandibles and some teeth if i recall correctly. before orrorin, we're mostly relying on dna and not fossils.

i'd say you should throw dna at anti-evolutionsts before you throw fossils at them. it's much more convincing, much more stable and much more objective.

ardipithecus ramidus is known from little more than teeth. we have ONE example of parts of the rest of the skeleton but it's still far from complete or even near complete.

kenyanthropus platyops is a skull.

australopithecus anamensis is known mostly from teeth and skulls although we have parts of the rest of it.

afarensis is lucy, yes, and we have a fairly complete partial skeleton.

garhi is known only by skull fragments, although it's thought that it is relevant due to it's large brain size.

habilis is probably not one species but several species and under this understanding we do not truly have a full skeleton although we have several partials.

rudolfensis is a bunch of skull fragments.

ergaster/erectus/heidelbergiensis are better accounted for and we're in pretty good shape from there.

the point is not that i disagree that the idea is right but that we don't have the evidence to put together an agreed upon descent yet from whatever the common ancestor of chimps and humans was to chimps and humans themselves......so if i did not have so much faith in the method which has so far proven inconclusive, i may be slightly skeptical of it's conclusions.

Why would the randomness of genetic mutation challenge the theory of natural selection? The theory does take into account random mutation. Only a very tiny proportion of mutations provide benefits to the organism, and these mutations contribute to evolution.

natural selection is about adaptation, though, and how species adapt to better fit their environment. this presupposes that evolution only occurs when it's beneficial to the species, that those individuals with mutations that are beneficial survive and those that are "abominations" do not.

yet, if the mutations are random then why would this be? there is no good reason other than platonism. natural selection may work in certain instances but it does not in others - marsupials and monotremes, for example, only survived because the landmass they were on seperated away from placentals. they could not have competed properly, yet they survived and diversified due to their good luck.

furthermore, it's not uncommon that species develop useless mutations that have not in any way benefitted them yet still led to evolution, as it is that positive characteristics are often developed without leading to evolution or are even discarded. the paleontologists will tell you that australopithecines actually walked in a much more efficient manner than we do; this makes no sense under natural selection.

the guiding force should be that there is no guiding force and that evolution is just the result of the imperfections in the process of reproduction - no aim, no goal, just perpetual floundering in no particular direction.

natural selection is about adaptation, though, and how species adapt to better fit their environment.
Not really, natural selection is about rates of occurance.

this presupposes that evolution only occurs when it's beneficial to the species, that those individuals with mutations that are beneficial survive and those that are "abominations" do not.
No it doesnt. It suggests that beneficial traits that occur are more likely to proliferate over time than traits that are not beneficial.

yet, if the mutations are random then why would this be? there is no good reason other than platonism.
Why wouldnt it be?

natural selection may work in certain instances but it does not in others - marsupials and monotremes, for example, only survived because the landmass they were on seperated away from placentals. they could not have competed properly, yet they survived and diversified due to their good luck.
Natural selection does not exclude luck.

furthermore, it's not uncommon that species develop useless mutations that have not in any way benefitted them yet still led to evolution, as it is that positive characteristics are often developed without leading to evolution or are even discarded. the paleontologists will tell you that australopithecines actually walked in a much more efficient manner than we do; this makes no sense under natural selection.
Why does it make not sense? Natural selection is simply one mechanism within a complex of mechanisms.

the guiding force should be that there is no guiding force and that evolution is just the result of the imperfections in the process of reproduction - no aim, no goal, just perpetual floundering in no particular direction.
Natural selection does not suggest that there is a 'guiding force' or that there is any aim or goal.

It's the self correct aspect of science. The T-Rex was once thought to stand up straight. Later better evidence suggested otherwise.

Not according to cradle,who says Evolution is FACT.

FACT cannot be self-correcting.

And again the selfcorrecting aspect you ignore is that if a more complete fossil shows otherwise, said connection will be dropped.

After a huge battle. The problem is that the entrenched scientists resist evidence that points to THEIR beliefs/theories being wrong.

Plus, does that make it ok to teach something that we KNOW we don't have solid evidence for as near-fact? That is like saying that it was ok to teach "spontaneous generation" back when it was assumed to be true, because it was the best they had at the time and it was self-correcting. So what? It was WRONG. At the very least, the theory of Evolution has a LOT of details to be filled in, and at the very worst if could be dead wrong. We should make that CLEAR when teaching it.


Actually the measure the cranial capacity to estimate the size of the brain.


Right... I didn't think that needed explaining with this crowd.

Large brain tends to suggest a higher intelligence. Yet their other aspects that beg the question. The Neandertals had a larger cranial capacity then we do.....


Which further illustrates the flaws in the "science" (wild guessing, often) of paleontology.



It's an estimate and many people don't belive it completely. My Phys antro professor would tell you the same. However, the people made their pitch and showed and estimate of the timeline and suggest they are a part. Being able to "design" a creature from a jawbone is indeed stretching it.


Heck yeah it is - and THEN to make matters worse, they present it in textbooks like it is fact. What we see is the "completed skeleton" and it looks official and obvious. But the reality is that someone made an "educated guess" based on an extremely small amount of information (fossil).

Ahhh but the evidense suggests something rather then taking it on FAITH that a guy said "abracadabra" and man appeared.

Again, I'm agnostic. But my agnosticism applies to the scientific fields where they work with wild guess most of the time. This includes cosmology as well. Scientists trying to figure out how the world began, and how humanity arose, are using "science" that doesn't differ a whole lot from the faith that most Christians have.

My purpose in being a thorn in everyone's side in this thread is that I believe the Theory of Evolution is taught as if it were absolutely true and I believe that is a huge mistake.

Hawkintom']
Again, I'm agnostic. But my agnosticism applies to the scientific fields where they work with wild guess most of the time. This includes cosmology as well. Scientists trying to figure out how the world began, and how humanity arose, are using "science" that doesn't differ a whole lot from the faith that most Christians have.

My purpose in being a thorn in everyone's side in this thread is that I believe the Theory of Evolution is taught as if it were absolutely true and I believe that is a huge mistake.

I am not buying the agnostic stance. Your agruments make you sound like a creationist/ider. But that is another story.

Everybody hear has repeatidly said Science doesn't deal with truths. It can't.

Anyway. God day to you.

I am not buying the agnostic stance. Your agruments make you sound like a creationist/ider. But that is another story.

Everybody hear has repeatidly said Science doesn't deal with truths. It can't.

Anyway. God day to you.
I wouldn't bother anymore. He doesn't think that complete fossil skeletons exist.

I am not buying the agnostic stance. Your agruments make you sound like a creationist/ider. But that is another story.

God day to you.

Freudian slip? Oh yeah, Freud didn't know what he was talking about - but that was the science of the day... Still people talk about it like it was true.

I'm sorry you think that I am a liar. I've been honest with you. Personally I think that your inability to separate the personal from arguing the IDEAS is just as fanatical as the creationists you deride.

I stand by my statements, which have been consistent throughout the entire thread if you will read back. My point - again - is that the Theory of Evolution is taught as virtual fact (which someone here even admitted) and if that is going to be the case, then ID should be taught as a possibility as well.




I wouldn't bother anymore. He doesn't think that complete fossil skeletons exist.


You mean Lucy? Please...

And again, perhaps if you had a real skeleton, what would that prove? I can take modern skeletons by the dozens and find drastic differences between cranial capacities, brow ridges and other features. A paleontologist could find dozens of species where only one really existed.

Everyone keeps screaming about "science" then where is the repeatability. No controls (can't be), no repeatability. Huge assumptions based on tiny amounts of fossil evidence...

That's why it is the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

Hawkintom']
That's why it is the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

Whoops.

Somebody doesn't understand the difference between a theory and a law.

Hawkintom']That's why it is the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution.

so you admit that you don't understand science.

Hawkintom']You mean Lucy? Please...

No, on another thread, you claimed that all fossil skeletons only had a few real bones in them and the rest were made up.

so you admit that you don't understand science.

Um, no. I don't believe I said that. Where?

No, on another thread, you claimed that all fossil skeletons only had a few real bones in them and the rest were made up.

I see how we play the game. We say the other person said something they didn't and then claime we have won.

Well you said that the Lucy had been reanimated via DNA cloning from mitochondrial DNA and that she had told us she was a transitional species in another thread.

:eek:

Hawkintom']Um, no. I don't believe I said that. Where?

where you strongly implied that theories are inferior entities in science. you know, in those words you wrote that i quoted.

i'm getting annoyed at this nonsense. but first,
1. its got nothing particularly to do with me
2. i am loathe enough to engage in religious debates (such as the creationism vs evolution arguements that are ever popular of late), yet alone start one... but in reading this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441380) thread something hit me that i had already thought, but not been aware of (if you know what i mean)
3. this isn't a thread bashing the many religious debate threads out there at the mo
4. i wrote this many hours before this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441513) (now locked) thread... however the news article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1559743,00.html) from it comes in most handy now


so with that out the way, lets make some assumptions about the school system (as i understand it in america)

1. school is a place of learning
2. a place of learning for all - religious or not.

i would like to assume that religion should play no part in governance or the state, and have no place in education - but evidently this is the hotly contested issue (now you know where i stand)

so why do i say this?
to answer, lets make some assumptions about the theories of evolution and creationism (ID, whatever its all one and the same really - at least for the purposes of this thread)

1. evolution is a scientific theory that has large amounts of evidence - both physical and theoretical (but provable within the laws of physics) - that means it is the best means it is the best theory we've come up with yet. it could be wrong, but - scientifically - this is unlikely (only in small details).
it is an a-theist (seperation intended) idea in that it does not require faith or belief in the existance of some kind of god.

2. creationism has no concrete physical evidence. any theoretical evidence comes from a 2000 year old book, whose authors we don't know. many of its assumptions are impossible under the laws of physics. without faith it makes no sense - it requires belief in god. it is not a comparable scientific theory to evolution.

-------------

so, assuming these assumptions are true, i argue strongly that religion has no place in the classroom.
firstly, the fact that creationism is not of comparable theoretical calibur to the evidence, facts and coherence presented by evolution, says to me that creationism should not be taught at all. strictly comparing the two 'theories' on a scientific or rational basis, teaching creationism makes about as much sense as teaching an old, defunct scientific theory... like the earth is flat or the earth is the center of the universe, for example (though those actually have more evidence than creationism does anyway lol - so therein lies my point). if creationism is being presented as an alternate 'theory' to evolution, then let it be treated as such a theory - and comparatively, as a theory, it does not stack up against evolution, and should not be taught as a theory - but as a religous myth (see below)



secondly, if school is open for all - theists or a-theists, religious or not, surely teaching a 'theory' that relies on personal faith as its cornerstone makes no sense. it is a waste of time for those without faith. if a school is a place of learning, it should teach just the facts (which is evolution if the above assumptions are true) and the school should not have this religious bias on it that is unfair to non-believers.



now, understand, i'm not saying creationism shouldn't be taught at all, just not in the same way as, or alongside, evolution. teach it in Religious Studies if you must (or your equivalent over there)

or, preferably, don't teach it in school at all. RE or philosophy classes should perhaps make you aware of the theory, but certainly not teach it as fact. the class should similarly make the student aware of the different creation myths from the other main religions of the world.
if you want to learn about creationism, as fact or coherent 'theory', you can be taught it at sunday school or in your place of worship - NOT in school.



i know this subject has been done to death, but i wanted to present my own slightly annoyed viewpoint. i also know that not every state is pushing for creationism to be taught in schools, but nonetheless i was annoyed enough at the whole issue to go write this.

to summarise: religion should not be taught alongside credible science.
so, agree, disagree?
Agreed. *bows*

Whoop-de-freaking-doo. We don't have a near complete skeleton for one species of Australopithecus. It's not like the human evolutionary tree relies on A. africanus. A. afarensis is far more important to it.
The find in the Afar region this past year, the first TRANSITIONAL (?) specimen between the UPRIGHT and the ALL-FOURS i think may turn out even more important than the afarensis .... i don't know what they are planning on naming it.

I've posted before on this ..... maybe check the archive, maybe i'll find it & post on the morrow.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/080805I.html


Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution -- they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution -- they are still bacteria. In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life -- and that is what evolution is.

Possibly the most critical distinction between the two theories (or better, "models") of origins is this: While similarities between different but "related" species have been attributed by evolutionism to common ancestry, intelligent design explains the similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems … but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor.

Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc. This is why Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the leading evolutionist of our time, advanced his "punctuated equilibria" theory. In this theory, evolution leading to new kinds of organisms occurs over such brief periods of time that it was not captured in the fossil record. Upon reflection, one cannot help but notice that this is not arguing based upon the evidence -- but instead from the lack of evidence.

One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. Modern biology does not "fall apart" without evolution, as some will claim. Maybe the theories of the origins of forms of life fall apart, or theories of the origin of capabilities that those life forms exhibit, or the supposed ancestral relationships between them fall apart. But these are merely intellectual curiosities, serving only to stimulate discussion and teach the next generation of students the same beliefs. From a practical point of view, the intelligent design paradigm is just as useful to biology, and I believe, more satisfying from an intellectual point of view.

Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

Of course, ultimately, one must confront the origin of that higher power, which will logically lead to the possibility of an original, uncaused, First Cause. But then we would be firmly in the religious realm. All naturalistic cosmological theories of origins must invent physics that have never been observed by science -- because the "Big Bang" can't be explained based upon current physics. A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics -- or both. So, is this science? Or faith?

It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools. What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching. The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause.

But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design? (There is, by the way, no third theory of origins that anyone has ever been able to determine.) At the very least, school textbooks should acknowledge that evolution is a theory of origins, it has not been proved, and that many scientists do not accept it.

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.


This doesn't work. Sorry.

If you REALLY were a PhD calibre scientist, you would not be able to make as obviously unscientific a claim as "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism".

Much as you fight it, there are very good reasons why ID is NOT scientific. Good reasons that you seem to be able to shrug off...

Hawkintom']I see how we play the game. We say the other person said something they didn't and then claime we have won.

Well you said that the Lucy had been reanimated via DNA cloning from mitochondrial DNA and that she had told us she was a transitional species in another thread.

:eek:
It was over in the 'Feathered Dinosaurs' thread. I apologize if I misinterpreted you. You also claimed that T. rex was based on only a few bones, which is wrong, and I pointed it out to you. You never responded.

Hawkintom']http://www.techcentralstation.com/080805I.html


Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. Am I allowed to asked in which field? An answer to this would contribute greatly to your credibility.

Hawkintom']In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college. But you are among few. I know of scientists who think god is a lady with a strange semse of humor and an unhealthily fondness for metallic fruits. I don't think they are right just because they are not alone in the scientific community.

Hawkintom']You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion? For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.Please do.

Hawkintom']True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A supreme intelligence has also never been observed.Hawkintom']A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution -- they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution -- they are still bacteria.But they are different bacteria. We would call them a different strain. They obviously evolvedHawkintom']In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life -- and that is what evolution is. That's just one part of the story. Besides natural selection we know of neutral evolution as I repeatly like to state. Both mechanisms contribute to specification.

Hawkintom']Possibly the most critical distinction between the two theories (or better, "models") of origins is this: While similarities between different but "related" species have been attributed by evolutionism to common ancestry, intelligent design explains the similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems … but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor.
But they do! Please allow me to introduce their common ancestor (http://www.hubert-brune.de/grafiken/daimler_1886.jpg)
Hawkintom']Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc. This is why Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the leading evolutionist of our time, advanced his "punctuated equilibria" theory. In this theory, evolution leading to new kinds of organisms occurs over such brief periods of time that it was not captured in the fossil record. Upon reflection, one cannot help but notice that this is not arguing based upon the evidence -- but instead from the lack of evidence.Actually every species is a transitional species, because we are constantly evolving. Apart from this, you said we have what you call transitional species. Most biologist today think that in reality both mechanisms, punctional and gradual evolution, occures. You know, the old Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis-thing.

Hawkintom']One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith. Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. Modern biology does not "fall apart" without evolution, as some will claim. Maybe the theories of the origins of forms of life fall apart, or theories of the origin of capabilities that those life forms exhibit, or the supposed ancestral relationships between them fall apart. But these are merely intellectual curiosities, serving only to stimulate discussion and teach the next generation of students the same beliefs. From a practical point of view, the intelligent design paradigm is just as useful to biology, and I believe, more satisfying from an intellectual point of view.
I don't share your point of view. As plenty posters stated before, there are differences between both which qualifies evolution as a theory and ID not.
Hawkintom']Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

Of course, ultimately, one must confront the origin of that higher power, which will logically lead to the possibility of an original, uncaused, First Cause. But then we would be firmly in the religious realm. All naturalistic cosmological theories of origins must invent physics that have never been observed by science -- because the "Big Bang" can't be explained based upon current physics. A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics -- or both. So, is this science? Or faith?
Please explain.
Hawkintom']It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools. What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching. The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause. I guess they know why.

But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause? More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?[/QUOTE]
No. Was answered more often than it sould have been nessessary.

Hawkintom']If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design? (There is, by the way, no third theory of origins that anyone has ever been able to determine.) At the very least, school textbooks should acknowledge that evolution is a theory of origins, it has not been proved, and that many scientists do not accept it. Not that many.

Scientists:

How do we know atoms exist?

What is "credible science"? Something you see with the eyes? Empirically provable information? Do you not have faith in your eyes, in your subjective sensory perceptions? How then does your faith in your sensory perceptors differ from someone elses faith in a deity figure?
I see it thus, the possibility of both are equal, and should be treated as such.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan
HA HA!

Hawkintom']
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Hmmm use of the ism word again. I don't know why the Christians like that.

Ok for one thing; saying you have a PhD in research means NOTHING. It is something you are expected to have. A friend learned that to her chargrin after she finished her PhD in Organic Chem. She went into a lab expecting to be treated like royalty and nobody cared.

What was this study of his? A hobby? Where is his paper on it?


Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

This guy gets a Meh! So you are a kid and belived in evolution then you "grow up" and change your mind? :rolleyes:


For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.

For all his finger waving. I doubt this guy is open-minded.


intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life -- and that is what evolution is.

*sigh* A life springing out of a rock argument


Possibly the most critical distinction between the two theories (or better, "models") of origins is this: While similarities between different but "related" species have been attributed by evolutionism to common ancestry, intelligent design explains the similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems … but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor.

*sigh* Evolution does not define orgins.

Oh man. A car analogy!


Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution.

*SNIP*

Upon reflection, one cannot help but notice that this is not arguing based upon the evidence -- but instead from the lack of evidence.


This guy doesn't understand what is required to make a fossil.

It's funny that a christian will make a "faith" arguement concerning the lack of an a-z evidence chain and yet proof of the existince of the IDer/God is not required.


One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith.

Ahhh the evolution is a religion claim.


Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings. Modern biology does not "fall apart" without evolution, as some will claim.

Must be those ones that "grew up" and changed. Names are usually good here.

*SNIP*

From a practical point of view, the intelligent design paradigm is just as useful to biology, and I believe, more satisfying from an intellectual point of view.
Sure if you are religious it is much more satisifying to have a pseudo science that says God made everything.


Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

*blinks* like what for instance?


Of course, ultimately, one must confront the origin of that higher power, which will logically lead to the possibility of an original, uncaused, First Cause. But then we would be firmly in the religious realm. All naturalistic cosmological theories of origins must invent physics that have never been observed by science -- because the "Big Bang" can't be explained based upon current physics. A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics -- or both. So, is this science? Or faith?


Ok what's his PhD in?


It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools. What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching. The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment's establishment of religion clause.

But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause?


:D man oh man that was funny!


More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design?

Because there aren't any methods of worship? There aren't any orders of prayer. There isn't any spirtiualism that is found in religions you moron!


(There is, by the way, no third theory of origins that anyone has ever been able to determine.)

Wow. I guess he is never looked into other cultures or anicent writings.


At the very least, school textbooks should acknowledge that evolution is a theory of origins, it has not been proved, and that many scientists do not accept it.

*sigh* A warning label proponent.

Again what is this guys PhD?

-edit-

No need to answer the degree question. Found it was in Meteorology....

So even though that darwin's theory is still just a THEORY.....why should it hold any weight against the only other theory believed by a vast amount of people? I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with darwinism and although there are excuses given to "prove" this topic, it's still not PROVEN. I just think that either you have to give both ideas equal rights, or don't teach either of them at all. One person said leave creationism for religous class; then leave darwinism for theory of evolution class...I'd just assume keep darwinism out of our schools to begin with.

Am I allowed to asked in which field? An answer to this would contribute greatly to your credibility.


Found it in his biography link. He is a meteorologist.....

Scientists:

How do we know atoms exist?
Non-Scientist: even though they
cannot be seen directly with our eyes there is so much evidence for atoms, and
we know so much about them, that it is impossible to say they do not exist.
One of the greatest achievements of the last few years (which won a Nobel
prize) was a new kind of microscope called the "scanning tunneling
microscope", which allows an extremely sensitive "probe" (basically a rod with
a very fine tip) to wander around on the outside of some solid materials, and
actually feel the bumps that are caused by the atoms there, and then a
computer can convert those bumps into a picture of the surface, showing the
individual atoms lying there, and the patterns they form, the steps as one
layer of atoms gives way to another, and all sorts of details that could never
be seen before. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/physics/PHY118.HTM

Or go on the particle adventure!!!!! http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/startstandard.html

So even though that darwin's theory is still just a THEORY.....why should it hold any weight against the only other theory believed by a vast amount of people? I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with darwinism and although there are excuses given to "prove" this topic, it's still not PROVEN. I just think that either you have to give both ideas equal rights, or don't teach either of them at all. One person said leave creationism for religous class; then leave darwinism for theory of evolution class...I'd just assume keep darwinism out of our schools to begin with.

lol. Look at the funny person arguing science when they don't even know what the scientific definition of theory is...

This being your first post, please be aware, in the future, that your words will be given greater weight if you actually read the thread you are posting to.

Found it in his biography link. He is a meteorologist.....
Thanks. I'll ask him before my next holliday trip.

So even though that darwin's theory is still just a THEORY.....why should it hold any weight against the only other theory believed by a vast amount of people? I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with darwinism and although there are excuses given to "prove" this topic, it's still not PROVEN. I just think that either you have to give both ideas equal rights, or don't teach either of them at all. One person said leave creationism for religous class; then leave darwinism for theory of evolution class...I'd just assume keep darwinism out of our schools to begin with.

Ok for one thing "just a theory" shows you don't understand what it means. Theories are extreamly powerful since they try to explain something. Theories don't prove anything. Laws don't prove anything. Science doesn't prove anything; it only explains. To prove something suggests it can never be wrong and that is not possible. We may think something is right and yet it still can be proven wrong or be adjusted. It's the self-correcting aspects of Science.

Leave evolution out? Ok that is simple. Don't teach Biology in your schools.

So even though that darwin's theory is still just a THEORY.....why should it hold any weight against the only other theory believed by a vast amount of people? I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with darwinism and although there are excuses given to "prove" this topic, it's still not PROVEN. I just think that either you have to give both ideas equal rights, or don't teach either of them at all. One person said leave creationism for religous class; then leave darwinism for theory of evolution class...I'd just assume keep darwinism out of our schools to begin with.

Its called the creation MYTH for good reason my friend. Where as evolution is practically scientific law. Its correct 99% of the time.

So even though that darwin's theory is still just a THEORY.....why should it hold any weight against the only other theory believed by a vast amount of people? I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with darwinism and although there are excuses given to "prove" this topic, it's still not PROVEN. I just think that either you have to give both ideas equal rights, or don't teach either of them at all. One person said leave creationism for religous class; then leave darwinism for theory of evolution class...I'd just assume keep darwinism out of our schools to begin with.

Dude, the Theory of Gravity (Enstein's General Theory of Relativity) is only a theory, in fact it disagrees with predictions made by another theory, Quantumn Mechanics. In spite of this, things keep falling (gravity) and computers keep working (quantumn mechanics). The Theory of Evolution is not proven, the Theory of Gravity is not proven, the Theory of Quantumn Mechanics is not prove, the Theory of Electromagnetics is not proven. In fact nothing in science if proven, if you want proofs stick to math. The wonderful thing about science is everything is taken provisionally and open to change with new evidence. A theory is an idea that makes falsifiable predictions and has passed every test. ID makes no falsifiable predictions, until it does it's not science.

Ok, my point is this:

The way we derive the existence of atoms comes from:

Electronic devices (composed of said atoms) that bounce other unseen particles, against other unsees particles, which in turn triggers eletronic device to calculate quantities of these atoms such as charge, size, etc.

And in that second case of "extremely sensitive machine feeling bumps" I have no idead how that would work aside from negativelly charged electrons surrounding the atom.

My second question would be "What do we consider to be faith?" What is faithful?

As a scientist, I fully believe the atomic theory, as it is the best and most rational theory to describe the matter that composes the universe.
Nonetheless, it remains a belief.
Wither or not we can escape faith or belief is debatable, what do we consider factual or not.
Scientists have faith (?) in the scientific method, or assume that is the correct way to reach conclusions.

And I am not calling science a religion, the will behind how a scientist believes is much different from the will of religion.

With that said, I think it would be wise to teach philosophy to the youth. Epistomology (which I think is the underlying debate in this) is very underrated in our educational system.

O

As a scientist,


In what may I ask?

In what may I ask?
I'm merely a chemist

student

I think science has a much different approach than faith. Science comes to terms with things using the Best Possible Explanation and bases further study off that. When new evidence comes into play, the science can adapt it's theories to it.
From what I've seen with people of faith, everything is already explained. They have their bible which told them the truth (for those with the Christian faith) and no new bible is going to be forthcoming to add on to that short of a second coming. The faith part comes when people prove them wrong and they go on believing anyway. Which isn't wrong but it isn't science.

I'm merely a chemist

student
If you're a student, then you aren't a scientist.

If you're a student, then you aren't a scientist.

If you aren't a student, you aren't a scientist.

OK, I'm not a scientist. Answer my question.

How do we know the scientific approach is correct? We use it to find the best explanations, but can it be used to explain itself?

So even though that darwin's theory is still just a THEORY.....why should it hold any weight against the only other theory believed by a vast amount of people? I'm just saying that I strongly disagree with darwinism and although there are excuses given to "prove" this topic, it's still not PROVEN. I just think that either you have to give both ideas equal rights, or don't teach either of them at all. One person said leave creationism for religous class; then leave darwinism for theory of evolution class...I'd just assume keep darwinism out of our schools to begin with.

1. I recommend you look up "theory" in a dictionary. Theory in "Theory of Evolution" refers to an entirely different definition.
2. Saying that ID is just as valid as Evolution because they're both "theories" is incredibly ignorant.
3. Ignoring the fact that "a vast amount of people" is subjective, just because an idea is popular doesn't mean it's right or credible. Case in point: until Galileo's time, nearly everyone in European society believed that everything revolved around Earth, at the center of the universe.
4. As another poster wrote, the point of science is not to prove, it's to explain. (and even if the point was to prove, any evidence for ID pales in comparison to the evidence for evolution)
5. "I'd just assume keep darwinism out of our schools to begin with."
Keeping ID out, too? Because otherwise you're going back on what you said about giving both ideas "equal rights."

I think science has a much different approach than faith. Science comes to terms with things using the Best Possible Explanation and bases further study off that. When new evidence comes into play, the science can adapt it's theories to it.
From what I've seen with people of faith, everything is already explained. They have their bible which told them the truth (for those with the Christian faith) and no new bible is going to be forthcoming to add on to that short of a second coming. The faith part comes when people prove them wrong and they go on believing anyway. Which isn't wrong but it isn't science.

So if faith is unchanging, why isn't the scientist's continued belief in the scientific method considered faith?

Hello, chums! I heartily agree that creationism is a scientriffic discipline, and ought to be taught alongside such other sciences such as biology, grabbity, and physics.

I would like to point you to a site (if it hasn't already been linked to in this thread. I admit to only having read the first five pages or so, and skimming the last one.) that proves CONCLUDISHLY that humanity was in fact made in the image of the supreme noodly creator.

http://www.venganza.org/

It will answer all your questions, and question all your answers.

Ramen, brothers and sisters! Ramen!

If you aren't a student, you aren't a scientist.
Damn you, for your nitpicking and such!

Yeah, you're right. I was more referring to him/her implying that s/he didn't have a degree.

This doesn't work. Sorry.

If you REALLY were a PhD calibre scientist, you would not be able to make as obviously unscientific a claim as "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism".

Much as you fight it, there are very good reasons why ID is NOT scientific. Good reasons that you seem to be able to shrug off...


I posted the link. Sorry, but he really is a Phd Scientist...

http://www.techcentralstation.com/biospencerroy.html

OK, I'm not a scientist. Answer my question.

How do we know the scientific approach is correct? We use it to find the best explanations, but can it be used to explain itself?
I don't understand how you can use it to explain itself. Maybe I don't understand your question.

Scientific theory:
1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3. has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

4. is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Can ID follow any of these processes? If so, why hasn't it been shown before? If not, why does ID insist on being taught in a Science classroom?

Hawkintom']I posted the link. Sorry, but he really is a Phd Scientist...

http://www.techcentralstation.com/biospencerroy.html

He is a meteorologist.

Would you take credence of a biologist talking about meteorological conditions over him?

The find in the Afar region this past year, the first TRANSITIONAL (?) specimen between the UPRIGHT and the ALL-FOURS i think may turn out even more important than the afarensis .... i don't know what they are planning on naming it.

I've posted before on this ..... maybe check the archive, maybe i'll find it & post on the morrow.


As i'd posted ....

*ahem*

First Upright Walker Found
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, Mar.5, 2005


(AP) A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has discovered the fossilized
remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking ancestor, a
hominid that lived in the wooded grasslands of the Horn of Africa nearly 4
million years ago.

The bones were discovered in February at a new site called Mille, in the
northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia, said Bruce Latimer, director of the
Cleveland Museum of Natural History in Ohio. They are estimated to be 3.8-4
million years old.

The fossils include a complete tibia from the lower part of the leg, parts
of a thighbone, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a complete
shoulder blade, or scapula. There also is an anklebone, which, with the
tibia, proves the creature walked upright, said Latimer, co-leader of the
team that discovered the fossils.

The bones are the latest in a growing collection of early human fragments
that help explain the evolutionary history of man.

"Right now we can say this is the world's oldest bipedal (an animal walking
on two feet) and what makes this significant is because what makes us human is walking upright," Latimer said. "This new discovery will give us a
picture of how walking upright occurred."

The findings have not been reviewed by outside scientists or published in a
scientific journal.

Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and head of the Graduate School at
University College in London said, however, that the new finds could be
significant.

"It sounds like a significant find, ... particularly if they have a partial
skeleton because it allows you to speculate on biomechanics," Aiello, who
was not part of the discovery team, told The Associated Press by telephone
from Britain.

Paleontologists previously discovered in Ethiopia the remains of
Ardipithecus ramidus, a transitional creature with significant ape
characteristics dating as far back as 4.5 million years. There is some
dispute over whether it walked upright on two legs, Latimer and Aiello said.

Scientists know little about A. ramidus. A few skeletal fragments suggest it
was even smaller than Australopithecus afarensis, the 3.2 million-year-old
species widely known by the nearly complete "Lucy" fossil, which measures
about 4 feet tall.

Scientists are yet to classify the new find, which they believe falls
between A. ramidus and A. afarensis. The fossils would help "join the dots"
between the two hominids, said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, an Ethiopian
scientist and curator at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History as well a
co-leader of the discovery team.
"This discovery will tell us much about how our 4-million-year-old ancestors
walked, how tall they were and what they looked like," he said. "It opens
the door on a poorly known time period and (the fossils) are important in
that they will help us understand the early phases of human evolution before
Lucy."

The specimen is the only the fourth partial skeleton ever to be discovered
that is older than 3 million years. It was found after two months of
excavation at Mille, 37 miles from the famous Lucy discovery.


"It is a once in a lifetime find," Latimer said.

Yes, these are the steps that are taken to come up with a theory or explanation.

But how does the scientist know for a fact that this is the best method to analyze reality? How does it know what it is analyzing is real?

How, if this method is wrong, can it fix itself? I propose in many cases the scientist has faith in this process.


Occam's Razor:in its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

The simplest explanation is the best.

Wikipedia

Although I don't agree entirelly, it is a good approach, but it does not leave science exempt from taking some assumptions. These need to be acknowledge as such.

Hawkintom']I posted the link. Sorry, but he really is a Phd Scientist...

http://www.techcentralstation.com/biospencerroy.html
Suspect.

Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station has received $95,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

2003
$95,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

Heartland Institute has received $442,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1997
$unknown Mobil Corporation
Source: Heartland material, present at 3/16/97 conference

1998
$30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 1998 grants list

2000
$115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990

2001
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Annual Report

2002
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Annual Report

2003
$7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2003
$85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving Report

2004
$10,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change Activities
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Efforts
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004

2004
$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: Exxon Giving Report 2004



KEY PEOPLE

Roy W. Spencer
Contributing Writer
Source: Heartland Institute website 4/04

He is a meteorologist.

Would you take credence of a biologist talking about meteorological conditions over him?

It's funny. Creationists, or merely people who disagree with evolution, will generally agree with Doctors about medicine, Mathematicians about math, physicists about rocket science, etc., but they won't take a biologist's word about evolution, even when handed a boatload of facts/research.

Why the blind spot?

Yes, these are the steps that are taken to come up with a theory or explanation.

But how does the scientist know for a fact that this is the best method to analyze reality? How does it know what it is analyzing is real?

How, if this method is wrong, can it fix itself? I propose in many cases the scientist has faith in this process.


Occam's Razor:in its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

The simplest explanation is the best.

Wikipedia

I agree with this approach, but it does not leave science exempt from taking some assumptions. These need to be acknowledge as such.
"However, taking the term simplicity at face value leads to an obviously invalid heuristic which deems theories more likely merely by virtue of being easier to comprehend; the modern usage of the razor leans more towards "simplicity" being defined as a theory lacking unnecessarily improbable loose ends rather than a theory that does a better job of "tying things up"." Wikipedia

Divine intervention is far from the simplest explanation. It brings up many more questions than the one you begin with.
It isn't faith in the scientific method. It's reliance. It's relied on because... well... it's been reliable.

It's funny. Creationists, or merely people who disagree with evolution, will generally agree with Doctors about medicine, Mathematicians about math, physicists about rocket science, etc., but they won't take a biologist's word about evolution, even when handed a boatload of facts/research.

Why the blind spot?
They have a plank in their eye.

It's funny. Creationists, or merely people who disagree with evolution, will generally agree with Doctors about medicine, Mathematicians about math, physicists about rocket science, etc., but they won't take a biologist's word about evolution, even when handed a boatload of facts/research.

Why the blind spot?

Simple, really. It boils down to "Man is the pinnacle of creation, and isn't related to no damn, dirty ape".

Divine intervention is far from the simplest explanation. It brings up many more questions than the one you begin with.
It isn't faith in the scientific method. It's reliance. It's relied on because... well... it's been reliable.


re·ly Audio pronunciation of "rely" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l)
intr.v. re·lied, re·ly·ing, re·lies

1. To be dependent for support, help, or supply: relies on her parents for tuition.
2. To place or have faith or confidence: relied on them to tell him the truth.

I'm not for divine intervention, as I said before I think the problem is an epistomological one.

re·ly Audio pronunciation of "rely" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l)
intr.v. re·lied, re·ly·ing, re·lies

1. To be dependent for support, help, or supply: relies on her parents for tuition.
2. To place or have faith or confidence: relied on them to tell him the truth.

I'm not for divine intervention, as I said before I think the problem is an epistomological one.
LOL
OK... poor choice of words on my part. But you understand that I was making a distinction between faith and trust. Trust as in 1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

As opposed to Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing

There is a difference.

LOL
OK... poor choice of words on my part. But you understand that I was making a distinction between faith and trust. Trust as in 1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

As opposed to Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing

There is a difference.

In the definition of trust there's a "reliance" ;)

If there is a difference, what is it?

I might say the will behind scientists' beliefs are different from the will behind the religious person's
Where the religious person's beliefs are based mostly on what is the most pleasuralbe to believe in (eternal life, concrete moral structure etc.)
While the scientist believes for another reason (what it is yet, I don't know, but I have an idea)
But the scientific system is still scrutinizalbe for its constant wanting for order. It orders and labels the world very well, and people who know nothing about science are more than happy to beleive it because it satisfies our instincual lust to view the world as predictable and orderly.

In the definition of trust there's a "reliance" ;)

If there is a difference, what is it?

I might say the will behind scientists' beliefs are different from the will behind the religious person's
Where the religious person's beliefs are based mostly on what is the most pleasuralbe to believe in (eternal life, concrete moral structure etc.)
While the scientist believes for another reason (what it is yet, I don't know, but I have an idea)
But the scientific system is still scrutinizalbe for its constant wanting for order. It orders and labels the world very well, and people who know nothing about science are more than happy to beleive it because it satisfies our instincual lust to view the world as predictable and orderly.
Yes, I know. This faith thing is awful clingy.

The difference is basically that if there were a better method than the scientific one, scientists would adopt it. If there were a better person than Jesus Christ, Christians wouldn't follow him.

There has been little evidence of the world being unpredictable and unorderly. Not having the right knowledge to predict an occurence doesn't mean that it is unpredictable.

Why do I get a head ache talking to you?

Yes, I know. This faith thing is awful clingy.

The difference is basically that if there were a better method than the scientific one, scientists would adopt it. If there were a better person than Jesus Christ, Christians wouldn't follow him.

There has been little evidence of the world being unpredictable and unorderly. Not having the right knowledge to predict an occurence doesn't mean that it is unpredictable.

Why do I get a head ache talking to you?

Yes, but how would a scientist recognize that a system was better than the scientific method when his primary means of evaluating the world...is the scientific method.

Scientists can modify the ends, but they still need to assume the means.

Cuz I'm boring as hell and don't degenerate a philisophical discussion into a shouting match (?)

as·sump·tion Audio pronunciation of "assumption" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.

1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

Every logical argument begins with an assumption. And scientists do assume: cause and effect, empirical observation etc.

So:
How is a scientific assumption different from a religious assumption.

Yes, but how would a scientist recognize that a system was better than the scientific method when his primary means of evaluating the world...is the scientific method.

Scientists can modify the ends, but the still need to assume the means.

Cuz I'm boring as hell and don't degenerate a philisophical discussion into a shouting match (?)
It would most probably have to be an outsider or some one with a huge capability for the abstract within the scientific community to devise a better process. The question itself really does have much more to do with philosophy than anything else.

But, for instance, if we discovered that absolutely nothing was really there, everything in existence was just the dream of a God - how much would that really change? I'd still have to go to the corner store to buy milk and the scientific method would still apply to what is seen and experienced. There has been no issue that has come up where the scientific method wasn't used with a more than fair percentage of success. (I can't think of one.)

Thank you for not being into shouting matches. I'd rather not engage in Bill O'Reilly, Janeane Garafalo (...pretty...) yelling competitions.

as·sump·tion Audio pronunciation of "assumption" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-smpshn)
n.

1. The act of taking to or upon oneself: assumption of an obligation.
2. The act of taking possession or asserting a claim: assumption of command.
3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

Every logical argument begins with an assumption. And scientists do assume: cause and effect, empirical observation etc.

So:
How is a scientific assumption different from a religious assumption.
A religious assumption doesn't invite challenge.

It would most probably have to be an outsider or some one with a huge capability for the abstract within the scientific community to devise a better process. The question itself really does have much more to do with philosophy than anything else.

But, for instance, if we discovered that absolutely nothing was really there, everything in existence was just the dream of a God - how much would that really change? I'd still have to go to the corner store to buy milk and the scientific method would still apply to what is seen and experienced. There has been no issue that has come up where the scientific method wasn't used with a more than fair percentage of success. (I can't think of one.)

Thank you for not being into shouting matches. I'd rather not engage in Bill O'Reilly, Janeane Garafalo (...pretty...) yelling competitions.

But how would the scientific community recognize this new method? Do they not need to change their assumption?

A religious assumption doesn't invite challenge.

Like in Christianity,to question the beleif would invoke the wrath of God.

Alright, but scientists still make assumptions, and I'm still going to make a stand at saying that assumptions are based on faith, in that you do not know anything before you make the assumption.

The difference between the religious assumption and will behind it is different from the scientific one.

Solution: In order to make a informed choice before subjecting oneself to either view, one needs to examine all fields of thought and thought evaluation, mainly through philisophical debate (which for the most part is ignored in public schooling)

Like in Christianity,to question the beleif would invoke the wrath of God.

Alright, but scientists still make assumptions, and I'm still going to make a stand at saying that assumptions are based on faith, in that you do not know anything before you make the assumption.

The difference between the religious assumption and will behind it is different from the scientific one.

Solution: In order to make a informed choice before subjecting oneself to either view, one needs to examine all fields of thought and thought evaluation, mainly through philisophical debate (which for the most part is ignored in public schooling)
It is ignored in public schooling but if they taught it at my high school I wouldn't have felt special for having differing thoughts. It basically comes down to the best reasoning we can come up with today. Plus, can you imagine teaching a math class to a room full of philosophers in the 9th grade?
I'm not sure I agree with you on the assumption part. The assumption part is based on an observance and that at least is something. To assume God, is to infer something which hasn't been seen.
"And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God"

Fear, of course!
That is a primary difference, that Neo Rogolia(sp) chick has it in her sig:
"The fear of the Lord is the beggining of knowledge"
or something like that.

Science does not base its knowledge off of fear.

And one must assume that sensory input is in fact real before one conlcudes that one can make assumptions from them. This assumption is very often overlooked (mostly because if we did question it, we would not have survived to do so)

Epistomology: study of how we know
BTW, philosophy was taught with incredible results at my HS, 12th grade. We had an IB program and the most godly of men for a teacher. It can work, just need much energy. Of course our society won't teach it because it has no practical application :(

Fear, of course!
That is a primary difference, that Neo Rogolia(sp) chick has it in her sig:
"The fear of the Lord is the beggining of knowledge"
or something like that.

Science does not base its knowledge off of fear.

And one must assume that sensory input is in fact real before one conlcudes that one can make assumptions from them. This assumption is very often overlooked (mostly because if we did question it, we would not have survived to do so)

Epistomology: study of how we know
Have we come to some understanding? I'm sorry... my head went for a spin around the block.

Have we come to some understanding? I'm sorry... my head went for a spin around the block.

Yes, yes we have.

Yes, yes we have.
Wow. And on NS, no less.

Like in Christianity,to question the beleif would invoke the wrath of God.

Not the same. In fact making a statement on something automattically gets you the wrath of your fellow scientists. It's expected and universally required.


Alright, but scientists still make assumptions, and I'm still going to make a stand at saying that assumptions are based on faith, in that you do not know anything before you make the assumption.

Then why do you go about trying to disprove your "assumption" Fact remains many things you would label as "faith assumptions" are things that have evidence to suggest they are valid. In time if something better comes along to disprove it; then your "assumption" is tossed.

You can't question the existence of God in Religion. Evolution has never set out ot prove or disprove the existence of God.


Solution: In order to make a informed choice before subjecting oneself to either view, one needs to examine all fields of thought and thought evaluation, mainly through philisophical debate (which for the most part is ignored in public schooling)

Philisophical debate? In college yes. In primary school? No. In secondary school? Maybe.

Even 100 years ago, you didn't find classes teaching philosophy at the junior levels.

Tangent for useless information. Joshua Chamberlain of civil war fame(Little Round Top at Gettysburg) taught 3 courses on seperate philosophical beliefs. How's that for a mind?

This debate is over, I figured out what I came here for.

DM, I congatulate you on being able to maintain semi-socratic dialogue for nearly half an hour.

BF: A scientist's wrath does not end up as eternal damnation.

One must assume sensory input no matter what. This is quasi-faith-based

Rest of argument is settled, I'm taking a shower

Evolution wins!
*falls down dead*

He is a meteorologist.

Would you take credence of a biologist talking about meteorological conditions over him?
I'd like to talk about meteorology. Unfortunately I still don't own a Ph.D., only the german equivalent of a master degree in biology. But I hope this will change.

+Beware: Parody+

Meteorology is not even a science!
It is not proven. I demand the construction of an artificial planet at which the climatic conditions can be controlled. Before that happens, nobody can convince me of the validity of meteorology.
Beside this it is disproven repeatedly. Look at all the wrong weather forecasts.

Meteorology is obviously nonsese!
How can the airpressure influence if it is raining?
How often did it rain when you least need it?
There is obviously a higher, mischievous intelligence which lets it rain.

I demand the recognition of a theory of intelligent raining. This has to be taught in schools. Also I demand that beside the obviously evil and satanic weather forecasts it is publicly prayed for good weather by meteorologist in TV.

I'm not alone. Many people in the science scene have the vague feeling that there is something wrong with meteorology. Particularly during rainy BBQs.

As i'd posted ....

*ahem*

First Upright Walker Found
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, Mar.5, 2005


(AP) A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has discovered the fossilized
remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking ancestor, a hominid that lived in the wooded grasslands of the Horn of Africa nearly 4 million years ago.

I rest my case! You have just posted what I've said all along. It is what they believe.

Particularly telling is the headline, which says something entirely different. It says "First Upright Walker Found" as if it is fact.

Absolutely absurd!

Hawkintom']I rest my case! You have just posted what I've said all along. It is what they believe.

Particularly telling is the headline, which says something entirely different. It says "First Upright Walker Found" as if it is fact.

Absolutely absurd!

Ok so you have obviously never worked on a newspaper.

The Scientists didn't write the story. A reporter did. Guess what? A reporter and the editors can change the headline to anything they want.

But then again it's our conspiracy to hide the truth!

Hawkintom']I rest my case! You have just posted what I've said all along. It is what they believe.

Particularly telling is the headline, which says something entirely different. It says "First Upright Walker Found" as if it is fact.

Absolutely absurd!
I can see by your volumes of material here that you know what you're talking about. :rolleyes:

Put up or shut up, how 'bout that?

Resting your case would probably require HAVING a concrete case in the first place .... doesn't appear so.

Simple, really. It boils down to "Man is the pinnacle of creation, and isn't related to no damn, dirty ape".
Hallelujah!!
Kerchiefs around the neck for all!!!

I can see by your volumes of material here that you know what you're talking about. :rolleyes:

Put up or shut up, how 'bout that?

Resting your case would probably require HAVING a concrete case in the first place .... doesn't appear so.

You must have me confused with someone else. I have put up quite a bit. You're just ignoring it.

Hawkintom']You must have me confused with someone else. I have put up quite a bit. You're just ignoring it.
I quoted you specifically on the topic. No, i don't have you confused with someone else ... but Corneliu apparently has me confused with you.

EDIT ... since i don't have your full "understanding" on the topic, i'll point out that i'm not the only one responding to that specific post of yours.
So far it appears you want to obfuscate the point, not clarify.

Hawkintom']I posted the link. Sorry, but he really is a Phd Scientist...

http://www.techcentralstation.com/biospencerroy.html

Re-read my post.... I said 'PhD calibre'... anyone who talks 'science' the way this joker does is no scientist, in my book.

Be like an Atheist Rabbi....

Re-read my post.... I said 'PhD calibre'... anyone who talks 'science' the way this joker does is no scientist, in my book.


Let me see, do we rate PhD's by Grave_n_idle's book, or by legally accepted norms in society based on education level and qualifications...

Ahh yes. Sorry - you're wrong. He is - by definition - PhD caliber.

Hawkintom']Let me see, do we rate PhD's by Grave_n_idle's book, or by legally accepted norms in society based on education level and qualifications...

Ahh yes. Sorry - you're wrong. He is - by definition - PhD caliber.

Perhaps you have never been through a higher education environment, I cannot know that...

I have. I can tell you there were different students there... there were some hard workers, who knuckled under and did the work. Usually, those people got good grades.

There were some richkids with nothing better to do, than to put off having to get a proper job for as long as they could saty 'in school'. Usually, they failed regularly, or scraped through.

SOME of the hard workers ALSO had other jobs etc, that took up huge amounts of time, or family problems or whatever. They were graduate-GRADE, but they may never have graduated.

SOME of the richkids fluked occassional exams, or did the same modules over and over again, until they finally passed. Some of them got help from other students, or even from professionals. THEY were NOT 'graduate-grade', but they DID graduate anyway.

I've met people with PhD qualifications who were barely literate in their field. They ARE PhD graduates, but it has nothing to do with aptitude. And THAT is a big problem with our 'graduate' oriented societies.

So - for me, the simple fact that a person holds such-and-such a qualification counts for pretty much nothing. It just shows they went to a big school for a while, and passed a course through any one of various means.

Maybe it IS just me... but I think it is more important what a person can DEMONSTRATE, than what a piece of paper SAYS they can do.

Hawkintom']Let me see, do we rate PhD's by Grave_n_idle's book, or by legally accepted norms in society based on education level and qualifications...

Ahh yes. Sorry - you're wrong. He is - by definition - PhD caliber.

So he has a PhD means what? He completed a course of study.

In research a PhD means NOTHING. It is something you are expected to have. The moment you say "I HAVE A PhD" Other PhD "Caliber" people will tell you "That's nice but what have you published lately."

I am surrounded by PhD "Caliber" people and 1/2 of them can barely clean themselves.

Hawkintom']Let me see, do we rate PhD's by Grave_n_idle's book, or by legally accepted norms in society based on education level and qualifications...

Ahh yes. Sorry - you're wrong. He is - by definition - PhD caliber.
Hey, you should get a PhD too!
http://today.slac.stanford.edu/today_detail.asp?id=452

Hey, you should get a PhD too!
http://today.slac.stanford.edu/today_detail.asp?id=452

Are you suggesting that Dr. Spencer's PhD is unearned? If so, then please provide your source. (P.S. University of Wisconsin, 1981 - not by mail...) Otherwise, what does that have to do with this discussion?

Unless you are trying to IMPLY that his PhD isn't valid, even though you really know it is and you just figure that slipping that into the argument might cast doubt on his degree.

Hawkintom']Are you suggesting that Dr. Spencer's PhD is unearned? If so, then please provide your source. (P.S. University of Wisconsin, 1981 - not by mail...) Otherwise, what does that have to do with this discussion?

Unless you are trying to IMPLY that his PhD isn't valid, even though you really know it is and you just figure that slipping that into the argument might cast doubt on his degree.
I'm just saying, that saying someone has PhD is not the only source of credibility one should look for.

Hey, you should get a PhD too!
http://today.slac.stanford.edu/today_detail.asp?id=452

EWWWWW

I want a PhD in Public Drunkeness! I wonder where you get them! :D

Hawkintom']Are you suggesting that Dr. Spencer's PhD is unearned? If so, then please provide your source. (P.S. University of Wisconsin, 1981 - not by mail...) Otherwise, what does that have to do with this discussion?

Unless you are trying to IMPLY that his PhD isn't valid, even though you really know it is and you just figure that slipping that into the argument might cast doubt on his degree.

I think the thrust is that 'valid' is in the eye of the beholder.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/080805I.html

I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

Excuse me, I'm going to go shoot this man in his left foot, he has obviously already shot himself in the other one.