NationStates Jolt Archive

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.
Well they aren't trying to teach English or History in Science lessons are they?
That's the problem - that it's in the wrong place, being masqueraded as the wrong subject.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.
Science + Religion = fights

The argument "It's not science" isn't used to prevent it being taught at all. The argument "It's not science" is used to prevent it being taught in science classes as a legitimate scientific theory. Creationism can be taught in a religion class to your heart's content. Creationism cannot be taught in a biology class. It's not science.

No one has an objection to creationist thought being taught in a philosophy class or a comparative religions class, provided all religions get teaching time.

What the hullibulou is about is that religious nutjobs are trying to get ID taught as science, as some sort of viable alternative to Evolution, which it is not and never will be. I have absolutely no objections to the idea being taught as philosophy or religion - just don't parade it as science.

As to String Theory, I don't know anything about it, so I'll refrain from commenting on it.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.
It's based on religion, ergo it should be taught ( if at all! ) in religion classes, and nowhere else. Period.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.
We don't teach English or History in Science classes.
Even if you think ID is philosophy, it shouldn't be taught as science.
String theory is backed up by mathematical models. ID is backed up by, well, a supernatural agent. Clearly it's religion, not science.

String theory is backed up by mathematical models.
See, that's the thing. It really isn't. According to String Theory, the mathematical probability of our Universe existing is close to nil. They cite dumb luck as our reason for existance. And there's no way to prove or disprove that other Universes exist, come into existance, or are destroyed, since we can't observe outside our own Universe. You just "gotta believe" that there's other Universes out there, since the math vaguely points to a slim chance they're out there. It ain't science in the traditional sense. Either we have to redefine science, or String Theory isn't it.

See, that's the thing. It really isn't. According to String Theory, the mathematical probability of our Universe existing is close to nil. They cite dumb luck as our reason for existance. And there's no way to prove or disprove that other Universes exist, come into existance, or are destroyed, since we can't observe outside our own Universe. You just "gotta believe" that there's other Universes out there, since the math vaguely points to a slim chance they're out there. It ain't science in the traditional sense. Either we have to redefine science, or String Theory isn't it.
the strings (if they exist) do more than just exist....

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article.

The crux is that it is theoretically testable/experimentally verifiable (whereas ID is inherently impossible to test) and that it is a scientific theory, conforming to the principles of empirical logic.

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either.

How stupid. No one is suggesting that in all of school we only teach science; the point is that in science class we only teach science.

The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical.

But that 'philosophy' presupposes an a supreme creator being, which is inherently religious.

Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

I, and I'd think you'd find most anyone, would easily support that. I definitely agree that today's students, and population in general, need more philosophy education, and ID is certainly better suited to that kind of class, or a theology class, than a science one.

Well, I've never been in a class where String Theory was taught as fact. Nor have I heard anyone clamoring for it to be given equal time in a high school Physics course, the way some are clamoring for ID to be taught in Biology. Right now, I think there are too many questions about String Theory for it to be taught as fact. As for the ID stuff, everything I could say has already been said.

And since when is string theory taught in secondary school anyway? This seems to me to be a non-issue.

True. String theory is taught as a prime candidate among several possible unifying theories in classes covering theoretical physics. It isn't taught the way evolution because it's still a theory in development, and also because of the nature of extremely high-level physics itself.

And since when is string theory taught in secondary school anyway? This seems to me to be a non-issue.
Touché

I think the point is that string theory is taught as a theory but ID was proposed to be taught as fact. Teaching String theory as reality would problably be wrong as well. As neither are testible they are both philophies (spelling bah!) like atoms were to the Greeks. The difference is merely that string theory fits in with existing knowledge and theories.

See, that's the thing. It really isn't. According to String Theory, the mathematical probability of our Universe existing is close to nil. They cite dumb luck as our reason for existance. And there's no way to prove or disprove that other Universes exist, come into existance, or are destroyed, since we can't observe outside our own Universe. You just "gotta believe" that there's other Universes out there, since the math vaguely points to a slim chance they're out there. It ain't science in the traditional sense. Either we have to redefine science, or String Theory isn't it.
My (limited) understanding of String Theory was that it allowed for the creation of infinite universes, of which at least one would be capable of producing and supporting life. While it may seem like it is "dumb luck", in reality it proves that a universe would eventually have had to be produced that would sustain life.

True. String theory is taught as a prime candidate among several possible unifying theories in classes covering theoretical physics. It isn't taught the way evolution because it's still a theory in development, and also because of the nature of extremely high-level physics itself.
Technically, evolution is still a theory in development as well.
[/pedantry]

See, that's the thing. It really isn't. According to String Theory, the mathematical probability of our Universe existing is close to nil. They cite dumb luck as our reason for existance. And there's no way to prove or disprove that other Universes exist, come into existance, or are destroyed, since we can't observe outside our own Universe. You just "gotta believe" that there's other Universes out there, since the math vaguely points to a slim chance they're out there. It ain't science in the traditional sense. Either we have to redefine science, or String Theory isn't it.
It may be possible to test string theory.

A recipe for making strings in the lab
11 May 2005

Theoretical physicists in the Netherlands have proposed a way to make superstrings in the laboratory. If their idea can be put into practice, it would allow aspects of string theory to be explored in an experiment for the first time. The new approach relies on exploiting the properties of ultracold atomic gases (arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505055).

String theorists attempt to explain all the fundamental particles as vibrations on tiny strings on length scales of about 10-33 centimetres. The theory naturally includes "supersymmetry" - a symmetry that connects particles with integer spin, known as bosons, to particles with half-integer spin, which are known as fermions. The particles that carry the fundamental forces of nature, such as the photon and the gluon, are bosons, while the quarks and leptons that make up matter are fermions. Although superstring theory is the leading candidate for a theory of everything, there is no experimental evidence to date for strings or supersymmetry.



Now Michiel Snoek, Masudul Haque, Stefan Vandoren and Henk Stoof of Utrecht University have proposed making a "non-relativistic Green-Schwarz superstring" by trapping an ultracold cloud of fermionic atoms along the core of a quantized vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC). A BEC is a special state of matter in which all the particles are in the same quantum ground state. Bosonic atoms such as rubidium-87 can enter such as state because, unlike fermions, they do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle.

The bosonic part of the superstring would consist of a vortex line created by rapidly rotating a one-dimensional BEC in an optical lattice (see figure). Next, a gas of fermion atoms, such as potassium-40, would be trapped within this vortex, which is possible under certain conditions. Snoek and colleagues say that it should be possible to observe the supersymmetry between the fermions and bosons by carefully tuning the interactions between the two types of atom with a laser.

Quantized vortices were first seen in superfluid helium. They are formed inside a rotating superfluid when it begins to spin faster than a certain critical speed. In the mid-1990s it was suggested that these vortices could simulate the formation of cosmic strings in the early universe.


It's impossible to test ID.

Someone may have mentioned this already but....

1.) I don't think string theory is taught at the high school level

2.) String theory fits certain predications about electrons to 10 decimal places. ID does not make predictions that can be disproven via either observation or mathmatics.

I may be wrong but I've never seen evidence to that effect.

A theory must make a statement about the known universe that has the potential to be proven false via experiments.

See, that's the thing. It really isn't. According to String Theory, the mathematical probability of our Universe existing is close to nil. They cite dumb luck as our reason for existance. And there's no way to prove or disprove that other Universes exist, come into existance, or are destroyed, since we can't observe outside our own Universe. You just "gotta believe" that there's other Universes out there, since the math vaguely points to a slim chance they're out there. It ain't science in the traditional sense. Either we have to redefine science, or String Theory isn't it.

Obviously, you know next to nothing about string theory, and your logic and probability/statistics skills are severely lacking as well.

String theory is supported by mathematical models - it's the foundation of the concept. What you term 'vague pointing by the math' is the fulcrum between theories in theoretical physics - you're apparently incapable of judging or understanding scale. What is an incredibly tiny and negligible number on everday scales is the difference between Big Crunch and Heat Death, string theory and the Standard Model, three families of particles and four, in sufficiently advanced physics.

As far as the "dumb luck" bs goes, this is where the lack of probability/statistics and basic logic knowledge comes in. Think about it real hard: If we exist (which we obviously do), is it not inherent and incumbent that the universe we observe be capable of supporting us? Reality check (NPI): The only universe it is possible for a human to observe is one fine-tuned for our existence. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here observing it. If you take string theory (and other models that support multiple universes) into account, you see that it's simple statistical inevitability that a certain proportion of universes follow such-and-such paradigm and eventually be capable of supporting organic life and intelligent subsystems.

And in the pure technical sense Newtons theories are inaccurate yet the fit in most circumstances so we teach them and use them. i feel evolution is in a similar boat.


I reiterate similar and not the same. They are incomplete theories but not out and out wrong.

Heh... what if the string theory eventually confirmed ID? :D

Well, anyway, ID should be better taught in philosophy until then.

Everything is a theory. String theory is much more theory then fact and it will remain so for qutie sometime. Even evolution and the big bang are back up by solid empirical data. When you here scienist say "we are not completely sure about the workings of the big bang" they are talking about the first few pico seconds after it happened. However once you get past the first second of the universes existence it is easily explained by scientists.

See, that's the thing. It really isn't.

Eehmm.. yes, it IS. String theory in fact is a mathematical model. If it has any real meaning is another debate.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.
NOVA: Then how do you respond to critics who say, "This is just not testable. It's not science."

Peet: String theorists worry a lot about whether our approach to understanding all of the forces and unification is the right track to be following. I think the best justification at present is that it's really, by far, the best approach to trying to understand the quantum theory of gravity. It's certainly better than taking Einstein's general relativity theory and trying to kludge it together with the standard model]. Just taking general relativity and the standard model, which is a quantum theory, doesn't enable you to calculate anything in extreme regimes deep inside black holes or back at the origin of the universe.

So it's the best we've got. And if it turns out that a part of it is not really the right way to be proceeding, what we'll find is that we'll need to add extra ideas or change our attack somewhat. But as scientists, all we can really do is work with the best theory that we've got and keep refining it as the experimental data keep coming in.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-peet.html

Predict something with ID theory... then scientists will look at it as a theory.

Nobody teaches string theory in school though. Hell, I'm in my fourth year of an undergraduate degree in physics and they only mention it occasionally and not really in too much depth, hell, I think most of my exposure to string theory has been through my own personal reading and presentations from my classmates (not in the curriculum, but something they chose to research and present)

And there are some tests that can be done, CERN is building a huge-ass accelerator right now.

Everything is a theory. String theory is much more theory then fact and it will remain so for qutie sometime. Even evolution and the big bang are back up by solid empirical data. When you here scienist say "we are not completely sure about the workings of the big bang" they are talking about the first few pico seconds after it happened. However once you get past the first second of the universes existence it is easily explained by scientists.

The inflationary period is the really interesting part....

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.
It's news to me that anybody is trying to present string theory as an inarguable fact. This is quite a big difference from id, as far as I can make out.

Creationism cannot be taught in a biology class. It's not science.

Ok, so how would you feel as opposed to teaching the "god did it" line, that instead the flaws that creationism exposes in the current evolutionary model should be discussed in science classes. Its only fair that if a theory does have flaws in its model, we should examine them

Ok, so how would you feel as opposed to teaching the "god did it" line, that instead the flaws that creationism exposes in the current evolutionary model should be discussed in science classes. Its only fair that if a theory does have flaws in its model, we should examine them

Which flaws does creationism point out? I'm not flaming, only asking - not had much exposure to creationism, but a lot to the evolutionary model :)

Ok, so how would you feel as opposed to teaching the "god did it" line, that instead the flaws that creationism exposes in the current evolutionary model should be discussed in science classes. Its only fair that if a theory does have flaws in its model, we should examine them
The flaws that creationists cite aren't actually flaws though, just a complete misunderstanding of the matter based on refusing to study it in any depth: the stupid bastards are still claiming that archeoptrex isn't a transitional fossil, for heaven's sake.

The flaws that creationists cite aren't actually flaws though, just a complete misunderstanding of the matter based on refusing to study it in any depth: the stupid bastards are still claiming that archeoptrex isn't a transitional fossil, for heaven's sake.

This is the problem. Scientists refuse to accept the posibility that there are any flaws. Untill a level of open discussion is allowed. This will get nowhere

One example of a flaw is the cambrian strata. A massive load of animals appear suddenly with some of them having no evolutionary predecsors. Add to that that some of them have eyes which no animal before them ever had anything like. Yet they are fully developed. Now there are possible scientific explainations, but no way of proving them. They are just speculation.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

It is scientifically testable. Experiments have been designed that could establish its validity. Problem is that right now we don't have the instruments to carry out these experiments. Some of them will be available in the next decade, though.

Anyway, string theory is getting too complicated for it's own good. Perhaps a new theory will replace it sooner than that. Maybe a return to ehter theory?

That's probably why string theory isn't taught to high-school students; it's way too complicated and unproven to be taught with more established (and falsifiable) ideas like relativity and Newtonian mechanics. I recall a quote "string theory is still promising...and promising, and promising"

This is the problem. Scientists refuse to accept the posibility that there are any flaws. Untill a level of open discussion is allowed. This will get nowhere

One example of a flaw is the cambrian strata. A massive load of animals appear suddenly with some of them having no evolutionary predecsors. Add to that that some of them have eyes which no animal before them ever had anything like. Yet they are fully developed. Now there are possible scientific explainations, but no way of proving them. They are just speculation.

I wish I knew more paleontology :( I didn't even know when the cambian strata corresponds to without looking it up!

But given the vanishingly small % of creatures that lay down complete - or indeed any - fossils, is it any wonder there are gaps in the fossil record? It's random luck A) which were laid down B) which survive C) which we find D) which order we find them in. The amazing thing would be if we _could_ find links for _everything_, _that_ would imply there's a greater power shaping our destiny!

Eyes - how do you mean? Surely too soft a tissue to leave definite imprints anyway? Or... no, sorry, go on, what were you meaning?

Ok, so how would you feel as opposed to teaching the "god did it" line, that instead the flaws that creationism exposes in the current evolutionary model should be discussed in science classes. Its only fair that if a theory does have flaws in its model, we should examine them
Highschool kids don't learn enough science to get around to learning the flaws in theories (not that creationism finds any in evolution) hell, they're taught Newton's version of gravity despite the fact that it doesn't work for explaining say, the precession of Mercury's orbit. However, it's simple enough that highschoolers, with their limited mathematical abilities can grasp it.

This is the problem. Scientists refuse to accept the posibility that there are any flaws. Untill a level of open discussion is allowed. This will get nowhere
You don't know the first thing about science or scientists, do you?

That's probably why string theory isn't taught to high-school students; it's way too complicated and unproven to be taught with more established (and falsifiable) ideas like relativity and Newtonian mechanics. I recall a quote "string theory is still promising...and promising, and promising"
You guys learned about relativity in highschool? Lucky.

This is the problem. Scientists refuse to accept the posibility that there are any flaws. Untill a level of open discussion is allowed. This will get nowhere
There has been an open level of debate about this for years. Creationists refuse to participate in it, however, which is why they aren't entitled to claim that the drivel they spout has anything to do with science. If it hasn't been put up for peer review and confirmed by other people's research, it isn't anything of the sort. Most of this crap is less credible than Von Daniken's findings.

One example of a flaw is the cambrian strata. A massive load of animals appear suddenly with some of them having no evolutionary predecsors. Add to that that some of them have eyes which no animal before them ever had anything like. Yet they are fully developed. Now there are possible scientific explainations, but no way of proving them. They are just speculation.
Not actually true. Perhaps you should try reading something about the cambrian period written by somebody other than Duane Gish?

This is the problem. Scientists refuse to accept the posibility that there are any flaws. Untill a level of open discussion is allowed. This will get nowhere

One example of a flaw is the cambrian strata. A massive load of animals appear suddenly with some of them having no evolutionary predecsors. Add to that that some of them have eyes which no animal before them ever had anything like. Yet they are fully developed. Now there are possible scientific explainations, but no way of proving them. They are just speculation.
In order for a fossil to be a fossil, it has to have the characteristics of both location and sturdy enough parts to be fossilized. The cambrian era is the earliest times in which massive fossilization occurred. Lack of a fossil is not lack of existance.

"It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion". "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

String is an Intelligent Design that TrashCat attacks with vigorous pouncing.

This is the problem. Scientists refuse to accept the posibility that there are any flaws. Untill a level of open discussion is allowed. This will get nowhere

The actual purpose of science is to find flaws in existing theories and then correct them - getting better and better theories. Finding an actual major flaw in for instance the theory of evolution will credit you with fame, lots of publications and a name in the history books. Changing or misrepresenting the theory so it contains flaws followed by an attack on those flaws however will lead to you being ridiculed - as is only fair.

So far all the attacks by ID proponents on evolution have been of the second category. At the same time ID proponents have presented nothing that actually supports ID, or makes it any more valuable than e.g. the spaghetti monsterism, the whole "we are inside the matrix" idea or one of several million alternative explanations on how we came to be. If they want ID to be taken seriously, they'd better start to back actually back it up instead of just trying to discredit competitiors. But if they want to make evolution a stronger and better developed theory - they should just continue what they are doing now.

This is the problem. Scientists refuse to accept the posibility that there are any flaws. Untill a level of open discussion is allowed. This will get nowhere

One example of a flaw is the cambrian strata. A massive load of animals appear suddenly with some of them having no evolutionary predecsors. Add to that that some of them have eyes which no animal before them ever had anything like. Yet they are fully developed. Now there are possible scientific explainations, but no way of proving them. They are just speculation.
This is a clear misunderstanding of the facts.

Multicellular life was already in existence before the cambrian explosion. See the Doushantuo Formation in China.

There are transitional fossils within the cambrian explosion.

The cambrian explosion spanned five to ten million years. Hardly sudden.

String Theory is merely theoretical physics; and as far as I'm aware, theoretical physics is not illegal.

The argument "It's not science" isn't used to prevent it being taught at all. The argument "It's not science" is used to prevent it being taught in science classes as a legitimate scientific theory. Creationism can be taught in a religion class to your heart's content. Creationism cannot be taught in a biology class. It's not science.
bingo :fluffle:

As has already been mentioned, ID is being taught as science. ID is not science. Secondly, ID proponents are just crazy Bible-thumping jesus-freaks who want God to be taught in school, a place where it doesn't belong. We have churches for God, schools for the teaching of evolution. "...and Congress shall make no laws regarding religion, or the free practice thereof..."

ID propenents (a.k.a. Creationists) want to force their beliefs on others; force non Bible-thumping jesus-freaks to conform, which just isn't fair. There are other religions out there than Christianity, and they deserved to be recognized, too (www.venganza.org). It should also be noted that the Dover school board members LIED about their motives. o_O

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

http://img151.echo.cx/img151/2760/believerscomic5et.jpg

Secondly, ID proponents are just crazy Bible-thumping jesus-freaks who want God to be taught in school, a place where it doesn't belong.

Correction: comparitive religion, discussion of God and the various creation stories definately do belong in schools. The are very important in a historic and cultural context. Just not in a science class.

ID on the other hand belongs in a trashcan - all it does is harm. Both to religions and science. Possibly even more to the former than the latter.

Scientists love flaws. We seek them out actively. We even test truths. We disperse our findings to other scientists and beg them to test our findings. In fact, the whole idea behind the scientific theory is to disprove something.

If you want to say what scientists do, you need to read far enough into your high school Bio book to figure out the scientific theory(chapter 1 or 2) before you go describing us.

The Grand Canyon is 1 mile deep. That is 5,280 feet. The earth was created and then the Grand Canyon was carved in about 5000 years(says ID/creationism). That would be about a foot a year. Go put a ruler anywhere on the floor of the Grand Canyon (has to be on rock not sediment) and we will talk in a year.

Correction: comparitive religion, discussion of God and the various creation stories definately do belong in schools. The are very important in a historic and cultural context. Just not in a science class.



Agreed, but Comparative Religion isn't something to be discussed in Science class. That's Social Studies stuff. And even then, many major religions should be discussed, not just Christianity. The ID people are saying that A (in reference to one) divine deity/god/thingy created Earth. That completely throws religions that worship more than one god out the window. Secondly, they fail to state how the Earth was created. Again, this is a place where many religions differ.

Ok, so how would you feel as opposed to teaching the "god did it" line, that instead the flaws that creationism exposes in the current evolutionary model should be discussed in science classes. Its only fair that if a theory does have flaws in its model, we should examine them

Creationism does not expose any flaws in the current evolutionary model. To expose a flaw, you would have to take an element of evolution, and prove it wrong, while providing a more logical, coherent explanation for the element you just proved wrong. While it's very easily possible to disprove portions of the evolutionary theory, any explanation Creationism could provide would, in the end, boil down to "God did it". And that is not a valid explanation for anything.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

Actually, string theory isn't really taught in science classes because the math behind it is just insane. More so, "Hey look at this. Okay you're done."

It's taught in very advance physics....which I consider a math class.

Anyone notice how Adriatitca just disappears with nary a word of counterargument, admittal of defeat, etc. after his points are blown out of the water?....

Ah... String Theory.

The emphasis is on THEORY obviously. Though it could almost be considered a faith of some sort.

Limited provability, little to no solid evidence, accepting the existence of over 11 dimensions, and it's complete with a revised 'big bang' theory where in the universe is created by the collision of a bunch of these mega 'strings' which are actually more like membranes of some kind.

Still, the fact that it's got more science than Scientology keeps the scientific community from tossing it out. After all, anything that uses THAT much math can't be too bad.

As for 'teaching' it in our schools, what High School's teaching it now anyway? I mean this stuff's confusing as heck and I doubt most High School students are gonna be able to wrap their heads around it. It's really a College course, and as far as I know Colleges can kind of teach whatever they want.

You've got a point on that one Monkey. But it brought up (for me) an interesting point. People see "Theory" and they go nuts. It's like saying "This is something we're unsure about."
Well... Usually "Theory" refers to the mathematical/scientific DESCRIPTION.
Technically, evolution is still a theory in development as well.
[/pedantry]
The Theory of Evolution... Its not the evolving of organisms that's in question, its the various mathematical and scientific descriptions surrounding it.
Same kinda thing with the Theory of Gravity, except now that it has been observed enough and not disproven, its called the Law of Gravity.
Now with String Theory, I have no idea. Perhaps it is the actual existence of them being called into question.

This is a clear misunderstanding of the facts.

Multicellular life was already in existence before the cambrian explosion. See the Doushantuo Formation in China.

There are transitional fossils within the cambrian explosion.

The cambrian explosion spanned five to ten million years. Hardly sudden.

Multi cellular life, yes. Evolutionary predecessors to the animals in the cambrian strata, no. And thats nothing compared with the problem when you have one fossil straddling a layer of fossils which is claimed to be several million years apart, but with one fossiliesd tree reaching across the entire band.

Anyone notice how Adriatitca just disappears with nary a word of counterargument, admittal of defeat, etc. after his points are blown out of the water?....

It may suprise you to know, but I have a life outside of NS.

Creationism does not expose any flaws in the current evolutionary model. To expose a flaw, you would have to take an element of evolution, and prove it wrong, while providing a more logical, coherent explanation for the element you just proved wrong. While it's very easily possible to disprove portions of the evolutionary theory, any explanation Creationism could provide would, in the end, boil down to "God did it". And that is not a valid explanation for anything.

"God did it" is what bad creationists do. "God did it" I agree is bad science. Good creationists however examine evidence which does throw levels of current evolutionary scienticifc conclusion into question. Thus making the point that the current models are not as sure footed as they claim they are. I dont support one idea or the other fully. I dont know enough about either of them.

"God did it" is what bad creationists do. "God did it" I agree is bad science. Good creationists however examine evidence which does throw levels of current evolutionary scienticifc conclusion into question. Thus making the point that the current models are not as sure footed as they claim they are.

No, that is what good *scientists* - or more specifically *good biologists* do. Creationists by definition always invoke the "God did it" argument.

Secondly, ID proponents are just crazy Bible-thumping jesus-freaks who want God to be taught in school, a place where it doesn't belong

Its this kind of one sided opinion that makes debate impossible. If one side is always made out to just be stupid, rather than actually examining the debate and having a discussion, then nothing gets anywhere.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.
I would be surprised if Theoretical Physics got more than a mention in public schools. It's a university level course.

Its this kind of one sided opinion that makes debate impossible. If one side is always made out to just be stupid, rather than actually examining the debate and having a discussion, then nothing gets anywhere.

Then please give *any* example of what the merits of ID are. Attacks on evolution belong in debates/classes on evolution - they say nothing about the value of ID.

No, that is what good *scientists* - or more specifically *good biologists* do. Creationists by definition always invoke the "God did it" argument.

No they dont. That is a common perception of creationists. But its not the case. True creationists examine flaws in the evolutionary model and other scientific models regarding the origin of the universe and examine flaws which suggest altenative conclusions.

Then please give *any* example of what the merits of ID are. Attacks on evolution belong in debates/classes on evolution - they say nothing about the value of ID.

I havent said anything about ID, or creationism. You assume (illogically so) that any attack on evolution is support for ID. It isnt. I'm just saying that there are flaws and that they need to be taught so as not to give people the idea that the current models of the origin of life and the universe are as sound as everyone says.

Ah... String Theory.

The emphasis is on THEORY obviously. Though it could almost be considered a faith of some sort.
Um... no, the accent is on "string". All of science is theory, so putting accent on that is useless.

Limited provability, little to no solid evidence, accepting the existence of over 11 dimensions, and it's complete with a revised 'big bang' theory where in the universe is created by the collision of a bunch of these mega 'strings' which are actually more like membranes of some kind.
The evidence of String Theory is mathematical, and therefore entirely provable by that means. That it isn't observable in the phsyical world is as tenuous an argument as that so-and-so bones haven't yet been dug up by archaeology. It spurs an incredulous, "D'uh!"

Still, the fact that it's got more science than Scientology keeps the scientific community from tossing it out. After all, anything that uses THAT much math can't be too bad.
No, the fact that it is mathematics keeps the scientific community from tossing it out.

No they dont. That is a common perception of creationists. But its not the case. True creationists examine flaws in the evolutionary model and other scientific models regarding the origin of the universe and examine flaws which suggest altenative conclusions.

Those alternative conclusions being limited to a "Creation" of course.

No they dont. That is a common perception of creationists. But its not the case. True creationists examine flaws in the evolutionary model and other scientific models regarding the origin of the universe and examine flaws which suggest altenative conclusions.
So what flaws do these dilligent Creationists find in Creationism?

I havent said anything about ID, or creationism. You assume (illogically so) that any attack on evolution is support for ID. It isnt. I'm just saying that there are flaws and that they need to be taught so as not to give people the idea that the current models of the origin of life and the universe are as sound as everyone says.

Actually, it's the ID'ers who think that pointing out perceived flaws in the Theory of Evolution will magically make ID right.

Those alternative conclusions being limited to a "Creation" of course.
actually, no. there are those of the ID camp that believe that Evolution is the "How" and God is the "Who".

so yes, there are ID supporters who do NOT take the Bible litterally.

actually, no. there are those of the ID camp that believe that Evolution is the "How" and God is the "Who".

so yes, there are ID supporters who do NOT take the Bible litterally.

Yes, I was being unclear here. But nonetheless it started with a creation. And then a "guided" evolutionary process followed.

It may be possible to test string theory.



It's impossible to test ID.

It is possible to test aspects of ID.

Edit: And there are some parts of evolutionary theory that are impossible to test.

So what flaws do these dilligent Creationists find in Creationism?

I'm going to assume that you meant to say what flaws do creationists find in evolution. Well one flaw is species differenciation. Evolutionary logic basicly states that at some point, animal X will give birth to something that is not animal X any more, but a diffrent species. However, one of the key chartersitcs with species variation is that one species cannot naturally reproduce with another. So when animal X does give birth to something which is not animal X (animal Y) it will have a hard time continuing its evolutionary cycle, as it cannot reproduce with any of the other members of its nearest species. However there is an alternative explanation for this, which is the notion that the changes happen so gradually that they can still reproduce. But the problem with that is that the change is then diluted. If animal X gives birth to animal Y with Z advantageous trait, if animal Y then has offspring with another member of animal X's species then logically that advantageous trait's genetic code will be diluted and weakened. This is my exceptionally basic understanding of it, so dont expect a full abilty to descrbie this in detail. But the point is that this discussion, in a much more advanced level is what creationists put forward.

It is possible to test aspects of ID.
Which?

Actually, it's the ID'ers who think that pointing out perceived flaws in the Theory of Evolution will magically make ID right.

You are adressing me in this discussion. I am not the "ID'ers" as you put it. So dont make up assumptions about my postion. Contary to the American mindset, not everyone fits in a neat little box with a set of pre-defined views.

I'm going to assume that you meant to say what flaws do creationists find in evolution. Well one flaw is species differenciation. Evolutionary logic basicly states that at some point, animal X will give birth to something that is not animal X any more, but a diffrent species. However, one of the key chartersitcs with species variation is that one species cannot naturally reproduce with another. So when animal X does give birth to something which is not animal X (animal Y) it will have a hard time continuing its evolutionary cycle, as it cannot reproduce with any of the other members of its nearest species. However there is an alternative explanation for this, which is the notion that the changes happen so gradually that they can still reproduce. But the problem with that is that the change is then diluted. If animal X gives birth to animal Y with Z advantageous trait, if animal Y then has offspring with another member of animal X's species then logically that advantageous trait's genetic code will be diluted and weakened. This is my exceptionally basic understanding of it, so dont expect a full abilty to descrbie this in detail. But the point is that this discussion, in a much more advanced level is what creationists put forward.
No, I meant what I said. You said, "True creationists examine flaws in the evolutionary model and other scientific models..."

If these Creationists are are diligent as you profess, then must also be looking for flaws in ID/Creationism, which they believe to be scientific.

No they dont. That is a common perception of creationists. But its not the case. True creationists examine flaws in the evolutionary model and other scientific models regarding the origin of the universe and examine flaws which suggest altenative conclusions.

Again: those are not creationists - those are *good* scientists/biologists. While I readily admit that many people calling themselves scientists are way too willing to accept existing theories as "pure dogma", some specimens of this creature still exist.

A creationist believes everything was created and searches evidence to support that notion. He does not merely want to disprove existing models and find alternatives, he already has an alternative and wants to prove it right.


I havent said anything about ID, or creationism. You assume (illogically so) that any attack on evolution is support for ID. It isnt.

Actually I was *attacking* that notion - I fully agree with you that it isn't.

I'm just saying that there are flaws and that they need to be taught so as not to give people the idea that the current models of the origin of life and the universe are as sound as everyone says.

They *are* being taught, but at the appropiate level. Newtons laws for instance are wrong - but serve as good enough approximation for most people. Some goes for Bohrs model of the atom. They are not the "truth", but they are very good and useable approximations which can serve as a stepping stone.

Similarily you will never be able to accurately discuss the flaws in things like evolution and string theory on a high school - the knowledge required to actually *comprehend* the flaws trancends the curriculum by far.

Which?

For example, when we begin with the design of a human ear, we have basically three possibilities. The first one is that the design can be accounted for by randomness. The second possibility is that it can be accounted for by a law of nature. The third possibility is that it can be accounted for by a supernatural interference. While the third possibility cannot be tested, the first two can be. Thus, ID makes the assumption that when the first two possibilities can be ruled out, the third one is acceptable, although not proven.

Thus, some parts of ID can be tested. I suppose one might point out that the major conclusions, the third option, cannot be tested. That is true, and is, perhaps, the weakest point of ID. But adherents to evolutionary theory should look to their own weaknesses also.

No, I meant what I said. You said, "True creationists examine flaws in the evolutionary model and other scientific models..."

If these Creationists are are diligent as you profess, then must also be looking for flaws in ID/Creationism, which they believe to be scientific.

When I said other scientific models, I was of course refering to those outside the relm of biology, IE the big bang (the physical model of the origins of the universe)

I'm going to assume that you meant to say what flaws do creationists find in evolution. Well one flaw is species differenciation. Evolutionary logic basicly states that at some point, animal X will give birth to something that is not animal X any more, but a diffrent species. However, one of the key chartersitcs with species variation is that one species cannot naturally reproduce with another. So when animal X does give birth to something which is not animal X (animal Y) it will have a hard time continuing its evolutionary cycle, as it cannot reproduce with any of the other members of its nearest species. However there is an alternative explanation for this, which is the notion that the changes happen so gradually that they can still reproduce. But the problem with that is that the change is then diluted. If animal X gives birth to animal Y with Z advantageous trait, if animal Y then has offspring with another member of animal X's species then logically that advantageous trait's genetic code will be diluted and weakened. This is my exceptionally basic understanding of it, so dont expect a full abilty to descrbie this in detail. But the point is that this discussion, in a much more advanced level is what creationists put forward.

Evolution Theory does not say that animal X gives birth to animal Y.

Imagine a group of animals seperated from a group of the same animals in a different surrounding. This group adapts to the new surrounding through beneficial genetic mutation, the other group is already very well adapted, so little to no mutations will be beneficial. At some point at the future this group will be of such difference to the other group that we call it another species.

For example, when we begin with the design of a human ear, we have basically three possibilities. The first one is that the design can be accounted for by randomness. The second possibility is that it can be accounted for by a law of nature. The third possibility is that it can be accounted for by a supernatural interference. While the third possibility cannot be tested, the first two can be. Thus, ID makes the assumption that when the first two possibilities can be ruled out, the third one is acceptable, although not proven.

Which of course uses the mistaken assumption that those are the only three options - unless your definition of "randomness" is extremely broad and includes not really random things.

For example, when we begin with the design of a human ear, we have basically three possibilities. The first one is that the design can be accounted for by randomness. The second possibility is that it can be accounted for by a law of nature. The third possibility is that it can be accounted for by a supernatural interference. While the third possibility cannot be tested, the first two can be. Thus, ID makes the assumption that when the first two possibilities can be ruled out, the third one is acceptable, although not proven.

Thus, some parts of ID can be tested. I suppose one might point out that the major conclusions, the third option, cannot be tested. That is true, and is, perhaps, the weakest point of ID. But adherents to evolutionary theory should look to their own weaknesses also.
Alright, a process of elimination; that is not a test of the third possibility. And that does not lead to "truth" through science. If the third possibility can also be ruled out (because it involves a supernatural element) then what is "truth" via science must be elsewhere.

When I said other scientific models, I was of course refering to those outside the relm of biology, IE the big bang (the physical model of the origins of the universe)
But there are surely some Creationists who are both diligent and supporters of ID as science. They MUST be looking for the flaws in ID/Creationism. I was just wondering what those might be.

You are adressing me in this discussion. I am not the "ID'ers" as you put it. So dont make up assumptions about my postion. Contary to the American mindset, not everyone fits in a neat little box with a set of pre-defined views.

I did not put it that you are an ID'er. You posted:

I havent said anything about ID, or creationism. You assume (illogically so) that any attack on evolution is support for ID. It isnt. I'm just saying that there are flaws and that they need to be taught so as not to give people the idea that the current models of the origin of life and the universe are as sound as everyone says.

And I replied with:

Actually, it's the ID'ers who think that pointing out perceived flaws in the Theory of Evolution will magically make ID right.

I did not imply that you are an ID'er. I did not say "it's YOU ID'ers", I said it's "THE ID'ers". I was merely posting my opinion on ID'ers as an answer to your post. My post did not adress you personally in any way - it did adress your point though.

For example, when we begin with the design of a human ear, we have basically three possibilities. The first one is that the design can be accounted for by randomness. The second possibility is that it can be accounted for by a law of nature. The third possibility is that it can be accounted for by a supernatural interference. While the third possibility cannot be tested, the first two can be. Thus, ID makes the assumption that when the first two possibilities can be ruled out, the third one is acceptable, although not proven.

Thus, some parts of ID can be tested. I suppose one might point out that the major conclusions, the third option, cannot be tested. That is true, and is, perhaps, the weakest point of ID. But adherents to evolutionary theory should look to their own weaknesses also.

Well, so it cannot be tested. A and B being wrong, does not make C right.

Good creationists however examine evidence which does throw levels of current evolutionary scienticifc conclusion into question.
Name names and provide examples, then.

Which of course uses the mistaken assumption that those are the only three options - unless your definition of "randomness" is extremely broad and includes not really random things.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what the IDers mean by 'randomness'. It is their particular field of research, after all, not mine. I was merely pointing out their process.

But you, on the other hand, have claimed that limiting the options to three is a mistake. It may be, since once again, I do not know enough about it to correct you. However, in a court of law, when the jury is trying to determine whether someone is guilty of a felon, I understand that these are these three basic options. Thus, the process seems to be based on common sense. Whether it is scientific or not depends on what your ideas of science are.

Well, so it cannot be tested. A and B being wrong, does not make C right.

Precisely put. You do have a point. However, we tend to put people away behind bars based on the same sort of reasoning. The process of deduction or elimination is not so unreliable as it may sound. Much of science depends on the same process, remember.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

But they dont want to teach english or history in science classes. ID is fine in theology or philosophy classes, but not in biology or astro physics. While string theory is more a hypothesis than a theory, it is more science than ID because it does not involve the supernatural, and can be modified if something is found that proves part of it wrong, which is the basis of science.

Precisely put. You do have a point. However, we tend to put people away behind bars based on the same sort of reasoning. The process of deduction or elimination is not so unreliable as it may sound. Much of science depends on the same process, remember.
Justice is not science.

Evolution Theory does not say that animal X gives birth to animal Y.

Imagine a group of animals seperated from a group of the same animals in a different surrounding. This group adapts to the new surrounding through beneficial genetic mutation, the other group is already very well adapted, so little to no mutations will be beneficial. At some point at the future this group will be of such difference to the other group that we call it another species.

How does this beneficial mutation happen? Does it just happen because they are isolated so there genes know to respond to the changes. Or does it happen because there is varaition and the ones that have the diffrent variation suvive. If what your saying is true, then all animals should be able to mate with all animals, if species definition is just a function of definition. Except it isnt. An ostrich cannot naturally mate with a lizard. Something makes the animals incapable of interspecies breading. This is not just a physical case of their reproductive organs, but also there genes. If you were to take Lizard female gammetes and try and fertalise them with male ostrich gammetes, you would get nowhere.

Alright, a process of elimination; that is not a test of the third possibility. And that does not lead to "truth" through science. If the third possibility can also be ruled out (because it involves a supernatural element) then what is "truth" via science must be elsewhere.

Woah, Willamena, you have just claimed that a process of elimination does not lead to truth through science. Did you mean that it does not lead to truth (I strongly disagree) or did you mean that the process by which it leads to truth cannot be called science (in which case, that is rather debatable, since I can think of dozens of examples where science uses this process).

I do agree that science cannot test for the supernatural element, so the third option cannot be ruled out. In a sense, IDers use science to test for the first two options, and philosophy to consider the third.

Justice is not science.

Obviously, however, I hope our justice systems are capable of using the same sort of reasoning that science uses.

How does this beneficial mutation happen? Does it just happen because they are isolated so there genes know to respond to the changes. Or does it happen because there is varaition and the ones that have the diffrent variation suvive. If what your saying is true, then all animals should be able to mate with all animals, if species definition is just a function of definition. Except it isnt. An ostrich cannot naturally mate with a lizard. Something makes the animals incapable of interspecies breading. This is not just a physical case of their reproductive organs, but also there genes. If you were to take Lizard female gammetes and try and fertalise them with male ostrich gammetes, you would get nowhere.

The process of mutation is random. A negative mutation is likely to prove as a disadvantage, thus lowering the chance of passing on the disadvantage mutation, while a beneficial mutation is more likely to be passed on.

Now group A is isolated from group B. They don't interbreed. Group A lives in a different area, so different mutations will be beneficial to group A than to group B. After a long time both groups become incompatible with each other.

Group A has become a different species.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what the IDers mean by 'randomness'. It is their particular field of research, after all, not mine.

They *seem* not to know either - the word "randomness" is primarily used by them to make theories other than their own seem silly and unbelieveable.

Similarly the "see; we eliminated all other options, therefor we must be right" stance annoys me; since options are always left out.

Example: assume we have a reasonably complex organ "X" (feel free to fill in the word "ear", "eye", "flagellum" or whatever you like here). The ID proponent removes a few genes from the genetic codes of this organ and sees it can no longer function. He then claims that this is evidence against evolution and for design, since the likelihood that something so complex randomly (oooh - I used the magic word !) developed from scratch in one go is neglible.

Seems reasonable, right ?
Wrong - because this leaves at least two options out.

Option 1: the organ in fact still functions when you remove things- it just performs a different function. If "X" is a propulsion mechanism its "lessser form" Y can for instance be a quite effective way to secrete. Or to shoot things at competing creatures. It is not so that nature set out to make the propulsion system - it just turned out that way.

Option 2: the organ developed as part of a *bigger* organ which became obsolete. It is in fact a "leftover" which got a new job.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

I think it is funny that this kid is trying to attack science and support ID with string theory. Evolution is a theory that has positive support for it and its mechanisms, string theory is purely theoretical physics. If it is even taught in a public school it wouldn't be given as fact, there is an idea in physics called the anthropic principle and it gives leeway if you want to have ID, but also explains we can only talk about what we can see and measure. And I doubt string theory will make it into a physics class as anytign more thena student giving a presentation about it.:headbang:

Technically String theory is a hypothesis. It might be grounded in mathematics but it makes predictions about the observable universe. Hence the predictions have to be tested and validated before it can advance to theory status.
Its this kind of one sided opinion that makes debate impossible. If one side is always made out to just be stupid, rather than actually examining the debate and having a discussion, then nothing gets anywhere.
What now if the one side is behaving stupidly. Or better said one side is behaving dishonestly, one side having no clue about the subject matter but pretending they do and covering that up with every deceit possible.
That is what the ID crowd is doing.
They behave as if each of them knows more about paleontology than Bakker, more about evolution than Gould or Dawkins, more about biology than Dobzhansky, more about human fossils than the Leakeys and more about cosmology then Hawking.
And despite all that posturing all there is are attacks on the theory of evolution that boil down to you don't know how X works so ID is correct without ever establishing how that ID is correct then.
That is not how it works.
Want to attack the established theory? Then formulate a hypothesis that incorperates all the evidence found to date but makes predictions that the existing theory doesn't make. Then use a repeatable tests to see which makes the correct predictions.

No they dont. That is a common perception of creationists. But its not the case. True creationists examine flaws in the evolutionary model and other scientific models regarding the origin of the universe and examine flaws which suggest altenative conclusions.

Incorrect true creationists work from I can't understand how it works so it must have been God/an 'intelligent' designer.
The problem been here that they don't bother to study the existing literature on the subject they don't understand, refuse to aknowledge the actual existence of this literature or start moving the goal posts once they can't deny the existence of said literature anymore.
If you don't believe me you might want to look up the testimony of Behe in the kitzmiller versus dover court case (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) (Picking this as an example since it incorperates all three). Behe has written about that the way the human blood clotting system works it can only be designed. Even during the writing of his other people already figured out pathways on how it could have evolved. Then afterwards more and more books and research papers came out. Behe was confronted with over 50 of these, didn't know a single one and dismissed them out of hand as not conclusive enough.

My challenge to anyone supporting ID is give me one prediction by ID that can be tested. Even one would elevate it from mere babbling to a hypothesis.
Don't need to do that with creationism, it made predictions thereby making it a hypothesis, that got shot down thereby falsifying creationism.

How does this beneficial mutation happen? Does it just happen because they are isolated so there genes know to respond to the changes. Or does it happen because there is varaition and the ones that have the diffrent variation suvive. If what your saying is true, then all animals should be able to mate with all animals, if species definition is just a function of definition. Except it isnt. An ostrich cannot naturally mate with a lizard. Something makes the animals incapable of interspecies breading. This is not just a physical case of their reproductive organs, but also there genes. If you were to take Lizard female gammetes and try and fertalise them with male ostrich gammetes, you would get nowhere.

You misrepresent Lazy Otakus. Lazy Otakus never claimed that all species can mate with each other.
But if that is removed then we are left with a question and an answer.
The question is: how do beneficial changes happen? Mutation or variation?.
The argument is: different species cannot mate so that has to exclude variation.

Even then your question is flawed. Genes do not know about good/bad/neutral mutations. Mutations just happen. And the surivability of the animal/plant/whaterver they happen in determines if it is negative/neutral/beneficial.

Now group A is isolated from group B. They don't interbreed. Group A lives in a different area, so different mutations will be beneficial to group A than to group B. After a long time both groups become incompatible with each other.

Group A has become a different species.

I'll elaborate this a bit.

Think of it this way:

Trait A and B are compatible and trait B and C are compatible. A and C are not.

Our species starts with A.

For our seperated group B and C would be benefecial. If mutation C occurs, it would not be compatible with A, thus it could not breed and would therefore die without offspring. Mutation B could. Since B is more beneficial, it would after some time have replaced A. If mutation C is happening now, it can breed with B, since it's compatible. If C is more beneficial than B, we will soon have a complete population of Cs.

At this point our seperated group would have become incompatible with the other group.

They *seem* not to know either - the word "randomness" is primarily used by them to make theories other than their own seem silly and unbelieveable.

Perhaps, but I have never seen this. I HAVE seen non-scientists attempt to do this, however. Perhaps you have good reason to be annoyed at these people.


Similarly the "see; we eliminated all other options, therefor we must be right" stance annoys me; since options are always left out.


But to be fair, everyone uses arguments that make them look like they must be right. IDers are not the only ones that feel they are in the right. Perhaps what is worse are those in the evolutionist camp who are a little too arrogant about the 'correctness' of their own views that they do not even feel the need to understand the arguments of the IDers. There are plenty of those on this forum, it seems. They hardly know what science is, but they are adamant that ID cannot be science.



Example: assume we have a reasonably complex organ "X" (feel free to fill in the word "ear", "eye", "flagellum" or whatever you like here). The ID proponent removes a few genes from the genetic codes of this organ and sees it can no longer function. He then claims that this is evidence against evolution and for design, since the likelihood that something so complex randomly (oooh - I used the magic word !) developed from scratch in one go is neglible.

Seems reasonable, right ?
Wrong - because this leaves at least two options out.


My reading of ID material definitely gives me the impression that they go far more into depth than that. You seem to be claiming that they are simpletons. They are not.

Furthermore, the impression you are painting of IDers is that which is usually found in the media. Newspaper articles and editorials written by journalists who enjoy making derogatory remarks about IDers, but who know little about their methods, and not much more about science.


Option 1: the organ in fact still functions when you remove things- it just performs a different function. If "X" is a propulsion mechanism its "lessser form" Y can for instance be a quite effective way to secrete. Or to shoot things at competing creatures. It is not so that nature set out to make the propulsion system - it just turned out that way.

Option 2: the organ developed as part of a *bigger* organ which became obsolete. It is in fact a "leftover" which got a new job.

Yes, these are valid options. But they need to be investigated in depth. You cannot simply pull a speculation out of the air and then consider that speculation to have 'proven the point'. If an organ is a 'left-over' from a more complex but obsolete organ, there ought to be some evidence which suggests this, otherwise, such speculation is worthless. Furthermore, when things evolve, there needs to be an understanding of some sort of 'path' (using hindsight) for which that evolution may have taken. In other words, if the flagellum evolved from an ATP pump, there needs to be some sort of feasible theory about that evolution. That similar components are found in both structures is not good evidence of ancestry, since nature is full of examples of convergent evolution.

Thus, IDers do look at these options, but not on the basis of all organisms sharing a common ancestry, and that homology is evidence of ancestry. Once you take away these assumptions, it is only natural that one is drawn to different conclusions over the origins of , e.g., flagella.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

There is an indirect way to dipsrove string theory. See there is a major difference between string theory and all other scientific theories: string theory isn't a scientific theory. Scientific theories are ones in which observations of nature are turned into generalised principles and used to make predictions. String theory however is a mathematical ramification. It was derived from the equation describing the strong nuclear force and includes the proven electroweak theory and currently unproven grand unified theory. String theory is a mathematical concept which says: If these things are true, then this is also true. Since the GUT hasn't yet been proven, it is still a string 'theory'. But if the GUT is confirmed that makes the mathematical description of the sub-subatomic universe practically valid (assuming there are no mathematical errors). Thus, while string theory cannot be directly tested, because it's purely mathematical, if any of the theories contributing to string theory are found wrong, the concept of a string will then be forgotten about. String theory, despite being untestable, should still be considered because it is a compilation and analysis of our current theories.

I got all these facts out of a book, so if there are any physicists on NS who disagree, I'd love to learn more.

My challenge to anyone supporting ID is give me one prediction by ID that can be tested. Even one would elevate it from mere babbling to a hypothesis.


ID hypotheses that you could not take a breed of dog, eg. the mini fox terrier, and breed it into a wolf.

My reading of ID material definitely gives me the impression that they go far more into depth than that. You seem to be claiming that they are simpletons. They are not.

What I described was "the argument for irreducable complexity". I fear my summary is quite accurate...

Furthermore, the impression you are painting of IDers is that which is usually found in the media. Newspaper articles and editorials written by journalists who enjoy making derogatory remarks about IDers, but who know little about their methods, and not much more about science.

Which is why I aksed for arguments in favour of ID. Something which is not merely "evolution bad - meeeeh !". Surely someone can provide it ?

Yes, these are valid options. But they need to be investigated in depth. You cannot simply pull a speculation out of the air and then consider that speculation to have 'proven the point'.

But that is *exactly* what IDers are accused of doing ;)

You are right of course. Option 1 is in fact the answer evolutionists have given to the "flagellum" problem IDers like to pose - those alternative functions for the "lesser organ" were indeed found. Even before it became a widely used "pro-ID argument".

Invoking option 2 requires quite a lot more work - but it is an option nevertheless. An option which may not have been obvious from the onset.

ID hypotheses that you could not take a breed of dog, eg. the mini fox terrier, and breed it into a wolf.
The odds against getting a wolf are too high. Still, with the right selective pressures and the proper number of generations to increase the chance of the necessary mutations you could get a reasonable faxcimile of a wolf.

If you don't insist on using dogs, and change the test to any population of a given species mutating into another species then ID has already been busted.

In Hawaii bananas have only been present for about a thousand years. They were brought by humans. A particular genus of catterpillars has evolved in that time a new species that feeds exclusively on banana trees. That's evolution. It's been observed. If you exclude divine intervention within the last thousand years, which is inherently unscientific, you're left with clear evidence that evolution has taken place.

Obviously, however, I hope our justice systems are capable of using the same sort of reasoning that science uses.
They are not. Science and logic is used to present the best possible evidence to the judge/jury. That is where science ends and justice begins. The resolution of justice is not a scientific process or method.

Which is why I aksed for arguments in favour of ID. Something which is not merely "evolution bad - meeeeh !". Surely someone can provide it ?


I could not be a self-respecting ID without providing you a good example of an argument in favour of ID. As it happens, I merely suggest that because I am not an IDer, you should read some of their material. There is plenty of information on the web. Then when you find a point of theirs that you disagree over, come back to the forum, and share it with us.



But that is *exactly* what IDers are accused of doing ;)


You'll have a hard time proving that one.


You are right of course. Option 1 is in fact the answer evolutionists have given to the "flagellum" problem IDers like to pose - those alternative functions for the "lesser organ" were indeed found. Even before it became a widely used "pro-ID argument".

Invoking option 2 requires quite a lot more work - but it is an option nevertheless. An option which may not have been obvious from the onset.

Many of the 'answers' given to the IDers are speculations, not proof. Those speculations are likely to say 'But the flagellum COULD have been an ATP pump before it was a flagellum.' However, since no one is in a position to prove this, what we find is a stalemate. IDers cannot prove that the flagellum was not a pump, while evolutionists cannot prove that it was. That was my point before. I consider it unsatisfactory to answer a criticism with a speculation, and then consider that criticism rebuffed.

Perhaps the question that remains is whether it is beneficial to science to allow such criticisms of theories, e.g. the questions asked by IDers about evolutionary processes. What say you?

ID hypotheses that you could not take a breed of dog, eg. the mini fox terrier, and breed it into a wolf.
So does evolution. What's your point?

They are not. Science and logic is used to present the best possible evidence to the judge/jury. That is where science ends and justice begins. The resolution of justice is not a scientific process or method.

I would say that humans, whether in the justice system, or in scientific research, are both capable of using reason. Whether you are on the jury trying to make out whether the guy is lying or not, or in the lab trying to figure out the message of the details, there is a similar process going on in the human brain. We call it reason, and this is what I am referring to.

In conclusion, I do see a clear distinction between science and justice, but not one between the powers of reasoning involved in both.

Many of the 'answers' given to the IDers are speculations, not proof. Those speculations are likely to say 'But the flagellum COULD have been an ATP pump before it was a flagellum.' However, since no one is in a position to prove this, what we find is a stalemate. IDers cannot prove that the flagellum was not a pump, while evolutionists cannot prove that it was. That was my point before. I consider it unsatisfactory to answer a criticism with a speculation, and then consider that criticism rebuffed.

Nevertheless, science's position of the flagellum having evolved from an older organ (the ATP pump) is far more reasonable than the "it was just put there by a designer" that IDers favor.

It's not that the ID explanation would be dismissed alright, it's that it's not an explanation at all. Saying that it just happened or something put it there as part of their design offers nothing.

Woah, Willamena, you have just claimed that a process of elimination does not lead to truth through science. Did you mean that it does not lead to truth (I strongly disagree) or did you mean that the process by which it leads to truth cannot be called science (in which case, that is rather debatable, since I can think of dozens of examples where science uses this process).

I do agree that science cannot test for the supernatural element, so the third option cannot be ruled out. In a sense, IDers use science to test for the first two options, and philosophy to consider the third.
A process of elimination is logic, not science. Sherlock Holmes...

The third option can be ruled out as scientific because science cannot test for the supernatural. Science becomes useless.

Many of the 'answers' given to the IDers are speculations, not proof. Those speculations are likely to say 'But the flagellum COULD have been an ATP pump before it was a flagellum.' However, since no one is in a position to prove this, what we find is a stalemate.

But the fact that some strains actually still use the flagellum in alternative ways corresponding to the ways the "reduced organ" could be used does support the evolutionist idea ;)

In addition - you do not have a stalemate. If evolution can explain this observation in a logical and satisfying way, the observation does not point at a flaw in evolution. Since evolution has been established and tested while ID hasn't, ID needs to show that its explanation is better.

The odds against getting a wolf are too high. Still, with the right selective pressures and the proper number of generations to increase the chance of the necessary mutations you could get a reasonable faxcimile of a wolf.

Odds? ID would not call it low odds, but impossible, since it would require processes that are not observed in nature. Such is their prediction. We cannot test that prediction without many years involved, but it is theoretically possible to test it, given enough time.


If you don't insist on using dogs, and change the test to any population of a given species mutating into another species then ID has already been busted.


I completely do not understand what you mean by that statement.


In Hawaii bananas have only been present for about a thousand years. They were brought by humans. A particular genus of catterpillars has evolved in that time a new species that feeds exclusively on banana trees. That's evolution. It's been observed. If you exclude divine intervention within the last thousand years, which is inherently unscientific, you're left with clear evidence that evolution has taken place.

As far as I know, ID does not argue that microevolution does not take place. Thus it is possible for new species to arise from original species. (Mind, there is some debate over the definition of a species.) The question is whether the process that explains microevolution (usually involving a loss of information, e.g. a mutation of a gene, or a development of a new locus) is also adequate to explain macroevolution. Thus pointing to a new species of butterfly or the banana is not evidence for evolutionary theory, any more than churches are evidence of God.

A process of elimination is logic, not science. Sherlock Holmes...

The third option can be ruled out as scientific because science cannot test for the supernatural. Science becomes useless.

Science is based on logic. You cannot have science without it. Presumably, you cannot have justice without it either.

Furthermore, science is dependent, to a certain extent, on philosophy. The point about the third option is that the IDers are not claiming that it is testable, only that it is the only option left standing. Thus, science does not help with testing the third option, you are right. Does that mean when IDers use science to test the first two options that they are not really using science? What exactly is your complaint?

My challenge to anyone supporting ID is give me one prediction by ID that can be tested. Even one would elevate it from mere babbling to a hypothesis.
ID hypotheses that you could not take a breed of dog, eg. the mini fox terrier, and breed it into a wolf.

Ok let me restate that.
My challenge to anyone supporting ID is give me one prediction by ID that is not made by the theory of evolutian and can be tested. Even one would elevate it from mere babbling to a hypothesis.

Rephrasing this since the theory of evolution states this as well so there is no option to distinguish between theory and ID.


My reading of ID material definitely gives me the impression that they go far more into depth than that. You seem to be claiming that they are simpletons. They are not.

Some are not it is just that those who might know better behave as if they have signed statements like the one in this link (http://www.creationresearch.org/stmnt_of_belief.htm)
The remainder behaves like the people you complained about on the evolution side of the argument. They know nothing about the arguments of the other side and if they think they know the arguments then what they know is a caricature of the real argument.

Furthermore, the impression you are painting of IDers is that which is usually found in the media. Newspaper articles and editorials written by journalists who enjoy making derogatory remarks about IDers, but who know little about their methods, and not much more about science.

They are not that far of the mark though. It seems that the ID crowd or rather the people in that group who supposedly research are deathly afraid of actually defining ID in such a way that others can try and test it. They use old theories discarded by science or misrepresent theories. They distort what the real scientists say, when confronted with errors in their websites, research, etc they ignore it. Even worse they commit the gravest of sins in science; They start with a conclusion and try to mallet the evidence to support that conclusion. Which is one of the biggest reasons that this so called research never gets into the traditional journals. Attempts at shoehorning evidences to fit a conclusion normally never survive the peer review process, it is just to obvious.

Science is based on logic. You cannot have science without it. Presumably, you cannot have justice without it either.

Furthermore, science is dependent, to a certain extent, on philosophy. The point about the third option is that the IDers are not claiming that it is testable, only that it is the only option left standing. Thus, science does not help with testing the third option, you are right. Does that mean when IDers use science to test the first two options that they are not really using science? What exactly is your complaint?
And why does science not help with testing the third option?

Nevertheless, science's position of the flagellum having evolved from an older organ (the ATP pump) is far more reasonable than the "it was just put there by a designer" that IDers favor.

Rather than demonstrating what is more reasonable, you are showing your bias. How is one to say which argument is more reasonable? It will, of course, depend on the beliefs and world view of the person to which the argument is presented.


It's not that the ID explanation would be dismissed alright, it's that it's not an explanation at all. Saying that it just happened or something put it there as part of their design offers nothing.

Once again, you are arguing from your world view. Such an argument offers nothing to you. I can see that. But that is not the same as saying that it is a silly argument. You need to demonstrate some objectivity before your postion can be claimed to be objective.

Bruarong, the justice system is a better analogy of ID than it is of science. Justice begins with a set of laws in which all judgements must be lain. Evidence is provided, and a resolution made within the framework of the law that shapes "the truth" of the matter. That is why science is so important to justice: it provides the best possible evidence to shape the best possible "truth" (resolution closest to "the truth"). ID has a framework too, that of Creation, and any resolution of "the truth" is made to fit that framework. Science may be used as a tool of ID, but ID is not science.

And why does science not help with testing the third option?

Since science does not know how to measure the presence or absence of the supernatural interference.

I would say that humans, whether in the justice system, or in scientific research, are both capable of using reason. Whether you are on the jury trying to make out whether the guy is lying or not, or in the lab trying to figure out the message of the details, there is a similar process going on in the human brain. We call it reason, and this is what I am referring to.

In conclusion, I do see a clear distinction between science and justice, but not one between the powers of reasoning involved in both.
Reasoning they can use, that is not contested.

Reasoning itself is not science.

As far as I know, ID does not argue that microevolution does not take place. Thus it is possible for new species to arise from original species. (Mind, there is some debate over the definition of a species.) The question is whether the process that explains microevolution (usually involving a loss of information, e.g. a mutation of a gene, or a development of a new locus) is also adequate to explain macroevolution. Thus pointing to a new species of butterfly or the banana is not evidence for evolutionary theory, any more than churches are evidence of God.

Heh the old saw of micro evolution is not macro evolution.
Then on you the onus to explain how a lot of small steps cannot result in the creation of a new genus, family, order, class, phylum or Kingdom.

Since science does not know how to measure the presence or absence of the supernatural interference.
Ah I thought within the framework of your arguement you were saying science can not test the third option (last option) just cause of the fact that it is the last option

Science is based on logic. You cannot have science without it. Presumably, you cannot have justice without it either.

Furthermore, science is dependent, to a certain extent, on philosophy. The point about the third option is that the IDers are not claiming that it is testable, only that it is the only option left standing. Thus, science does not help with testing the third option, you are right. Does that mean when IDers use science to test the first two options that they are not really using science? What exactly is your complaint?
Science can be based on logic, and justice can be based on evidence supplied by science. But with your attempt to use justice as an analogy of science you incorrectly equated them.

EDIT: "Draw a comparison" more so than "equate".

It can be a third option, that's fine. But it is not a scientific option; the scientific option cannot be untestable.

I have no complaint, except that your ideas seem to continually need correction. ;)

But the fact that some strains actually still use the flagellum in alternative ways corresponding to the ways the "reduced organ" could be used does support the evolutionist idea ;)

But variation in flagellum derivatives also fits in with ID, so you cannot claim exclusive rights on that one.


In addition - you do not have a stalemate. If evolution can explain this observation in a logical and satisfying way, the observation does not point at a flaw in evolution. Since evolution has been established and tested while ID hasn't, ID needs to show that its explanation is better.


What happens when both theories can explain something in a 'logical and satisfying way'? Although I have rarely ever seen this. Just about every explanation has some holes. Whether you find an explanation more or less satisfying may have more to do with your world view than it does with the explanation. Obviously, both are important, since there needs to be some sort of consistency between the two.

The point is that evolutionary theory has not been established, otherwise there would be nothing to debate. The advantage that ID has is that it focuses on the holes in evolutionary theory, trying to find a way to provide a better explanation, since it's in the holes that the battle is won or lost. I do agree that ID needs to show that its explanation is better, or more workable. Give it time. It's only a baby.

Odds? ID would not call it low odds, but impossible, since it would require processes that are not observed in nature. Such is their prediction. We cannot test that prediction without many years involved, but it is theoretically possible to test it, given enough time.



I completely do not understand what you mean by that statement.



As far as I know, ID does not argue that microevolution does not take place. Thus it is possible for new species to arise from original species. (Mind, there is some debate over the definition of a species.) The question is whether the process that explains microevolution (usually involving a loss of information, e.g. a mutation of a gene, or a development of a new locus) is also adequate to explain macroevolution. Thus pointing to a new species of butterfly or the banana is not evidence for evolutionary theory, any more than churches are evidence of God.
Actually the catterpillar thing proves that it's not impossible. It's a new species, not "microevolution". If you honestly disagree, then show me the mechanism that limits the accumulation of "microevolution" to the point of creating new species.

Most creationists fall into these categories.

1) Honestly ignorant.

2) Willfully ignorant.

3) Faith supercedes science in their value system (the only kind I can respect)

4) Outright liars fooling others into accepting ID or creationism because they feel evolution has social consequences. (This type should be imprisoned for their crimes against humanity)

Rather than demonstrating what is more reasonable, you are showing your bias. How is one to say which argument is more reasonable? It will, of course, depend on the beliefs and world view of the person to which the argument is presented.
If an argument can be presented in a more logical and better supported manner, it is more reasonable. Since there is evidence that the ATP pump existed before the flagellum, and that it wouldn't be that much of a change to transform it, it is reasonable to think that that could very well be what happened.

In the case of ID, an even bigger assumption is made, that there is a designer who made the changes or created an entirely new organ by itself and put it into the organisms that now use it some time after this same designer created the ATP pump. While this is also possible, it doesn't sound that reasonable. Why wouldn't this designer introduce the organ at the same time? Why so many failed organisms? Why so much fossil evidence of trial and error?

And, in any case, if such a designer exists, how does it perform its tricks?


Once again, you are arguing from your world view. Such an argument offers nothing to you. I can see that. But that is not the same as saying that it is a silly argument. You need to demonstrate some objectivity before your postion can be claimed to be objective.
I didn't say it's a silly argument. Just that it doesn't help to explain things right now. There may come a time, when more evidence has been analyzed and we know more about our universe, that we can make the right questions to seriously consider and test the existence of an external agent. As it is at this moment, such an answer leaves too much unexplained.

But variation in flagellum derivatives also fits in with ID, so you cannot claim exclusive rights on that one.

Conceded.

What happens when both theories can explain something in a 'logical and satisfying way'? Although I have rarely ever seen this.

Then the theory with the strongest foundations deserves the most credit. If the other one is not as good, but far easier to use it also deserves credit. If both are about equal, both deserve equal attention (in physics the last two are not that uncommon).

The point is that evolutionary theory has not been established, otherwise there would be nothing to debate.

The basic idea of evolution has been extremely firmly established within the scientific community. Problem is that the scientific community is not the same as the general population.

I do agree that ID needs to show that its explanation is better, or more workable. Give it time. It's only a baby.

But a baby demanding to receive equal status to an (almost) adult NOW.

Science can be based on logic, and justice can be based on evidence supplied by science. But with your attempt to use justice as an analogy of science you incorrectly equated them.

It can be a third option, that's fine. But it is not a scientific option; the scientific option cannot be untestable.

I have no complaint, except that your ideas seem to continually need correction. ;)

I was not aware of my attempt to equate science and justice. Perhaps my post read that way. But I was referring to the justice system as an example of using reason (outside of scientific research--that should make you happier) that is relatively reliable, and that this sort of logic, while not being science, underpins much of the ideas within both the evolutionary and ID camps. Thus, it is hardly a 'shock to the system' when a bunch of people like the IDers also use it, although the way people carry on about it would make it seem that way.

I will readily admit that many of my ideas continually need correction. I suppose that is part of my motivation for posting here. If it wasn't for critical people like yourself, Willamena, I suppose I wouldn't bother coming back. Of course, it does help when the critics are polite. (I'm not suggesting that you aren't).

I was not aware of my attempt to equate science and justice. Perhaps my post read that way. But I was referring to the justice system as an example of using reason (outside of scientific research--that should make you happier) that is relatively reliable, and that this sort of logic, while not being science, underpins much of the ideas within both the evolutionary and ID camps. Thus, it is hardly a 'shock to the system' when a bunch of people like the IDers also use it, although the way people carry on about it would make it seem that way.

I will readily admit that many of my ideas continually need correction. I suppose that is part of my motivation for posting here. If it wasn't for critical people like yourself, Willamena, I suppose I wouldn't bother coming back. Of course, it does help when the critics are polite. (I'm not suggesting that you aren't).
:D

Forgot something in post #118

The no macro evolution prediction of ID. That would turn ID into a testable hypothesis as long as the supernatural is left out.

So Bruarong why does the evidence found sofar favour the assertion that there is no macro evolution over the assertion that macro evolution happens?
Note that you need to find a better explanation for the what is presented in this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html) as well.

Then the theory with the strongest foundations deserves the most credit. If the other one is not as good, but far easier to use it also deserves credit. If both are about equal, both deserve equal attention (in physics the last two are not that uncommon).

The basic idea of evolution has been extremely firmly established within the scientific community. Problem is that the scientific community is not the same as the general population.


I agree with the first paragraph. That seems fair. As for your second, I don't necessarily see it as a 'problem' that the general community differs from the scientific one (coming from one within the science community). The IDers would be more likely to belong to the scientific community rather than the general population.


But a baby demanding to receive equal status to an (almost) adult NOW.

Well, when a baby comes into the world, it does tend to make a lot of noise. (Chortles)
You Americans seem to be good at that anyway (takes an unexpected jab).

Actually the catterpillar thing proves that it's not impossible. It's a new species, not "microevolution". If you honestly disagree, then show me the mechanism that limits the accumulation of "microevolution" to the point of creating new species.


I honestly don't know enough about the latest ideas of what a species really is to say that I know for sure. It used to be where two similar breeds were no longer capable of interbreeding. It gets a bit tricky when trying to determine if a grey hound and a fox terror (i.e. terrier) can breed in the wild. The little chap with the short legs has to pounce when she is lying down, or some such unlikely thing.....use your own imagination. But the latest discoveries that a lion and a tiger can mate and produce offspring have got some people worried over what a species might actually be.



Most creationists fall into these categories.

1) Honestly ignorant.

2) Willfully ignorant.

3) Faith supercedes science in their value system (the only kind I can respect)

4) Outright liars fooling others into accepting ID or creationism because they feel evolution has social consequences. (This type should be imprisoned for their crimes against humanity)

It's a good thing you began your gross generalisation with the word 'most'. I think you also need to distinguish between a non-scientist who believes in creation, a scientist who believes in creation but does not think a great deal about it, and a scientist who specializes in thinking about a material world that was created. No doubt there are many who fall into your four categories, but I'm not sure that I do, nor that I am the only one.

You are entitled to your opinions and generalisations. Opinions are like arm pits. They all stink and everyone has one.

I honestly don't know enough about the latest ideas of what a species really is to say that I know for sure. It used to be where two similar breeds were no longer capable of interbreeding. It gets a bit tricky when trying to determine if a grey hound and a fox terror (i.e. terrier) can breed in the wild. The little chap with the short legs has to pounce when she is lying down, or some such unlikely thing.....use your own imagination. But the latest discoveries that a lion and a tiger can mate and produce offspring have got some people worried over what a species might actually be.<snipped> The offspring have to be fertile. Another nice evidence that ID is wrong and species do evolve into new species is the case of ring species. Populations of squirrels, for example, living around an un-crossable geographic feature have been found. The populations near each other on the ring can interbreed normally. Accross the ring, no breeding can take place. They have evolved enough minor changes in their genes to add up to the creation of separate species. ID is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

If an argument can be presented in a more logical and better supported manner, it is more reasonable. Since there is evidence that the ATP pump existed before the flagellum, and that it wouldn't be that much of a change to transform it, it is reasonable to think that that could very well be what happened.

The problem is that changing a pump into a flagellum requires a good deal of changes. We don't know how many, but we do know that it is quite a lot. Nor do we know how a bacterial pump could survive such changes, considering that alterations usually inactivate it. It is simply a mathematical nightmare to determine that path such evolution may have taken, even with the help of hindsight. So don't try this spin of 'more reasonable'. It is speculation. Pure and simple. And the reasonable-ness of speculation will depend on the world view from which it is viewed.


In the case of ID, an even bigger assumption is made, that there is a designer who made the changes or created an entirely new organ by itself and put it into the organisms that now use it some time after this same designer created the ATP pump. While this is also possible, it doesn't sound that reasonable. Why wouldn't this designer introduce the organ at the same time? Why so many failed organisms? Why so much fossil evidence of trial and error?


It isn't a bigger assumption. It is another assumption. For a religious person, it is a lesser assumption, because the supernatural is already there, and it looks reasonable that the supernatural can provide better answers than 'nothing' can. (The 'nothing' to which I refer is the accident that brought about the universe.)



And, in any case, if such a designer exists, how does it perform its tricks?


That is a mystery that ID is not trying to uncover. You need to look into religion for that, but even there it can be quite a mystery.


I didn't say it's a silly argument. Just that it doesn't help to explain things right now. There may come a time, when more evidence has been analyzed and we know more about our universe, that we can make the right questions to seriously consider and test the existence of an external agent. As it is at this moment, such an answer leaves too much unexplained.

Too much unexplained for you, perhaps, but not for others. You need to leave room for others to arrive at intelligent conclusions about the source of life--if you intend to be honest about the issue.

Forgot something in post #118

The no macro evolution prediction of ID. That would turn ID into a testable hypothesis as long as the supernatural is left out.


Agreed, I think....


So Bruarong why does the evidence found sofar favour the assertion that there is no macro evolution over the assertion that macro evolution happens?

Have you ever read about a documented case of macroevolution? I have not. I have read about plenty of speculations that appear to fit in with the facts. But 'fitting in with the facts' is not enough to make speculation fact. Thus I will question macroevolution until I find or read about a well documented case of macroevolution. That is only fair, wouldn't you agree?


Note that you need to find a better explanation for the what is presented in this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html) as well.

Guess I had better read it then......(grumbles.....)

Well they aren't trying to teach English or History in Science lessons are they?
That's the problem - that it's in the wrong place, being masqueraded as the wrong subject.

And that's why he's saying that the argument "it's not science" should apply to English and History. ID is all about applying the wrong idea in the wrong place. If it were an intellectually honest position it would admit right out that it's a fraud and cease to exist.

e.g. "It's just a theory."

No, it's not just a theory. It's a theory. A phrase which in the vernacular means, "it's a hypothesis." It takes years of research and study to turn a hypothesis into a theory. Or in the venacular to turn just another theory into a full fledged theory.

The offspring have to be fertile. Another nice evidence that ID is wrong and species do evolve into new species is the case of ring species. Populations of squirrels, for example, living around an un-crossable geographic feature have been found. The populations near each other on the ring can interbreed normally. Accross the ring, no breeding can take place. They have evolved enough minor changes in their genes to add up to the creation of separate species. ID is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

It's rather like languages for much of human history. Go 50 miles down the river and you can talk to people, but they sound a bit funny. Go 100 miles down the river and you can communicate, but with a lot of "huh? what?" going on. 150 miles down the river, you have to get someone from 50 miles down the river to come with you to explain what the hell they're talking about.

In the case of ID, an even bigger assumption is made, that there is a designer who made the changes or created an entirely new organ by itself and put it into the organisms that now use it some time after this same designer created the ATP pump. While this is also possible, it doesn't sound that reasonable. Why wouldn't this designer introduce the organ at the same time? Why so many failed organisms? Why so much fossil evidence of trial and error?

It isn't a bigger assumption. It is another assumption. For a religious person, it is a lesser assumption, because the supernatural is already there, and it looks reasonable that the supernatural can provide better answers than 'nothing' can. (The 'nothing' to which I refer is the accident that brought about the universe.)

You stated that a supernatural entity is included in ID.
Science deals only with the natural. Seeing that ID includes the supernatural ID is not scientific.
Thank you for killing your own side of the argument.

Oh and please stop behaving like one of those people you critized about not knowing the arguments of the other side.
Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came into being. Cosmology and astronomy deal with that.

The offspring have to be fertile. Another nice evidence that ID is wrong and species do evolve into new species is the case of ring species. Populations of squirrels, for example, living around an un-crossable geographic feature have been found. The populations near each other on the ring can interbreed normally. Accross the ring, no breeding can take place. They have evolved enough minor changes in their genes to add up to the creation of separate species. ID is dead, it just doesn't know it yet.

It hardly disproves ID. Come on, mate. What part of ID says that these squirrels have to be able to interbreed? It is well known that many populations that do not normally interbreed in the wild are technically capable of breeding (e.g. under severe drought conditions or in captivity). That supports the idea of genetic drift. I do not see how it disproves ID. And whatever a species is, there is nothing that I can see in ID that says new species cannot form. Maybe you are confusing this idea with the old (and discarded) creationist idea that the only species around today are those that came out of Noah's ark. No educated person thinks that nowadays, do they?

On the contrary, every fight over ID versus evolution is only adding more fuel to the fire. I could hardly think of a better way to breath more life into ID than by making it a culture war in America.

It hardly disproves ID. Come on, mate. What part of ID says that these squirrels have to be able to interbreed? It is well known that many populations that do not normally interbreed in the wild are technically capable of breeding (e.g. under severe drought conditions or in captivity). That supports the idea of genetic drift. I do not see how it disproves ID. And whatever a species is, there is nothing that I can see in ID that says new species cannot form. Maybe you are confusing this idea with the old (and discarded) creationist idea that the only species around today are those that came out of Noah's ark. No educated person thinks that nowadays, do they?

On the contrary, every fight over ID versus evolution is only adding more fuel to the fire. I could hardly think of a better way to breath more life into ID than by making it a culture war in America.
Surely the premises behind id are opposed to the notion of genetic drift? Species are fixed as a kind which does not alter in any way until such time as it dies out. Any evidence to the contrary rather proves that id is laughable nonsense, I'd have thought. It is the old fashioned creationist nonsense, trying to pass itself off as something else. This is why I find it so offensive.

You stated that a supernatural entity is included in ID.
Science deals only with the natural. Seeing that ID includes the supernatural ID is not scientific.
Thank you for killing your own side of the argument.

If you had paid attention to my arguments, you would have seen that ID only uses science to investigate the material world, which is what science is supposed to do. It is NOT using science to investigate the supernatural. It uses its philosophical position to include the supernatural. Thus ID consists of both science and philosophy. And if you really know about evolution, you will see that evolution also consists of a philosophical position, thus evolutionary theory is based on both science and philosophy. That I have not killed my own argument, but trying to point out a delicate point (it seems) to someone who just isn't listening.



Oh and please stop behaving like one of those people you critized about not knowing the arguments of the other side.
Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe came into being. Cosmology and astronomy deal with that.

Evolution and the big bang are, in one sense, related, while obviously not being the same thing. My point was that according to some people, the big bang came out of 'nothing', and that the universe came out of the big bang, and that life came out of the universe. Thus, while the religious believe that life came from God (either through evolution or through special creation), the irreligious believe that life came from 'nothing', and that chemical evolution and biological evolution can account for you and I being alive today.

It may suprise you to know, but I have a life outside of NS.

:eek: It can't be true...I don't believe it...:D

Surely the premises behind id are opposed to the notion of genetic drift? Species are fixed as a kind which does not alter in any way until such time as it dies out. Any evidence to the contrary rather proves that id is laughable nonsense, I'd have thought. It is the old fashioned creationist nonsense, trying to pass itself off as something else. This is why I find it so offensive.

Not as far as I know. Genetic drift nicely describes why babies are generally born white in Europe and black in Africa. The 'fix-ness' of a species is limited, according to ID. In other words, while there is genetic drift, it is limited to minor changes. These minor changes may or may not result in sexual incompatibility, given enough time and providing there is isolated populations.

What ID might predict is that while you can take a wolf species and breed a mini fox terrier, you cannot take a mini fox terrier and breed a wolf. Evolution, on the other hand, says that since all of life is derived from a single ancestor, it is possible to take any life form and breed it into another, given enough time and the right conditions.

Um... since when is ID illegal?
BTW, string theory is, as of yet, unproven... but that doesn't change the fact that it is a scientific hypothesis. ID isn't a scientific hypothesis. I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching string theory or ID in schools. But ID shouldn't be taught in science classes.

It hardly disproves ID. Come on, mate. What part of ID says that these squirrels have to be able to interbreed? It is well known that many populations that do not normally interbreed in the wild are technically capable of breeding (e.g. under severe drought conditions or in captivity). That supports the idea of genetic drift. I do not see how it disproves ID. And whatever a species is, there is nothing that I can see in ID that says new species cannot form. Maybe you are confusing this idea with the old (and discarded) creationist idea that the only species around today are those that came out of Noah's ark. No educated person thinks that nowadays, do they?

On the contrary, every fight over ID versus evolution is only adding more fuel to the fire. I could hardly think of a better way to breath more life into ID than by making it a culture war in America.
"Genetic Drift" to the point where one population can no longer interbreed with another is basically evolution. They've undergone speciation and are now two distinct species. ID claims that evolution, or as ID proponents like to call it, macroevolution, doesn't happen. When it's shown to have happened it proves ID false.

If you had paid attention to my arguments, you would have seen that ID only uses science to investigate the material world, which is what science is supposed to do. It is NOT using science to investigate the supernatural. It uses its philosophical position to include the supernatural. Thus ID consists of both science and philosophy. And if you really know about evolution, you will see that evolution also consists of a philosophical position, thus evolutionary theory is based on both science and philosophy. That I have not killed my own argument, but trying to point out a delicate point (it seems) to someone who just isn't listening.
By the "philosophical position" that evolution takes, I assume you refer to "naturalism"? But naturalism (the stance that nothing that exists can be supernatural) is a philosophy that shapes all science, not particular to evolution; so it is more accurate to say that science is based on a particular philosophy and evolutionary theory is a science.

I havent said anything about ID, or creationism. You assume (illogically so) that any attack on evolution is support for ID. It isnt. I'm just saying that there are flaws and that they need to be taught so as not to give people the idea that the current models of the origin of life and the universe are as sound as everyone says.

But there isn't another option - the only scientific theory that explains the evidence is evolution, and the only two factions are evolution and creationism/ID. There is no alternative - the only scientific derivation of available observations is evolution, and if isn't science, it's religion, which therefore falls under the creationism/ID camp. Name for me one real scientific theory that provides an actual logical alternative to evolution, and is science, not religion. Just one.

"Genetic Drift" to the point where one population can no longer interbreed with another is basically evolution. They've undergone speciation and are now two distinct species. ID claims that evolution, or as ID proponents like to call it, macroevolution, doesn't happen. When it's shown to have happened it proves ID false.

But are you saying that the creation of a new species must be macroevolution? I think we need to define what macroevolution and microevolution really are. It may be that you are pointing to microevolution as proof of macroevolution. In that case, you cannot make progress in your argument until you are clear about the difference between the two.

Anyhow, I have to run away from the debate now. My real life world is calling.
Cheers.

Evolution, on the other hand, says that since all of life is derived from a single ancestor, it is possible to take any life form and breed it into another, given enough time and the right conditions.
No it doesn't.

It isn't a bigger assumption. It is another assumption. For a religious person, it is a lesser assumption, because the supernatural is already there, and it looks reasonable that the supernatural can provide better answers than 'nothing' can. (The 'nothing' to which I refer is the accident that brought about the universe.)

That is a mystery that ID is not trying to uncover. You need to look into religion for that, but even there it can be quite a mystery.

Thanks for making my point :)

For example, when we begin with the design of a human ear, we have basically three possibilities. The first one is that the design can be accounted for by randomness. The second possibility is that it can be accounted for by a law of nature. The third possibility is that it can be accounted for by a supernatural interference. While the third possibility cannot be tested, the first two can be. Thus, ID makes the assumption that when the first two possibilities can be ruled out, the third one is acceptable, although not proven.

Thus, some parts of ID can be tested. I suppose one might point out that the major conclusions, the third option, cannot be tested. That is true, and is, perhaps, the weakest point of ID. But adherents to evolutionary theory should look to their own weaknesses also.


Negative proofs are VERY tricky. Basically, you are trying to say A and B cannot be true, so C must be true. The problem with this sort of reasoning is twofold. First, you must CONCLUSIVELY prove beyond a doubt that A and B cannot be true, which is almost impossible to do, then you must prove that C is the only other possible conclusion, which is even more difficult. So yes, the third option is the weakest part of the argument as you list it above, but it is an essential step in negative proof and cannot be dismissed. Even if you cannot prove C conclusively, you must provide a STRONG case for it in order for a negative proof to stand up as anything more than an "I don't like your theory, so I am going to spit on it and say that mine is better" sort of an argument. As of yet, it certainly appears that in any such cases used to prove ID that these criteria have not been met. Additionally, negative proof is rarely acceptable as scientific proof since it does not provide anything that can be destruct tested, which is an absolutely vital step in the scientific process.

But there isn't another option - the only scientific theory that explains the evidence is evolution, and the only two factions are evolution and creationism/ID. There is no alternative - the only scientific derivation of available observations is evolution, and if isn't science, it's religion, which therefore falls under the creationism/ID camp. Name for me one real scientific theory that provides an actual logical alternative to evolution, and is science, not religion. Just one.

Other option=just say, we don't know.

What is wrong with admitting that we don't know everything?

What is wrong with admitting that some theories have holes the size of the moon in them?

What is wrong with saying that we believe the solution may be this, but we don't have enough evidence right now, or the evidence contradicts this, so we are not sure right now?

My challenge to anyone supporting ID is give me one prediction by ID that can be tested. Even one would elevate it from mere babbling to a hypothesis.


ID hypotheses that you could not take a breed of dog, eg. the mini fox terrier, and breed it into a wolf.

Once again, negative proof, though in another form... B can't be true, so A must be. You can't breed a fox terrier into a wolf, so ID must be true.

Unfortunately, it holds the same problems as other forms of negative proof. First, you must prove that B cannot be true, which would require extensive testing to try and prove that it CAN be true, then you must prove that A is the only other possible option. Neither has been done.

Is there any testable evidence for ID that does not rest on negative proof?

But are you saying that the creation of a new species must be macroevolution? I think we need to define what macroevolution and microevolution really are. It may be that you are pointing to microevolution as proof of macroevolution. In that case, you cannot make progress in your argument until you are clear about the difference between the two.

Anyhow, I have to run away from the debate now. My real life world is calling.
Cheers.
Maybe you need to read up on ID and Evolution. The ID position clearly states that macroevolution is the evolution of new species and that it is impossible. It states that microevolution, the evolution of small changes without creating a new species is possible. It never shows why those changes can't pile up and create a new species.

You seem to be redefining terms to try to save a dead idea. That's kinda dishonest, don't you think?

its not that ID shouldnt be taught, just not in a science class, as it is not a scientific theory.

Woah, Willamena, you have just claimed that a process of elimination does not lead to truth through science. Did you mean that it does not lead to truth (I strongly disagree) or did you mean that the process by which it leads to truth cannot be called science (in which case, that is rather debatable, since I can think of dozens of examples where science uses this process).

I do agree that science cannot test for the supernatural element, so the third option cannot be ruled out. In a sense, IDers use science to test for the first two options, and philosophy to consider the third.

Which provides as strong a case as any that ID belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class. If the main proof of your own case is philosophy, not science, where else should your theory be considered?

As to the issue of justice verses science... a jury that decides a case is made up of 12 random people who are swayed, sadly, quite often by the eloquence of the lawyers involved, not the actual scientific facts of the case. We may wish this were not true, but it is. The parallels to philosophy versus science are obvious here, science cannot be decided by popular vote. Science deals with things that ARE, whether you believe them or not. ID is based on a concept that requires belief in an unprovable point. Science requires facts and tests. ID, at it's core, requires preachers (who may also be scientists claiming that the intelligence involved is NOT a god, but some unknown alien, but really, what is the difference to us?) who can convince people to accept things on faith because there are no possible tests to prove this beings existence.

No matter how you slice it, no matter how many scientific terms (irreducible complexity, microevolution, etc.) you throw at it, ultimately, ID is, at its very basic heart, about something that is not science. No conglomeration of scientific trappings can make it about science. You can put a cat in an apron, but that doesn't get dinner made at the end of the day.

Everything is a theory. String theory is much more theory then fact and it will remain so for qutie sometime. Even evolution and the big bang are back up by solid empirical data. When you here scienist say "we are not completely sure about the workings of the big bang" they are talking about the first few pico seconds after it happened. However once you get past the first second of the universes existence it is easily explained by scientists.

this statement actually is incorrect, and is the REAL problem with the whole argument those in support of ID take. There is a distinct difference between a THEORY and a HYPOTHESIS.. These basic terms are what frame the argument. Aparently those who are aruging ID is a theory and hence should be taught in a sceince class only serve to demonstrate how little they understand the basics of science itself, and the differences between Theory and hypthesis.

Which provides as strong a case as any that ID belongs in a philosophy class, not a science class. If the main proof of your own case is philosophy, not science, where else should your theory be considered?

As to the issue of justice verses science... a jury that decides a case is made up of 12 random people who are swayed, sadly, quite often by the eloquence of the lawyers involved, not the actual scientific facts of the case. We may wish this were not true, but it is. The parallels to philosophy versus science are obvious here, science cannot be decided by popular vote. Science deals with things that ARE, whether you believe them or not. ID is based on a concept that requires belief in an unprovable point. Science requires facts and tests. ID, at it's core, requires preachers (who may also be scientists claiming that the intelligence involved is NOT a god, but some unknown alien, but really, what is the difference to us?) who can convince people to accept things on faith because there are no possible tests to prove this beings existence.

No matter how you slice it, no matter how many scientific terms (irreducible complexity, microevolution, etc.) you throw at it, ultimately, ID is, at its very basic heart, about something that is not science. No conglomeration of scientific trappings can make it about science. You can put a cat in an apron, but that doesn't get dinner made at the end of the day.

You should not even accredit the idea with a title of "Theory" becuase it is not.. rather, label it to what it actually is.. Hypthoesis!

You should not even accredit the idea with a title of "Theory" becuase it is not.. rather, label it to what it actually is.. Hypthoesis!
But wouldn't Intelligent Hypothesis be redundant? The whole thing needs a re-wording...

But wouldn't Intelligent Hypothesis be redundant? The whole thing needs a re-wording...

Not in the slightest, Hypothesis just being a fancy word for an "idea" which only serves to lable it. So Intellegent Design is an "idea", which is what it actully, an idea support with conjecture.

Also, perhaps someone can refresh my understanding of the BIG BANG theory. I dont belive that theory states something came from nothing, as many are stating.. but rather suggests cosmic gases and dust and their accumlation are what created the "Big Bang".

7 (my lucky number) reasons why ID isn't science:

- ID cannot be proved wrong, and is completely unfalsifiable.
- ID cannot be proved correct.
- ID not only has no evidence, but is logically incapable of having evidence. It only has gaps in other theories that it fallaciously assumes to be unfillable, and open negatives.
- ID, instead of looking at the body of facts and developing a theory that fits as much evidence as possible as much as possible, starts with a predefined objective, what they want to be true, and goes searching for evidence for it. That's most definitely not science.
- The only definition of a theory that ID can fall under also covers astrology and medieval alchemy.
- ID cannot be observed (directly or indirectly), tested, or experimented upon.
- ID proposes an anti-empirical solution in direct violation of Occam's Razor and the probabilistic implications of Descartes' work on logical theory.

Note: Occam's Razor is expressed/defined in the following clarified/elaborated-upon manner: In the absence of evidence supporting a notion, one must not assume or support the truth of explanations or events that are not directly derived from observation. Basically, the explanation most obviously derived from available evidence is usually the best.

Not in the slightest, Hypothesis just being a fancy word for an "idea" which only serves to lable it. So Intellegent Design is an "idea", which is what it actully, an idea support with conjecture.

Also, perhaps someone can refresh my understanding of the BIG BANG theory. I dont belive that theory states something came from nothing, as many are stating.. but rather suggests cosmic gases and dust and their accumlation are what created the "Big Bang".

No the big bang was a singularity that started to expand. Matter didn't exists till about 100 seconds or so after this expansion.
from A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, pages 121-124

Not in the slightest, Hypothesis just being a fancy word for an "idea" which only serves to lable it. So Intellegent Design is an "idea", which is what it actully, an idea support with conjecture.

Also, perhaps someone can refresh my understanding of the BIG BANG theory. I dont belive that theory states something came from nothing, as many are stating.. but rather suggests cosmic gases and dust and their accumlation are what created the "Big Bang".
No, I believe that absolutely nothing blew up which then created everything.
Now I must go pray in the laboratory.

By the "philosophical position" that evolution takes, I assume you refer to "naturalism"? But naturalism (the stance that nothing that exists can be supernatural) is a philosophy that shapes all science, not particular to evolution; so it is more accurate to say that science is based on a particular philosophy and evolutionary theory is a science.

Yes, I was referring to naturalism, which is not so much saying that there is no supernatural, only that life has developed from non-life into primitive organisms and eventually into humans through only natural forces. Darwin himself was a naturalistic thinker, and believed in God (at least for most of his life).

However, much of science today, perhaps most of it, while being influenced by naturalism, is not necessarily based on it. Just as science was possible before the rise of naturalism, so it is possible today, so long as it is restricted to an investigation into the material world (rather than looking into the supernatural). My own investigations are not based on naturalism, but are restricted to the natural world. My work does not depend on the assumption that God did or did not create bacteria. Whether bacteria evolved or were created is in fact quite irrelevant to all of my research. The same goes for a good deal of science, though obviously not all.

In conclusion, I have to disagree with your post. The theory of evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism, while science itself is far bigger than the theory of evolution, and certainly not restricted to one philosophical viewpoint.

The theory of evolution is not science, so long as the definition of the scientific method involves observation and repetition. It is more correct to say that the theory of evolution is a set of conclusions, assumptions, and hypotheses that are derived from the scientific method and the philosophy of naturalism.

Surely the premises behind id are opposed to the notion of genetic drift? Species are fixed as a kind which does not alter in any way until such time as it dies out. Any evidence to the contrary rather proves that id is laughable nonsense, I'd have thought. It is the old fashioned creationist nonsense, trying to pass itself off as something else. This is why I find it so offensive.

If you could find something in ID that states that genetic drift does not occur, I would be surprised. I think if you looked carefully at the ID arguments, you would find them quite intelligent, contrary to what many people think. At least I have found them this way. They have certainly got me thinking.


Maybe you need to read up on ID and Evolution. The ID position clearly states that macroevolution is the evolution of new species and that it is impossible. It states that microevolution, the evolution of small changes without creating a new species is possible. It never shows why those changes can't pile up and create a new species.

You seem to be redefining terms to try to save a dead idea. That's kinda dishonest, don't you think?

What I think they (IDers) mean by 'species not evolving' is in clear-case situations, such as reptiles into birds, and monkeys into people.... that sort of thing. Less clear case situations, such as a mini-fox terrier and the wolf are not so easy. One person thinks they are two different species, while another person argues that they are the same. If you want to prove macroevolution, you have to do it with a clear case scenario.

To put it another way, speciation is thought by some to be a product of microevolution, while others say that speciation defines macroevolution. What I understand of the ID position is that speciation may occur, so long as it isn't a product of macroevolution. (That doesn't make it very clear in every case, since the line between macroevolution and microevolution is a fuzzy one in some cases.)

Thus the argument from ID is not the speciation is impossible, but macroevolution that leads to new species, e.g. man from monkeys, is unlikely.

I'm not trying to redefine ideas, but clarifying ID position. Your attack on ID relies on ID being illogical and stupid. It may be wrong, or it may be right, I cannot say, but my argument is that ID is not stupid. In any case, I cannot see how you can logically claim that I am being dishonest.

@Bruarong:

Please learn the correct definitions before you start talking nonsense.
Al though I have to say that what you are doing here is fairly novel. It's the first time I've seen an anti-evolutionist trying to splice of the theory of evolution from the rest of science by stating it's not science.

All you need to do now is prove it instead of asserting this.

Here follows a fairly decent (though succinct) definition of science:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

All you now need to do is prove that evolution doesn't observe, identify, describes, experiments or provides theoretical explanations.

You have asserted that the theory of evolution is not science since it does not observe anything (without giving a shred of evidence). I gave you a whole list of observations (see link in post 127) to counter your argument that macro evolution does not occur.

Oh and I want to point out that if you are using the definition of observation that I think you are using (which boils down to we need to be able to actually see it happening) the whole field of physics/maths having to do with atom level interactions is not scientific even though it has given us things like the laser, superconducting magnets and is being used to get a working fusion reactor.

I'm also inferring that you are using a incorrect idea of the repeatability.
What is supposed to be repeatable are the tests not the entire history of evolution.

Yes, I was referring to naturalism, which is not so much saying that there is no supernatural, only that life has developed from non-life into primitive organisms and eventually into humans through only natural forces. Darwin himself was a naturalistic thinker, and believed in God (at least for most of his life).

However, much of science today, perhaps most of it, while being influenced by naturalism, is not necessarily based on it. Just as science was possible before the rise of naturalism, so it is possible today, so long as it is restricted to an investigation into the material world (rather than looking into the supernatural). My own investigations are not based on naturalism, but are restricted to the natural world. My work does not depend on the assumption that God did or did not create bacteria. Whether bacteria evolved or were created is in fact quite irrelevant to all of my research. The same goes for a good deal of science, though obviously not all.

In conclusion, I have to disagree with your post. The theory of evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism, while science itself is far bigger than the theory of evolution, and certainly not restricted to one philosophical viewpoint.

The theory of evolution is not science, so long as the definition of the scientific method involves observation and repetition. It is more correct to say that the theory of evolution is a set of conclusions, assumptions, and hypotheses that are derived from the scientific method and the philosophy of naturalism.


Maybe my education may be lacking, but what you say above is not the definition of naturalism I know. The one I know is more like this:



Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish between the supernatural and the natural. Naturalism does not claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural necessarily do not exist or are wrong, but insists that they are not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses, and that both supernatural and natural phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods.

Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Distinctions are sometimes made between two approaches, the first being methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and the second ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. The first approach underlies the application of the scientific method in science, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. The second approach refers to the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists.

This distinction between approaches to the philosophy is particularly made by those involved in the creation-evolution controversy. Proponents of Creationism or intelligent design often refer to methodological naturalism as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism to distinguish it from their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29

Negative proofs are VERY tricky. Basically, you are trying to say A and B cannot be true, so C must be true. The problem with this sort of reasoning is twofold. First, you must CONCLUSIVELY prove beyond a doubt that A and B cannot be true, which is almost impossible to do, then you must prove that C is the only other possible conclusion, which is even more difficult. So yes, the third option is the weakest part of the argument as you list it above, but it is an essential step in negative proof and cannot be dismissed. Even if you cannot prove C conclusively, you must provide a STRONG case for it in order for a negative proof to stand up as anything more than an "I don't like your theory, so I am going to spit on it and say that mine is better" sort of an argument. As of yet, it certainly appears that in any such cases used to prove ID that these criteria have not been met. Additionally, negative proof is rarely acceptable as scientific proof since it does not provide anything that can be destruct tested, which is an absolutely vital step in the scientific process.

True, the need for a negative proof and the lack of a positive control in your experiment does not lead to a great deal of confidence in your experiment. However, one need not be forced to conclusive proofs. Most of science realizes that such 'proofs' are not within reach of the scientific method. One must only prove something 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This 'beyond reasonable doubt' can be clear enough to put a man on the moon, put another man behind bars for the rest of his life, and yet vague enough to convince those scientists who hold a certain world view (e.g., naturalism) that evolutionary theory is true but leave all the other scientists doubting.

Thus ID would not try to prove that e.g. randomness can NOT give rise to life and it's complexity, only that randomness is UNLIKELY to be a satisfactory answer, based on that which we do know about life. The negative proof is not necessarily absolute, only to a point of doubt. You may know that much of science is based on this sort of approach. It is mostly works in the area of 'more likely' and 'less likely'. Such is the approach of both evolutionary theory and ID. For example, no one can prove that all of life came from a single ancestor, but that this is a 'most likely' scenario for evolutionary theory, given the distinct characteristics of the biological molecules that make life possible.

My point is that you have to be careful about insisting on extremely high standards for ID, while being satisfied with much lower standards for evolutionary theory.

My last point is to do with the third option, that a design may be attributed to a designer, since randomness and a law of nature may be ruled out as unlikely. And that is if the design (e.g. the human ear) was placed there by a designer, then it must fit in with the overall design of the organism (e.g., land dwelling creature). In this way, while the third option may not necessarily be testable by the scientific method, it can still be tested with logic. The danger area is where we cannot find a function for the design. Then we have to be aware that our understanding is still limited, thus a limitation in the approach.

Negative proofs are VERY tricky. Basically, you are trying to say A and B cannot be true, so C must be true. The problem with this sort of reasoning is twofold. First, you must CONCLUSIVELY prove beyond a doubt that A and B cannot be true, which is almost impossible to do, then you must prove that C is the only other possible conclusion, which is even more difficult. So yes, the third option is the weakest part of the argument as you list it above, but it is an essential step in negative proof and cannot be dismissed. Even if you cannot prove C conclusively, you must provide a STRONG case for it in order for a negative proof to stand up as anything more than an "I don't like your theory, so I am going to spit on it and say that mine is better" sort of an argument. As of yet, it certainly appears that in any such cases used to prove ID that these criteria have not been met. Additionally, negative proof is rarely acceptable as scientific proof since it does not provide anything that can be destruct tested, which is an absolutely vital step in the scientific process.

True, the need for a negative proof and the lack of a positive control in your experiment does not lead to a great deal of confidence in your experiment. However, one need not be forced to conclusive proofs. Most of science realizes that such 'proofs' are not within reach of the scientific method. One must only prove something 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This 'beyond reasonable doubt' can be clear enough to put a man on the moon, put another man behind bars for the rest of his life, and yet vague enough to convince those scientists who hold a certain world view (e.g., naturalism) that evolutionary theory is true but leave all the other scientists doubting.

Thus ID would not try to prove that e.g. randomness can NOT give rise to life and it's complexity, only that randomness is UNLIKELY to be a satisfactory answer, based on that which we do know about life. The negative proof is not necessarily absolute, only to a point of doubt. You may know that much of science is based on this sort of approach. It is mostly works in the area of 'more likely' and 'less likely'. Such is the approach of both evolutionary theory and ID. For example, no one can prove that all of life came from a single ancestor, but that this is a 'most likely' scenario for evolutionary theory, given the distinct characteristics of the biological molecules that make life possible.

My point is that you have to be careful about insisting on extremely high standards for ID, while being satisfied with much lower standards for evolutionary theory.

My last point is to do with the third option, that a design may be attributed to a designer, since randomness and a law of nature may be ruled out as unlikely. And that is if the design (e.g. the human ear) was placed there by a designer, then it must fit in with the overall design of the organism (e.g., land dwelling creature). In this way, while the third option may not necessarily be testable by the scientific method, it can still be tested with logic. The danger area is where we cannot find a function for the design. Then we have to be aware that our understanding is still limited, thus a limitation in the approach.

@Bruarong:

Please learn the correct definitions before you start talking nonsense.


Your post would look better with out flametory comments.


Al though I have to say that what you are doing here is fairly novel. It's the first time I've seen an anti-evolutionist trying to splice of the theory of evolution from the rest of science by stating it's not science.

All you need to do now is prove it instead of asserting this.


I'm not sure I can prove it, though I could possibly have a go at arguing this.

I'm not really taking a novel approach, but rather a very old one. Many of Darwin's opponents thought of evolutionary theory in the same way (for both good and bad reasons, I suppose).


Here follows a fairly decent (though succinct) definition of science:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.


No argument against that.


All you now need to do is prove that evolution doesn't observe, identify, describes, experiments or provides theoretical explanations.


Evolution definitely does NOT do these things. Scientist do them. Most scientists do accept evolution as being the best explanation available, but not all. The theory of evolution is an explanation, it is not the science itself.


You have asserted that the theory of evolution is not science since it does not observe anything (without giving a shred of evidence). I gave you a whole list of observations (see link in post 127) to counter your argument that macro evolution does not occur.


How can you not see that the theory of evolution is an explanation that is based on science, but is not the science itself. You don't have to be a scientist to see that.


Oh and I want to point out that if you are using the definition of observation that I think you are using (which boils down to we need to be able to actually see it happening) the whole field of physics/maths having to do with atom level interactions is not scientific even though it has given us things like the laser, superconducting magnets and is being used to get a working fusion reactor.


Not necessarily. Once it has been established a little peak or dot on a computer screen represents an atom, we do not need to see that atom before we place confidence in our results. And then we can repeat the experiment to our heart's content. Thus the fields of physics and mathematics is quite different from constructing the story of evolution. It remains a speculation, for example, that brain size is related to meat eating and is directly responsible for humans growing bigger brains than other animals. And yet the level of confidence placed in this speculation does not come from observation, but because it is one of the few reasons that we can think of to explain the development of human intelligence within the story of evolution. That is a long way from the direct and indirect measurements that are made within physics and mathematics.


I'm also inferring that you are using a incorrect idea of the repeatability.
What is supposed to be repeatable are the tests not the entire history of evolution.

I am well aware that one does not need to repeat all of evolution in order to know that it is true. However, I was pointing out that much of evolutionary theory is based on speculations over that which cannot be repeated (e.g. the relationship between the size of the human brain and meat eating diets), and thus the speculations must remain just that, speculations, and not science.

If you could find something in ID that states that genetic drift does not occur, I would be surprised. I think if you looked carefully at the ID arguments, you would find them quite intelligent, contrary to what many people think. At least I have found them this way. They have certainly got me thinking.

I've to admit that the arguments are very, very convincing for laymen.
The problem being that it is fairly hard for the laymen to slog through the papers, from which the ID people get their out of context quotes and other distorted claims, without at least a year of university level biology.

The general outline of the theory of evolution can be sketched in the room usually allotted in the high school/college level books but if you want to go down to the specifics it is the equivalent of rocket science (shameless condensation of point five here (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun99.html))
What I think they (IDers) mean by 'species not evolving' is in clear-case situations, such as reptiles into birds, and monkeys into people.... that sort of thing. Less clear case situations, such as a mini-fox terrier and the wolf are not so easy. One person thinks they are two different species, while another person argues that they are the same. If you want to prove macroevolution, you have to do it with a clear case scenario.

To put it another way, speciation is thought by some to be a product of microevolution, while others say that speciation defines macroevolution. What I understand of the ID position is that speciation may occur, so long as it isn't a product of macroevolution. (That doesn't make it very clear in every case, since the line between macroevolution and microevolution is a fuzzy one in some cases.)

Thus the argument from ID is not the speciation is impossible, but macroevolution that leads to new species, e.g. man from monkeys, is unlikely.

I'm not trying to redefine ideas, but clarifying ID position. Your attack on ID relies on ID being illogical and stupid. It may be wrong, or it may be right, I cannot say, but my argument is that ID is not stupid. In any case, I cannot see how you can logically claim that I am being dishonest.

Because he's correct in that you are trying to redefine terms.
Micro evolution is defined as changes happening below species level.
To be more precise:
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
You tried to put speciation into this as well.
Seeing that speciation is defined as macro evolution I guess that you accept it as well

You might also want to take into account that Answers In Genesis has a list of arguments that should not be used on it happens to be the argument 'Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.'
They distort the reason why. The real reason is that no one has managed to explain why a lot of small steps (micro evolution) cannot result in a new species (macro evolution) when compared to an ancestor.

You complained earlier in this thread that the people shredding ID behave as if they don't have a clue about the arguments used. I countered that this was endemic on the creationist/ID side. You are currently proving my point by not understanding the the items that the ID side is critizing but also by not understanding the basic definitions and their applications needed to be able to debate this subject.

The whole point of debating the theory of evolution vs IDism is moot though.
You admitted that ID accepts the supernatural (see post #138). That automatically disqualifies it as science.
You then committed the logical fallacy of saying that the theory of evolution is not science so ID should replace it.
Wrong, if the theory of evolution is not science it should be replaced by something scientific not something that by your own admission is not scientific.
So all that is left is trying to figure out if the theory of evolution is scientific.

Maybe my education may be lacking, but what you say above is not the definition of naturalism I know. The one I know is more like this:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish between the supernatural and the natural. Naturalism does not claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural necessarily do not exist or are wrong, but insists that they are not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses, and that both supernatural and natural phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods.

Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Distinctions are sometimes made between two approaches, the first being methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and the second ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. The first approach underlies the application of the scientific method in science, which makes the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. The second approach refers to the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists.

This distinction between approaches to the philosophy is particularly made by those involved in the creation-evolution controversy. Proponents of Creationism or intelligent design often refer to methodological naturalism as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism to distinguish it from their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural...8philosophy%29



I found that quite interesting, although not necessarily disagreeing with what I have already thought of naturalism. Particularly this statement seems to agree with what I was saying:

''Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.''

and

''observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes''

I found it interesting that there seems to be more than one version of naturalism, e.g., methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. I hadn't seen that before. And I think it explains some of Willamena's comments.

I found that quite interesting, although not necessarily disagreeing with what I have already thought of naturalism. Particularly this statement seems to agree with what I was saying:

''Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.''

and

''observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes''

I found it interesting that there seems to be more than one version of naturalism, e.g., methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. I hadn't seen that before. And I think it explains some of Willamena's comments.

Maybe I'm misreading your sentence "Yes, I was referring to naturalism, which is not so much saying that there is no supernatural, only that life has developed from non-life into primitive organisms and eventually into humans through only natural forces".

I understand you are saying that naturalism itself claims that life developed from non-life, which it does not do, at least not to my knowledge.

I've to admit that the arguments are very, very convincing for laymen.
The problem being that it is fairly hard for the laymen to slog through the papers, from which the ID people get their out of context quotes and other distorted claims, without at least a year of university level biology.

That's funny, because I would never say that their arguments are so convincing. Perhaps the more I read, the less I am convinced by what I read. I suppose I must sound like a real skeptic. But one needs a certain amount of skepticism in science, particularly when reading material that supports your own position.


The general outline of the theory of evolution can be sketched in the room usually allotted in the high school/college level books but if you want to go down to the specifics it is the equivalent of rocket science (shameless condensation of point five here (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun99.html))


They say the devil is in the detail. In other words, there are plenty of theories that could work on the sketchboard level, no argument there. The battle is won or lost over the details, it seems.


Because he's correct in that you are trying to redefine terms.
Micro evolution is defined as changes happening below species level.

To be more precise:
Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species.
You tried to put speciation into this as well.
Seeing that speciation is defined as macro evolution I guess that you accept it as well


Not redefining, mind, just questioning. No dishonesty in that. And your definition of microevolution depends on the definition of a species. So what is a speciation? Macroevolution. What is macroevolution? Round and round we go, until we get some definitions that DON'T use the same key words.


You might also want to take into account that Answers In Genesis has a list of arguments that should not be used on it happens to be the argument 'Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.'
They distort the reason why. The real reason is that no one has managed to explain why a lot of small steps (micro evolution) cannot result in a new species (macro evolution) when compared to an ancestor.


Apparently, you are more familiar with AIG than I am. Good to know that you do your reading. One wonders why you seem so....angry? about those who accept a theory other than your favourite one.

As for your idea of the real reason, I do not believe you. I think the real reason is the one that they give, that making such a statement brings confusion into the argument, at which point the creationist gets shot down over points that are not part of his argument.


You complained earlier in this thread that the people shredding ID behave as if they don't have a clue about the arguments used. I countered that this was endemic on the creationist/ID side. You are currently proving my point by not understanding the the items that the ID side is critizing but also by not understanding the basic definitions and their applications needed to be able to debate this subject.


(coughs) Well, then, at least I am not making out that those who believe in evolutionary theory are stupid for believing it, am I?

Not all people who disagree with ID are stupid, I should point out, perhaps just those who are convinced that they know the facts, but base their reasons on rather ignorant arguments. It is far more intelligent to readily admit that there is a lot they don't know, but that they prefer one theory to another.

I'm not sure that you can say that what I don't know and what I do. It would seem rather presumptious of you, not to say, impolite.



The whole point of debating the theory of evolution vs IDism is moot though.
You admitted that ID accepts the supernatural (see post #138). That automatically disqualifies it as science.
You then committed the logical fallacy of saying that the theory of evolution is not science so ID should replace it.
Wrong, if the theory of evolution is not science it should be replaced by something scientific not something that by your own admission is not scientific.
So all that is left is trying to figure out if the theory of evolution is scientific.


The idea that science cannot accept the supernatural is a philosophical viewpoint and not an integral part of science. For example, the scientific pursuit has been around a lot longer than the idea that science cannot accept the supernatural. Isaac Newton was a scientist, for example. You should know that real science is neutral on the issue of the supernatural. Thus science cannot and should not be used to measure the supernatural. However, that is different to saying that science cannot allow that the supernatural may have played a role in the origin and development of life. Real science cannot say whether the supernatural played a role or not, particularly in areas that we do not understand very well.

I certainly have not said that ID should replace the theory of evolution. What I do say is that neither theories are science. They are theories that may be based on science. You can take your pick, but you are hardly in such a great postion to decide which one has more truth, unless you know something that I don't.

Maybe I'm misreading your sentence "Yes, I was referring to naturalism, which is not so much saying that there is no supernatural, only that life has developed from non-life into primitive organisms and eventually into humans through only natural forces".

I understand you are saying that naturalism itself claims that life developed from non-life, which it does not do, at least not to my knowledge.

Oh, I see your point. Yes, the definition of naturalism says nothing about that ''life has developed from non-life into primitive organisms and eventually into humans through only natural forces'', however, I see this as the logical conclusion of the philosophical postion. Would you disagree?

Oh, I see your point. Yes, the definition of naturalism says nothing about that ''life has developed from non-life into primitive organisms and eventually into humans through only natural forces'', however, I see this as the logical conclusion of the philosophical postion. Would you disagree?

It is only a logical conclusion if we take all other evidence into account. Without that, you could conclude that life has always existed for example. But because we assume, that the universe started with the Big Bang and we were able to figure out that Earth has not always existed, we know that life could not have possibly been here forever.

Thus your conclusion is not THE logical conclusion of naturalism itself.

Your post would look better with out flametory comments.

When I see a pig I call it a pig, when someone behaves like a a dunce I call them a dunce and when someone is talking nonsense I say so. Especially since I explained below that why I think you were talking nonsense. If you can't handle blunt honesty what are you doing on the internet?

I'm not sure I can prove it, though I could possibly have a go at arguing this.

I'm not really taking a novel approach, but rather a very old one. Many of Darwin's opponents thought of evolutionary theory in the same way (for both good and bad reasons, I suppose).

And they were convinced is a very short timespan (short in as compared to what it normally takes to go from hypothesis to theory) that his hypothesis was solid enough to be considered a theory.


<small snip>
Evolution definitely does NOT do these things. Scientist do them. Most scientists do accept evolution as being the best explanation available, but not all. The theory of evolution is an explanation, it is not the science itself.

Seems I didn't express myself careful enough. Doesn't really matter, you are mired in a quicksand made of your own words.
So you agree that scientists do these things.
Do you also agree that scientist study the theory of evolution?
Do you then also accept the inferrence that they apply these to the theory of evolution?
If so then why do you not accept that the theory of evolution is scientifically sound?

If not why do scientists make an exception for the theory of evolution?

How can you not see that the theory of evolution is an explanation that is based on science, but is not the science itself. You don't have to be a scientist to see that.

I know that. all theories are descriptive. It's not a reason to dismiss one you don't like though.
Besides evolution is a fact and a theory. That is to say you have evolution as fact and the theory of evolution describing how that evolution (the fact) operates.

Not necessarily. Once it has been established a little peak or dot on a computer screen represents an atom, we do not need to see that atom before we place confidence in our results. And then we can repeat the experiment to our heart's content. Thus the fields of physics and mathematics is quite different from constructing the story of evolution. It remains a speculation, for example, that brain size is related to meat eating and is directly responsible for humans growing bigger brains than other animals. And yet the level of confidence placed in this speculation does not come from observation, but because it is one of the few reasons that we can think of to explain the development of human intelligence within the story of evolution. That is a long way from the direct and indirect measurements that are made within physics and mathematics.

The thing is that we don't know that that peak or dot is an atom. We've never seen one, only theorized that they exist. We only have a theory that predicts if X happens Y has to happen. On that we base the existence of atoms because the theory that uses atoms makes the best prediction.
Then you get a distorted claim without any evidence (I see a trend forming here, I keep tossing evidence into your face and all you can do is come back with unfounded assertions).
The whole thing is that just eating meat does not increase brainsize. What would have done the trick is selection of specimens who could form increasingly complex functioning groups to more effectively hunt big game. Being more effective at hunting big game allows for more meat which has per kilogram more energy then a kilogram of vegetation. This allows for a more complex brain by virtue of having more energy available for it to function. A more complex brain allows for more efficient hunting, repeat from start (Aren't positive feedback loops great or what?).
For more information I'd suggest you read the books I add to the end of this post
Oh and then you have the gall to accuse people of doing what is considered the ultimate sin in science; That is have a conclusion and try to fit the facts with the conclusion. That is the tactic performed by the ID people. They start out with the premise that an 'intelligent' designer exists and then try to prove it. For science it is just unworkable unless you expect every single scientists whos field of study is even remotely connected with biology to be involved in a mass conspiracy. For example a paleontologist don't will not take it if someone studying evolution theory comes around and demandss that (s)he finds fossils corroborating a specific pet hypothesis. It's the other way around. The paleontologist might find something and doesn't care if that proves or disproves someone elses pet theory.

I am well aware that one does not need to repeat all of evolution in order to know that it is true. However, I was pointing out that much of evolutionary theory is based on speculations over that which cannot be repeated (e.g. the relationship between the size of the human brain and meat eating diets), and thus the speculations must remain just that, speculations, and not science.
And you commit the classical fallacy of saying if this is wrong then everything associated with it is wrong.
If this was mere speculation (a notion which I hope the perusal of the books & articles below will dispel) it doesn't invalidate the other established facts. And even if it is speculation, it is on the same level as the speculation about how an atom is build up.

suggested reading material:
Foley R (1982) "A reconsideration of the role of predation on large mammals in tropical hunter-gatherer adaptation." Man (The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute), vol. 17.

Foley RA, Lee PC (1991) "Ecology and energetics of encephalization in hominid evolution." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, vol. 334.

Lee RB (1968) "What hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on scarce resources." In: Man the Hunter, eds. Lee RB, DeVore I; Aldine Atherton, Chicago.

Lee RB (1979) The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society, Cambridge University Press.

Lee-Thorp JA, van der Merwe NJ, Brain CK (1994) "Diet of Australopithecus robustus at Swartkrans from stable carbon isotopic analysis." Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 27.

Leonard WR, Robertson ML (1992) "Nutritional requirements and human evolution: a bioenergetics model." American Journal of Human Biology, vol. 4.

Leonard WR, Robertson ML (1994) "Evolutionary perspectives on human nutrition: the influence of brain and body size on diet and metabolism." American Journal of Human Biology, vol. 6.

Lewin R (1988) "New views emerge on hunters and gatherers." Science, vol. 240.

If you could find something in ID that states that genetic drift does not occur, I would be surprised. I think if you looked carefully at the ID arguments, you would find them quite intelligent, contrary to what many people think. At least I have found them this way. They have certainly got me thinking.



What I think they (IDers) mean by 'species not evolving' is in clear-case situations, such as reptiles into birds, and monkeys into people.... that sort of thing. Less clear case situations, such as a mini-fox terrier and the wolf are not so easy. One person thinks they are two different species, while another person argues that they are the same. If you want to prove macroevolution, you have to do it with a clear case scenario.

To put it another way, speciation is thought by some to be a product of microevolution, while others say that speciation defines macroevolution. What I understand of the ID position is that speciation may occur, so long as it isn't a product of macroevolution. (That doesn't make it very clear in every case, since the line between macroevolution and microevolution is a fuzzy one in some cases.)

Thus the argument from ID is not the speciation is impossible, but macroevolution that leads to new species, e.g. man from monkeys, is unlikely.

I'm not trying to redefine ideas, but clarifying ID position. Your attack on ID relies on ID being illogical and stupid. It may be wrong, or it may be right, I cannot say, but my argument is that ID is not stupid. In any case, I cannot see how you can logically claim that I am being dishonest.
I claim that you are being dishonest because we've established, and to my knowledge every biologist agrees, that the point where a population has divided into separate species is when they can no longer reproduce to create fertile offspring. We went over this a couple of pages ago. Now you're either claiming that two populations of related animals who can't breed with each other might still be the same species, which is dishonestly shifting the goalposts.

Or maybe you're claiming that ID allows for evolution into new species but not into new genera. Once again, shifting goalposts and redefining the agreed upon terms of microevolution and macroevolution. Either way it's dishonest unless it's honest ignorance of the definitions and of ID.

Either way, if many small mutations can add up to a new species, over longer periods of time what mechanism exists to stop them from forming new genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and kingdoms?

When I see a pig I call it a pig, when someone behaves like a a dunce I call them a dunce and when someone is talking nonsense I say so. Especially since I explained below that why I think you were talking nonsense. If you can't handle blunt honesty what are you doing on the internet?

I never said that I cannot handle rudeness, only that I thought your post would look more intelligent when they are presented politely. Nevermind.


And they were convinced is a very short timespan (short in as compared to what it normally takes to go from hypothesis to theory) that his hypothesis was solid enough to be considered a theory.


Some were, some were not. Some are still not. Does that make them stupid, in your opinion?


Seems I didn't express myself careful enough. Doesn't really matter, you are mired in a quicksand made of your own words.
So you agree that scientists do these things.
Do you also agree that scientist study the theory of evolution?
Do you then also accept the inferrence that they apply these to the theory of evolution?
If so then why do you not accept that the theory of evolution is scientifically sound?

If not why do scientists make an exception for the theory of evolution?


I am hardly mired. Yes, scientists do these things, but scientists are still human, and they can peer review each other all they like, but so long as they are intolerant of criticisms of evolution, their bias will be perpetuated. Much of the basis of the theory of evolution is not sound. For example, evolution is based on an organism being capable of acquiring new genes and finding a way of regulating these genes and co-ordinating the gene products in such a way that leads to functionality that allows the organism to be more fit for survival. However, this very basic idea has not been demonstrated, nor has the process even been observed. Scientists simply look at the variety of organisms and pick out the 'stages' of the development. This is does not make the theory scientifically proven. When a theory cannot be tested, it must remain a theory. The exception for the evolutionary theory is simply that most people do not consider that there is any alternative. While evolution does not provide many of the answers, many feel that it is still the best theory that we have, thus it must be the closest one to the truth. Such is the basis for the exception.



I know that. all theories are descriptive. It's not a reason to dismiss one you don't like though.
Besides evolution is a fact and a theory. That is to say you have evolution as fact and the theory of evolution describing how that evolution (the fact) operates.


I don't think I have said anywhere that I personally dismissed evolutionary theory as false. You keep trying to stick me in a box.
And evolution is both fact and theory, you are right on that one. Fact is genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, pretty much all the things that we can observe. Theory is the part where we hypothesize that natural selection and mutations are sufficient for the development of microbes to man. I agree with the facts, but I am skeptical of the theory.


The thing is that we don't know that that peak or dot is an atom. We've never seen one, only theorized that they exist. We only have a theory that predicts if X happens Y has to happen. On that we base the existence of atoms because the theory that uses atoms makes the best prediction.


It isn't that hard to establish a relationship between a dot on a screen and the molecular structure of a molecule. Well, perhaps it can be difficult, but not impossible for the specialists. When we get the theory that X is related to Y, we alter the conditions and repeat the experiment to see if our theory is true. We can continue to make alterations to test the theory. This is something that cannot be done with much of evolutionary theory.


Then you get a distorted claim without any evidence (I see a trend forming here, I keep tossing evidence into your face and all you can do is come back with unfounded assertions).


evidence? Where? giving links to a website?


The whole thing is that just eating meat does not increase brainsize. What would have done the trick is selection of specimens who could form increasingly complex functioning groups to more effectively hunt big game. Being more effective at hunting big game allows for more meat which has per kilogram more energy then a kilogram of vegetation. This allows for a more complex brain by virtue of having more energy available for it to function. A more complex brain allows for more efficient hunting, repeat from start (Aren't positive feedback loops great or what?).


And I never said that JUST eating meat increases brain size. I meant it as one of the supposedly critical factors. And yes, I am familiar with the theory. My point was that it cannot be tested, thus anyone claiming that it is a fact is not being scientific.



For more information I'd suggest you read the books I add to the end of this post
Oh and then you have the gall to accuse people of doing what is considered the ultimate sin in science; That is have a conclusion and try to fit the facts with the conclusion. That is the tactic performed by the ID people. They start out with the premise that an 'intelligent' designer exists and then try to prove it. For science it is just unworkable unless you expect every single scientists whos field of study is even remotely connected with biology to be involved in a mass conspiracy. For example a paleontologist don't will not take it if someone studying evolution theory comes around and demandss that (s)he finds fossils corroborating a specific pet hypothesis. It's the other way around. The paleontologist might find something and doesn't care if that proves or disproves someone elses pet theory.


Everyone begins with an assumption. For ID, the assumption is that there is a supernatural that is capable of interacting with the material world. For evolutionary theory, the assumption is that life is capable of developing without interference from the supernatural, or some such version, depending on who you talk to. In every case, one begins to build a world view with an assumption. In science, the same goes.

I don't believe there is a mass conspiracy. There is, however, an unwritten expectation that every paper one publishes in science must either be neutral regarding evolution and creation, or pro-evolution. The moment someone suggests the supernatural, and they are branded as unscientific. Thus one of the common definitions of science is that it cannot allow the possibility of the interaction between the supernatural and the natural. I don't hold to that definition. I say that science cannot delve into the supernatural, but must remain neutral over the issue of supernatural acts.

Such an expectation means that to be accepted as a scientist, you have to be pro-evolutionary theory. This has created a science community that can only be pro-evolution. Thus the current science community consists of evolutionists and closet creationists.


And you commit the classical fallacy of saying if this is wrong then everything associated with it is wrong.
If this was mere speculation (a notion which I hope the perusal of the books & articles below will dispel) it doesn't invalidate the other established facts. And even if it is speculation, it is on the same level as the speculation about how an atom is build up.


Utter nonsense. I did not say that such speculation was even wrong. You are still trying to stick me into a box and mis-label me. I merely said that it was only speculation. Neither was I suggesting that because it is speculation that all of the theory was wrong. I was simply saying that you are wrong if you think that such speculation should be considered fact.


suggested reading material:
Foley R (1982) "A reconsideration of the role of predation on large mammals in tropical hunter-gatherer adaptation." Man (The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute), vol. 17.

Foley RA, Lee PC (1991) "Ecology and energetics of encephalization in hominid evolution." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, vol. 334.

Lee RB (1968) "What hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on scarce resources." In: Man the Hunter, eds. Lee RB, DeVore I; Aldine Atherton, Chicago.

Lee RB (1979) The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society, Cambridge University Press.

Lee-Thorp JA, van der Merwe NJ, Brain CK (1994) "Diet of Australopithecus robustus at Swartkrans from stable carbon isotopic analysis." Journal of Human Evolution, vol. 27.

Leonard WR, Robertson ML (1992) "Nutritional requirements and human evolution: a bioenergetics model." American Journal of Human Biology, vol. 4.

Leonard WR, Robertson ML (1994) "Evolutionary perspectives on human nutrition: the influence of brain and body size on diet and metabolism." American Journal of Human Biology, vol. 6.

Lewin R (1988) "New views emerge on hunters and gatherers." Science, vol. 240.

I suspect you have not even read one of these books or journals. Copy and paste?

Yes, I was referring to naturalism, which is not so much saying that there is no supernatural, only that life has developed from non-life into primitive organisms and eventually into humans through only natural forces. Darwin himself was a naturalistic thinker, and believed in God (at least for most of his life).
It is what naturalism is saying; I looked it up, both this time and the last time it came up in conversation with you. Naturalism holds that everything that is can be described within the context of nature, and it holds that there is no difference between natural and supernatural things, thereby claiming the latter as effectively natural ("supernatural" loses all meaning). It is in this context that the "method" of science was developed to define things.

People can and do hold to more than one philosophy, even conflicting ones. They simply make exceptions to allow for the conflicts. They no doubt recognize that philosophies are not "the truth" but a set of coherent beliefs.

However, much of science today, perhaps most of it, while being influenced by naturalism, is not necessarily based on it. Just as science was possible before the rise of naturalism, so it is possible today, so long as it is restricted to an investigation into the material world (rather than looking into the supernatural). My own investigations are not based on naturalism, but are restricted to the natural world. My work does not depend on the assumption that God did or did not create bacteria. Whether bacteria evolved or were created is in fact quite irrelevant to all of my research. The same goes for a good deal of science, though obviously not all.
Aye; as a mechanism for defining natural processes, science is limited and can be quite focussed.

In conclusion, I have to disagree with your post. The theory of evolution is based on the philosophy of naturalism, while science itself is far bigger than the theory of evolution, and certainly not restricted to one philosophical viewpoint.
If by "viewpoints" you refer to the philosophies a scientist might hold, I agree. But the scientific method itself operates within the context of only one of those particular viewpoints.

You said it yourself; "so long as it is restricted to an investigation into the material world..."

The theory of evolution is not science, so long as the definition of the scientific method involves observation and repetition. It is more correct to say that the theory of evolution is a set of conclusions, assumptions, and hypotheses that are derived from the scientific method and the philosophy of naturalism.
I don't see the difference.

EDIT: ...between what you say here and what I said earlier.

I am hardly mired. Yes, scientists do these things, but scientists are still human, and they can peer review each other all they like, but so long as they are intolerant of criticisms of evolution, their bias will be perpetuated.

Note however that being open to criticism of evolution, or even being convinced it is completely and utterly wrong (which is a tough position to maintain since in practice it is at least a reasonable approximation of the truth) is not the same as embracing something like ID.

Everyone begins with an assumption. For ID, the assumption is that there is a supernatural that is capable of interacting with the material world. For evolutionary theory, the assumption is that life is capable of developing without interference from the supernatural, or some such version, depending on who you talk to.

One could argue that the scientist here is not making assumptions but instead merely limiting himself - hopefully admitting that this also means it is possible there are things his method will be unable to explain.
These limits do however *force* him to think very long and hard about a solution - instead of just reaching out to the easy "something beyond our understanding did it in ways we can never comprehend".

I am hardly mired. Yes, scientists do these things, but scientists are still human, and they can peer review each other all they like, but so long as they are intolerant of criticisms of evolution, their bias will be perpetuated. Much of the basis of the theory of evolution is not sound. For example, evolution is based on an organism being capable of acquiring new genes and finding a way of regulating these genes and co-ordinating the gene products in such a way that leads to functionality that allows the organism to be more fit for survival. However, this very basic idea has not been demonstrated, nor has the process even been observed. Scientists simply look at the variety of organisms and pick out the 'stages' of the development. This is does not make the theory scientifically proven. When a theory cannot be tested, it must remain a theory. The exception for the evolutionary theory is simply that most people do not consider that there is any alternative. While evolution does not provide many of the answers, many feel that it is still the best theory that we have, thus it must be the closest one to the truth. Such is the basis for the exception.

From what I'm hearing, scientists are not out to prove things, but to disprove theories and to find evidence.

You can't prove something for 100% in science, you can only add up as much evidence that in the end you are left conculding that a certain theory might be a as close to the truth as you can get.

Everyone begins with an assumption. For ID, the assumption is that there is a supernatural that is capable of interacting with the material world. For evolutionary theory, the assumption is that life is capable of developing without interference from the supernatural, or some such version, depending on who you talk to. In every case, one begins to build a world view with an assumption. In science, the same goes.

I'm not saying that some scientists don't start with a conclusion and then try to find evidence. Research about video games and violence is biased more often than not.

But this is not the proper way. The right way is to look at the evidence and to draw conclusion from that. I highly doubt that Darwin started his voyage with his theory already in mind, searching for evidence.

Thus the argument from ID is not the speciation is impossible, but macroevolution that leads to new species, e.g. man from monkeys, is unlikely.
Please tell me you don't consider proto-humans to be monkeys.

Maybe I'm misreading your sentence "Yes, I was referring to naturalism, which is not so much saying that there is no supernatural, only that life has developed from non-life into primitive organisms and eventually into humans through only natural forces".

I understand you are saying that naturalism itself claims that life developed from non-life, which it does not do, at least not to my knowledge.
Indeed, it cannot claim that. It can only claim life from life.

I claim that you are being dishonest because we've established, and to my knowledge every biologist agrees, that the point where a population has divided into separate species is when they can no longer reproduce to create fertile offspring. We went over this a couple of pages ago. Now you're either claiming that two populations of related animals who can't breed with each other might still be the same species, which is dishonestly shifting the goalposts.

Not every biologist agrees on the definition of species. I was trying to establish that when I mentioned the fact that a lion and a tiger were found to produce offspring while in captivity. I should also mention that bacterial species are being continually renamed today. It was also the point of mentioning that while a wolf and a fox terrier are capable of breeding (given a helping hand), the unlikelihood of their breeding in the wild makes the whole issue of speciation unclear. Thus, I am not shifting the goal posts, but have consistently pointed out this problem right from the beginning of our debate. Thus, your claim is out of line.

It is possible that two populations that do not breed in the wild are still capable of breeding under certain conditions, such as captivity or severe drought conditions. Thus, genes do not always prevent populations from interbreeding. In that case, it can be argued that so long as two species are genetically capable of breeding, that perhaps they are the same species after all.



Or maybe you're claiming that ID allows for evolution into new species but not into new genera. Once again, shifting goalposts and redefining the agreed upon terms of microevolution and macroevolution. Either way it's dishonest unless it's honest ignorance of the definitions and of ID.


I did not mention genera. I only suggested that while the definition of macroevolution is the development of a new species, the actual definition of a species is uncertain, because there are all sorts of reasons why two populations do not interbreed, and not only genetics. Rather than ignorance of the definitions and ID, I suggest that it is because I understand a little more about the problems of classifying animals into species, and building definitions using unclear terms.

At any rate, if you will insist using such a definition of macroevolution, I can still point out that there is a big difference between the splitting of a butterfly species into two separate species and the development of a monkey into a human. From what I know of ID, I would say that it is happy with the first example, but finds the second rather unlikely.


Either way, if many small mutations can add up to a new species, over longer periods of time what mechanism exists to stop them from forming new genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and kingdoms?

Good question. The answer lies in the details. If you can describe the mutational details that caused the divergence of a the butterfly into two distinct species, well and good. You will have evidence for your 'macroevolution'. But if you cannot explain how mutations and natural selection codes for an increased brain size (e.g. monkeys to humans) using details of genes and their mutations, how such a pathway may be at least theoretically possible, then you are left with a speculation that can be criticized by even the half-baked science student.

The idea that science cannot accept the supernatural is a philosophical viewpoint and not an integral part of science. For example, the scientific pursuit has been around a lot longer than the idea that science cannot accept the supernatural. Isaac Newton was a scientist, for example. You should know that real science is neutral on the issue of the supernatural. Thus science cannot and should not be used to measure the supernatural. However, that is different to saying that science cannot allow that the supernatural may have played a role in the origin and development of life. Real science cannot say whether the supernatural played a role or not, particularly in areas that we do not understand very well.
We now have a new distinction to play with, between "science" and "real science". ;)

Please tell me you don't consider proto-humans to be monkeys.

He has most likely ignored any evidence of proto-hominids and their gradation from austrelopithecus to homosapien sapien, preferring to remain in ignorance.

I am sure he will throw pages and pages of useless information at me that basically amounts to repeating himself, so I will not respond to him. He has shown his reticence to learn anything at all many, many times. So fuck him.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

First most of string theory is based on Math---math is considered hard data, as it should be.

Second get the story straight, it is not science, it cant be science--ever.

I am a believer in ID---A Christian one.

And it is not science, you can not base a scientific theory on faith--it most be based on a hypothesis---then some proofs. It does not need to be proven conclusively--but simply have some proofs to make it worth considering.

String theory is not taught in public schools where ID is not offered---as it is University Level theoretical physics---you want ID take a comparative Religions class, keep your faith from my science.
God likes it better when I am organized.

I don't believe there is a mass conspiracy. There is, however, an unwritten expectation that every paper one publishes in science must either be neutral regarding evolution and creation, or pro-evolution. The moment someone suggests the supernatural, and they are branded as unscientific. Thus one of the common definitions of science is that it cannot allow the possibility of the interaction between the supernatural and the natural. I don't hold to that definition. I say that science cannot delve into the supernatural, but must remain neutral over the issue of supernatural acts.

Such an expectation means that to be accepted as a scientist, you have to be pro-evolutionary theory. This has created a science community that can only be pro-evolution. Thus the current science community consists of evolutionists and closet creationists.
First off, if a paper on evolution is to be published by a science magazine, then it must be about evolution, not about supernatural interference in evolution; that should be a paper for another magazine, perhaps one about the supernatural.

It's the old question of trying to redefine "science" to include the supernatural as cause, and therefore explanation, of things. It cannot be a part of science, because it is not a cause that can be examined. In this sense, science is entirely necessarily naturalistic.

I have tried and tried to wrap my mind around how you seem to resolve in your mind being "neutral over the inclusion of supernatural acts" with inclusion of the supernatural as expanation. How is that neutral?

"Originally Posted by Bruarong
The idea that science cannot accept the supernatural is a philosophical viewpoint and not an integral part of science. For example, the scientific pursuit has been around a lot longer than the idea that science cannot accept the supernatural. Isaac Newton was a scientist, for example. You should know that real science is neutral on the issue of the supernatural. Thus science cannot and should not be used to measure the supernatural. However, that is different to saying that science cannot allow that the supernatural may have played a role in the origin and development of life. Real science cannot say whether the supernatural played a role or not, particularly in areas that we do not understand very well."

So ID isn't science because it doesn't remain neutral on the aspect of the supernatural?

Seriously, if scientists adopted your attitude we would haven ever bothered to learn anything at all, ever. We didn't understand a great many things even a few hundred years ago, but thanks to great thinkers like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and others, we have advanced radically.

Whereas before this, when science embraced the supernatural, our culture was in complete stagnation. I refer you to a real-world example of this: Iraq. The victory over the conventional Army was because of something known in Arabic culture as "The Will of Allah". If the tanks do not work, it is God's Will. The Supernatural is responsible for everything there. And so their culture had stopped advancing long ago, and they put up no fight whatsoever against the US forces invading them.

This is an example of how one's faith and passion will overrule their reason if that faith is allowed a foothold in the realms of reasoning. I posit that your ideas are atrocious, and I do not particularly care if you don't think that that is nice. I'm an adult, I don't play nice. If you would rather go play with children, feel free.

It is what naturalism is saying; I looked it up, both this time and the last time it came up in conversation with you. Naturalism holds that everything that is can be described within the context of nature, and it holds that there is no difference between natural and supernatural things, thereby claiming the latter as effectively natural ("supernatural" loses all meaning). It is in this context that the "method" of science was developed to define things.

OK. But one of my major differences with naturalism is that one can pursue science rather successfully and still believe that the supernatural not only exists but has interfered with the natural world (i.e. creation). (The frequent claim being that allowing for the supernatural is not science.) There are plenty of examples of people in this position.



People can and do hold to more than one philosophy, even conflicting ones. They simply make exceptions to allow for the conflicts. They no doubt recognize that philosophies are not "the truth" but a set of coherent beliefs.


Quite. People can even know the facts without needing to form an opinion, although that is rare. Most people seem to need to have an opinion on just about everything. Perhaps that is one of the great things about kids--not so jolly opinionated (a gross generalisation, of course).


Aye; as a mechanism for defining natural processes, science is limited and can be quite focussed.

You are not bashing my beloved science, are you? (J/K)


If by "viewpoints" you refer to the philosophies a scientist might hold, I agree. But the scientific method itself operates within the context of only one of those particular viewpoints.


I'm not sure that I agree. There is a delicate difference between limiting one's investigation to the material world, and assuming that only natural forces can explain the material world.


You said it yourself; "so long as it is restricted to an investigation into the material world..."

Yes, but a limitation in the process of investigation does not equal an assumption that the supernatural did not interfere with the natural world.

Not every biologist agrees on the definition of species. I was trying to establish that when I mentioned the fact that a lion and a tiger were found to produce offspring while in captivity. I should also mention that bacterial species are being continually renamed today. It was also the point of mentioning that while a wolf and a fox terrier are capable of breeding (given a helping hand), the unlikelihood of their breeding in the wild makes the whole issue of speciation unclear. Thus, I am not shifting the goal posts, but have consistently pointed out this problem right from the beginning of our debate. Thus, your claim is out of line.

It is possible that two populations that do not breed in the wild are still capable of breeding under certain conditions, such as captivity or severe drought conditions. Thus, genes do not always prevent populations from interbreeding. In that case, it can be argued that so long as two species are genetically capable of breeding, that perhaps they are the same species after all.




I did not mention genera. I only suggested that while the definition of macroevolution is the development of a new species, the actual definition of a species is uncertain, because there are all sorts of reasons why two populations do not interbreed, and not only genetics. Rather than ignorance of the definitions and ID, I suggest that it is because I understand a little more about the problems of classifying animals into species, and building definitions using unclear terms.

At any rate, if you will insist using such a definition of macroevolution, I can still point out that there is a big difference between the splitting of a butterfly species into two separate species and the development of a monkey into a human. From what I know of ID, I would say that it is happy with the first example, but finds the second rather unlikely.



Good question. The answer lies in the details. If you can describe the mutational details that caused the divergence of a the butterfly into two distinct species, well and good. You will have evidence for your 'macroevolution'. But if you cannot explain how mutations and natural selection codes for an increased brain size (e.g. monkeys to humans) using details of genes and their mutations, how such a pathway may be at least theoretically possible, then you are left with a speculation that can be criticized by even the half-baked science student.
1) Look over this list of definitions of species. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:species
a singular or plural term for a population or series of populations of organisms that are capable of interbreeding freely with each other but not with members of other species. Includes a number of cases:
www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/glossary/S.htm

groups of animals or plants having common characteristics and able to breed together to produce fertile (capable of reproducing) offspring, so that they ‘maintain’ their ‘separateness’ from other groups
www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/reef_research/issue2_99/gloss.htm

2) You didn't explicitly mention genera, but you did make reference to the difference between changes from one species to another within the same genus, like your butterflies thing above, and changes from a species in one genus to a species in another one like in your monkey and people analogy above. That's what brought up genera.

It seems to me that you did move the goalposts because originally you only asked that a dog be bred into a wolf as proof for evolution. Now you claim that such a thing is within the bounds of ID and ask for examples of evolution from one genus into another.

See, that's the thing. It really isn't. According to String Theory, the mathematical probability of our Universe existing is close to nil. They cite dumb luck as our reason for existance. And there's no way to prove or disprove that other Universes exist, come into existance, or are destroyed, since we can't observe outside our own Universe. You just "gotta believe" that there's other Universes out there, since the math vaguely points to a slim chance they're out there. It ain't science in the traditional sense. Either we have to redefine science, or String Theory isn't it.

Well, the String theory insn't based on blind faith. Work has been put into developing it, and work is still being done to test it. If proven wrong, then the theory will be ditched or modified accordingly, just like any other mathematical and scientific theory. It's not the same as intelligent design, which is more faith-based and completely untestable - it is a philosophy and a religious concept, but not a scientific one. Thus, it doesn't belong in the science class room, but in Religious, Moral and Philosophical studies or a similar class.

We now have a new distinction to play with, between "science" and "real science". ;)

Right. Good point. I should have said 'science' and 'that which gets taken for science'. I suppose they are mostly the same thing, but obviously not always.


First off, if a paper on evolution is to be published by a science magazine, then it must be about evolution, not about supernatural interference in evolution; that should be a paper for another magazine, perhaps one about the supernatural.


Fair enough. But what about a paper that is simply about nature. It still isn't allowed to assume the supernatural, but it is allowed to assume that the supernatural did not interfere. I am happy for that to go into a journal on evolution. I am not terribly happy that most non-evolutionary (that is journals that do not deal directly with evolution) journals are edited by people who are either evolutionists (still no problem with that) or by critics of evolution who are afraid to lose their job if the are openly critical of evolution (big problem with that).



It's the old question of trying to redefine "science" to include the supernatural as cause, and therefore explanation, of things. It cannot be a part of science, because it is not a cause that can be examined. In this sense, science is entirely necessarily naturalistic.

Not necessary to redefine science, but simply to allow the science that was before the rise of Darwin's naturalism to continue as an acceptable way of interpreting the observations. Can you imagine how Kepler's discoveries would have seemed in a modern scientific journal?


I have tried and tried to wrap my mind around how you seem to resolve in your mind being "neutral over the inclusion of supernatural acts" with inclusion of the supernatural as expanation. How is that neutral?


Well, you see, science consists of several parts. Some parts deal with the investigation, while other parts deal with how to make sound speculations and hypotheses. The parts that deal with the investigation of the material world needs to recognise that limitation. However, the parts of science that deal with forming opinions and speculations are not necessarily neutral about the supernatural. Neither the theory of evolution or of creation are 'neutral about the inclusion of supernatural acts' but are capable of holding various opinions. Is that really that hard to get your mind around?

1) Look over this list of definitions of species. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:species


Wouldn't you say that there is some variation in the definitions? For example, Wikipedia says this: ''Since the advent of the theory of evolution, the conception of species has undergone vast changes in biology, however no consensus on the definition of the word has yet been reached.''


2) You didn't explicitly mention genera, but you did make reference to the difference between changes from one species to another within the same genus, like your butterflies thing above, and changes from a species in one genus to a species in another one like in your monkey and people analogy above. That's what brought up genera.

It seems to me that you did move the goalposts because originally you only asked that a dog be bred into a wolf as proof for evolution. Now you claim that such a thing is within the bounds of ID and ask for examples of evolution from one genus into another.

I think I see your confusion. The point I made was that ID does not argue against the possibility of a wolf species diverging into two dog-like species, but it does argue that you cannot take a fox terrier and breed it into a wolf. There is a very big difference between the two. The reason is that where speciation involves a loss of information, that is relatively simple and has been observed. However, if you take an animal that has been in captivity, and has lost many of its genes, by accumulating many mutations (which lead to e.g. shorter legs), you cannot do any amount of breeding to regain that lost information. Thus you cannot get a wolf from a fox terrier, but you can get a fox terrier from a wolf. If you could get a wolf from a terrier, I would agree that you have evidence of evolution, macroevolution. I still do not agree that I have moved the goalposts, sir.

OK. But one of my major differences with naturalism is that one can pursue science rather successfully and still believe that the supernatural not only exists but has interfered with the natural world (i.e. creation). (The frequent claim being that allowing for the supernatural is not science.) There are plenty of examples of people in this position.
Okay, that's fine; but whatever beliefs the scientist holds is not a part of the science he does. "Allowing for the supernatural" refers to allowing for the possibility of it in the scientific explanation, not in the scientist's beliefs.

Originally Posted by Willamena
If by "viewpoints" you refer to the philosophies a scientist might hold, I agree. But the scientific method itself operates within the context of only one of those particular viewpoints.
I'm not sure that I agree. There is a delicate difference between limiting one's investigation to the material world, and assuming that only natural forces can explain the material world.
I suppose our difference is in the defintion of "operates". With the supernatural as an explanation of cause, science falls flat on its face.

Originally Posted by Willamena
You said it yourself; "so long as it is restricted to an investigation into the material world..."
Yes, but a limitation in the process of investigation does not equal an assumption that the supernatural did not interfere with the natural world.
The scientist can assume that all he likes. The science cannot.

Please tell me you don't consider proto-humans to be monkeys.

This may look like a side step, but I can honestly say that I have not personally gathered enough information on that one to have formed my own opinion. I only know a little about the opinion of others, and have learned that it is not necessarily wise to allow others to make up my own opinions. Until then, I basically remain opinion-less over it.

However, I think that the ID answer to proto-humans is that the evidence is mostly speculative, and is based on the assumption that the evolution of monkeys to humans must have involved certain animals that must have looked somewhat like so and so. It seems to me that if the assumption is wrong, then the speculations are not worth the paper they are written on.

Originally Posted by Willamena
I have tried and tried to wrap my mind around how you seem to resolve in your mind being "neutral over the inclusion of supernatural acts" with inclusion of the supernatural as expanation. How is that neutral?
Well, you see, science consists of several parts. Some parts deal with the investigation, while other parts deal with how to make sound speculations and hypotheses. The parts that deal with the investigation of the material world needs to recognise that limitation. However, the parts of science that deal with forming opinions and speculations are not necessarily neutral about the supernatural. Neither the theory of evolution or of creation are 'neutral about the inclusion of supernatural acts' but are capable of holding various opinions. Is that really that hard to get your mind around?
Ah! Now this is an interesting insight. Thank you.

Yes, it is hard to get my mind around, because science does not make opinions; only scientists do. Science is objective.

Opinions and speculations are not hypothesis. An hypothesis is only a speculation that has been designed to be tested and, hopefully, turned into a theory. The hypothesis cannot be separated from the investigation that it demands.

Okay, that's fine; but whatever beliefs the scientist holds is not a part of the science he does. "Allowing for the supernatural" refers to allowing for the belief of it in the scientific explanation, not in the scientist.

On the contrary, if you believe in evolution, and you want to be a scientist, you may like to enter some of the fields of science that specifically deal with e.g. human evolution. That is a case of your belief system being a part of the science that you do. I admit that this is different to trying to investigate the supernatural (which no one does, to my knowledge), and that the belief system of the naturalist seems to be (on the surface at least) more consistent with an investigation that is limited to the natural world. But a thinking person should be able to see the similarities between allowing for and excluding the supernatural in explaining observations.


I suppose our difference is in the defintion of "operates". With the supernatural as an explanation of cause, science falls flat on its face.

I would argue that it doesn't fall flat, but that it does call some current areas of reasearch into question. It is called criticism, and that is normally a healthy part of science.


The scientist can assume that all he likes. The science cannot.

True. And that applies to both the creationist and the evolutionist.

I found that quite interesting, although not necessarily disagreeing with what I have already thought of naturalism. Particularly this statement seems to agree with what I was saying:

''Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.''

and

''observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes''

I found it interesting that there seems to be more than one version of naturalism, e.g., methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. I hadn't seen that before. And I think it explains some of Willamena's comments.

Just to jump in for a moment, a logical proof for naturalism:

The 'God Is Not Possible' Proof: (This can be applied to any supposedly supernatural entity, effect, or event)
1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.

Notes:

'Concrete' is defined as being observable and following structural/systemic patterns and rules. That is, matter, energy, information, spacetime.

I originally did this for a discussion on religion, but it as I said can be applied to any supposedly supernatural entity, being, effect, event, etc.

@Bruarong:
The major problem with your argument is the lack of evidence. Personal beliefs and assertions are not evidence.

I never said that I cannot handle rudeness, only that I thought your post would look more intelligent when they are presented politely. Nevermind.

Except that an insult is not an insult when it's true. And you were (and are) spouting nonsense.

Some were, some were not. Some are still not. Does that make them stupid, in your opinion?

You are not going to get a hasty generalization like that out of me.
All I can say is it depends.

I am hardly mired. Yes, scientists do these things, but scientists are still human, and they can peer review each other all they like, but so long as they are intolerant of criticisms of evolution, their bias will be perpetuated. Much of the basis of the theory of evolution is not sound. For example, evolution is based on an organism being capable of acquiring new genes and finding a way of regulating these genes and co-ordinating the gene products in such a way that leads to functionality that allows the organism to be more fit for survival. However, this very basic idea has not been demonstrated, nor has the process even been observed. Scientists simply look at the variety of organisms and pick out the 'stages' of the development. This is does not make the theory scientifically proven. When a theory cannot be tested, it must remain a theory. The exception for the evolutionary theory is simply that most people do not consider that there is any alternative. While evolution does not provide many of the answers, many feel that it is still the best theory that we have, thus it must be the closest one to the truth. Such is the basis for the exception.

You have for over 5 pages now held up the assertion that much of the evidence for the theory of evolution is not sound. You have yet to provide a shred of evidence for this assertion. Everytime you bring something to the table it is a mere assertion. I and others have been bringing in counter evidence you have yet to refute.
I have a suggestion. Stop making yourself look like an idiot by trying to debate on a subject you do not know even the basics of.
As for the mindbogling stupid assertion that organisms haven't shown a way to aquire new genes, it just shows you haven't bothered to follow your own admonition to this thread (that of knowing what you argue about) and in my opinion are doing a blind mudslinging hoping something sticks or just try to get your fellow debaters to give up from disgust or weariness.
It has been observed. Look up down syndrome for an example, try lateral gene transfer or retroviral (pseudo) genes. Look up works on how the bacteria aquire resistances.
There are tests for the theory of evolution. Darwin suggested two. I'll leave it up to you to find the tests since I'm not going to bother to do your work for you other then give general keywords for you to start your search with.
And the theory of evolution provides lots of answers. From an explanation to why snakes and whales have hipbones to why bacteria aquire reistances to why genetherapy works.

Now it's your turn.
Give evidence that gene transfer can't happen
Give evidence that the theory of evolution can't explain many things that the theory is meant for (So none of that why doesn't it explain the creation of the universe type nonsense).
And you still haven't answered all the original questions so here they are again:
So you agree that scientists do these things.
Do you also agree that scientist study the theory of evolution?
Do you then also accept the inferrence that they apply these to the theory of evolution?
If so then why do you not accept that the theory of evolution is scientifically sound?
If not why do scientists make an exception for the theory of evolution?

I don't think I have said anywhere that I personally dismissed evolutionary theory as false. You keep trying to stick me in a box.
And evolution is both fact and theory, you are right on that one. Fact is genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, pretty much all the things that we can observe. Theory is the part where we hypothesize that natural selection and mutations are sufficient for the development of microbes to man. I agree with the facts, but I am skeptical of the theory.

Then why do you keep asserting that
the theory of evolution doesn't explain a lot
the theory of evolution is not real science
there are theories out there that explain the evidence better


It isn't that hard to establish a relationship between a dot on a screen and the molecular structure of a molecule. Well, perhaps it can be difficult, but not impossible for the specialists. When we get the theory that X is related to Y, we alter the conditions and repeat the experiment to see if our theory is true. We can continue to make alterations to test the theory. This is something that cannot be done with much of evolutionary theory.

Baseless assertion again. Give evidence that this can't be done with the theory of evolution (hint there is a reason we currently have, if I counted correctly, the 6th major revision of the theory)
And stop moving the goalposts. We were talking about atoms not chemistry.


evidence? Where? giving links to a website?

Just like normal references in research work would work as well.

And I never said that JUST eating meat increases brain size. I meant it as one of the supposedly critical factors. And yes, I am familiar with the theory. My point was that it cannot be tested, thus anyone claiming that it is a fact is not being scientific.

Baseless assertion ignoring that people have actually researched it and found answers based on the scientific method

Everyone begins with an assumption. For ID, the assumption is that there is a supernatural that is capable of interacting with the material world. For evolutionary theory, the assumption is that life is capable of developing without interference from the supernatural, or some such version, depending on who you talk to. In every case, one begins to build a world view with an assumption. In science, the same goes.

The thing is that the begin with the assumption that a supernatural entity exists to prove the assumption that a supernatural entity exists.
The scientific method starts with the assumption there is no supernatural entity that exists and that everything can be explained by processes working in the normal world.
See the problem there? The first is called circular reasoning and it happens to break the basis of the scientific method.


I don't believe there is a mass conspiracy. There is, however, an unwritten expectation that every paper one publishes in science must either be neutral regarding evolution and creation, or pro-evolution. The moment someone suggests the supernatural, and they are branded as unscientific. Thus one of the common definitions of science is that it cannot allow the possibility of the interaction between the supernatural and the natural. I don't hold to that definition. I say that science cannot delve into the supernatural, but must remain neutral over the issue of supernatural acts.

Such an expectation means that to be accepted as a scientist, you have to be pro-evolutionary theory. This has created a science community that can only be pro-evolution. Thus the current science community consists of evolutionists and closet creationists.

*BZZZZTTT* Wrong answer, you lose,AGAIN.
The only thing that research has to be is true to the observations. To bad for the ID people that none of those observations point their way. Not hard to do seeing that science dismisses the supernatural and that being central to the belief of IDism.
And it is not a common definition of science. it is the one and only definition of science, everything is explained through natural means.

Utter nonsense. I did not say that such speculation was even wrong. You are still trying to stick me into a box and mis-label me. I merely said that it was only speculation. Neither was I suggesting that because it is speculation that all of the theory was wrong. I was simply saying that you are wrong if you think that such speculation should be considered fact.

*BZZZZTTT* Wrong answer, you lose,AGAIN.
You were trying to dismiss the entire theory of evolution that way.



I suspect you have not even read one of these books or journals. Copy and paste?
No, yes. Have fun with understanding what is in there, then you might find out which of them I did read.

Evolution and ID are core grade school and high schol subjects. String thory is a cutting egde dodgy new sicetiffic thory, that is resonably unproveable. Its only going to be sirously handed by collage students, or advanced high school science lessons, and the resipients ar ebig enough and ugly enough to make up there own minds.

Doing post 171 after the other since that fits better.
That's funny, because I would never say that their arguments are so convincing. Perhaps the more I read, the less I am convinced by what I read. I suppose I must sound like a real skeptic. But one needs a certain amount of skepticism in science, particularly when reading material that supports your own position.

Go study on a university then in the field you are a scientist try to publish some research. When your research survives the peer rewiew come back and talk about skepticism.

They say the devil is in the detail. In other words, there are plenty of theories that could work on the sketchboard level, no argument there. The battle is won or lost over the details, it seems.

Correct and that is why evolution theory has survived 140+ years of attacks on it.

Not redefining, mind, just questioning. No dishonesty in that. And your definition of microevolution depends on the definition of a species. So what is a speciation? Macroevolution. What is macroevolution? Round and round we go, until we get some definitions that DON'T use the same key words.

Wrong. micro evolution is exactly what I gave out. It doesn't matter how you define species (maybe you mistyped and meant Kind perhaps?). You go round and round with your fingers in your ears when you find out that the definitions you used were wrong. I however am on very solid ground.

Apparently, you are more familiar with AIG than I am. Good to know that you do your reading. One wonders why you seem so....angry? about those who accept a theory other than your favourite one.

Nope, about people who try to push a belief as science. It is about people who will lie and distort to push their belief. It is about people who want to institute a new Dark Age where the only science allowed is the one not violating their belief.

As for your idea of the real reason, I do not believe you. I think the real reason is the one that they give, that making such a statement brings confusion into the argument, at which point the creationist gets shot down over points that are not part of his argument.

Doesn't matter what argument they have made, not a single one has ever been correct no need to distract from the point when it so ridiciulously easy to refute the main point.
You should really look up the Kitzmiller VS dover case and read the damning testimony from Dr Behe about ID.

(coughs) Well, then, at least I am not making out that those who believe in evolutionary theory are stupid for believing it, am I?

Actually you do by stating that the theory of evolution is a theory.
Before you can do that please discredit over 140 years worth of scientific stufy.


Not all people who disagree with ID are stupid, I should point out, perhaps just those who are convinced that they know the facts, but base their reasons on rather ignorant arguments. It is far more intelligent to readily admit that there is a lot they don't know, but that they prefer one theory to another.

You just described the average ID believer. They base their reasons on a set of rather ignorant, discredited, outdated, etc, etc. set of arguments. With just one difference their belief explains everything.
And what is this other theory besides the theory of evolution? Note that IDism is a belief due to it's inclusion of the supernatural.


I'm not sure that you can say that what I don't know and what I do. It would seem rather presumptious of you, not to say, impolite.

Not at all, you've been showing quite some ignorance with relation to the definition of science, the definition of the theory of evolution or any of the subjects that supposedly are mysteries and unexplainable using the theory of evolution. You have also shown a remarkable skill in evading questions, ignoring corrections, moving goalposts and a few more logical fallacies.





The idea that science cannot accept the supernatural is a philosophical viewpoint and not an integral part of science. For example, the scientific pursuit has been around a lot longer than the idea that science cannot accept the supernatural. Isaac Newton was a scientist, for example. You should know that real science is neutral on the issue of the supernatural. Thus science cannot and should not be used to measure the supernatural. However, that is different to saying that science cannot allow that the supernatural may have played a role in the origin and development of life. Real science cannot say whether the supernatural played a role or not, particularly in areas that we do not understand very well.

See here you go again. People have time and time told you that science does not accept the supernatural and you blithly restate your argument that science infact does accept it.
You can repeat that assertion but until pigs learn to fly you are wrong.


I certainly have not said that ID should replace the theory of evolution. What I do say is that neither theories are science. They are theories that may be based on science. You can take your pick, but you are hardly in such a great postion to decide which one has more truth, unless you know something that I don't.
I said that if your assertions were correct we had to chuck out the theory of evolution. That is how science works. Good thing that your assertions have no evidence to back them up and further are plain wrong as I thin I've shown a few times now.

Which theory is more correct? Synthetic theory of evolution. Has successfully explained all the evidence that the previous theories of evolution explained and then some. That is why that one is more correct then all the older theories (And there is no mis understanding your argument just a correct answer seeing that IDism is a belief due to the incorperation of the supernatural).
Want to know the more then I do? Start on talk origins with the basics. Then go look for a university that has what books you need for their biology classes on the net. Buy those (might be prudent to have your college biology book(s) around too). Go to your local university to look up reference materials. Spend time reading. After that go on the web look up different creationist/IDism sites and see their complaints that are related to the theory of evolution. By now you should be able to see where their claims go limp on most of them and on others you have the ability to find materials relevant to the claim.

I found that quite interesting, although not necessarily disagreeing with what I have already thought of naturalism. Particularly this statement seems to agree with what I was saying:

''Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.''

and

''observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes''

I found it interesting that there seems to be more than one version of naturalism, e.g., methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. I hadn't seen that before. And I think it explains some of Willamena's comments.

Just to jump in for a moment, a logical proof for naturalism:

The 'God Is Not Possible' Proof: (This can be applied to any supposedly supernatural entity, effect, or event)
1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.

Notes:

'Concrete' is defined as being observable and following structural/systemic patterns and rules. That is, matter, energy, information, spacetime.

I originally did this for a discussion on religion, but it as I said can be applied to any supposedly supernatural entity, being, effect, event, etc.

See here you go again. People have time and time told you that science does not accept the supernatural and you blithly restate your argument that science infact does accept it.
You can repeat that assertion but until pigs learn to fly you are wrong.

"People have told you time and time again" does not make those people right. He has actually given reasons, you havent. You have just said "your wrong". And to clairify, he hasnt said science accepts the supernatural, just that it has no opinon on it either way.

Here's his point again so you can actually go about trying to refute some of the points

The idea that science cannot accept the supernatural is a philosophical viewpoint and not an integral part of science. For example, the scientific pursuit has been around a lot longer than the idea that science cannot accept the supernatural. Isaac Newton was a scientist, for example. You should know that real science is neutral on the issue of the supernatural. Thus science cannot and should not be used to measure the supernatural. However, that is different to saying that science cannot allow that the supernatural may have played a role in the origin and development of life. Real science cannot say whether the supernatural played a role or not, particularly in areas that we do not understand very well.

Now I'll just summerise the arguments for you

- Science does not have anything to say on the supernatural, it is neutral as it analysises the natural

- The scientific persuit has been around much longer than the idea that the supernatural is discredited by science

- Since science cannot understand the supernatural, it cannot say whether or not the creation of life and the universe was by the supernatural

- Issac Newton was one example of a scientist who supported the supernatural

Just to jump in for a moment, a logical proof for naturalism:

The 'God Is Not Possible' Proof: (This can be applied to any supposedly supernatural entity, effect, or event)
1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.


One massive flaw. In order for 6 to be proven, you would have to be all knowing. You are not. Therefore you cannot prove it either way. Unless you examine every corner of this universe and every other dimention and non-linier time universe, you cannot know.

One massive flaw. In order for 6 to be proven, you would have to be all knowing. You are not. Therefore you cannot prove it either way. Unless you examine every corner of this universe and every other dimention and non-linier time universe, you cannot know.

Umm....wrong. Obviously, you're not reading the proof correctly. Step 6 is logically derived from Steps 4 and 5. The non-reality of a God (or any supernatural being) proceeds inherently from the definition of said deific or otherwise supernatural entity. Omniscience is unnecessary if the logical derivation of the definition logically proves lack of reality.

On the contrary, if you believe in evolution, and you want to be a scientist, you may like to enter some of the fields of science that specifically deal with e.g. human evolution. That is a case of your belief system being a part of the science that you do. I admit that this is different to trying to investigate the supernatural (which no one does, to my knowledge), and that the belief system of the naturalist seems to be (on the surface at least) more consistent with an investigation that is limited to the natural world. But a thinking person should be able to see the similarities between allowing for and excluding the supernatural in explaining observations.

Well... that is only an example of the belief system being a part of the decision for career choice. I see what you're saying, though, that the belief system remains in place, and is a motivating cause of, and inspiration for, 'the science that he does', and is therefore "a part" of the science. But that looks at science in a much broader context, not in the context I was using, which is applications of scientific method: observation, research, etc.

I'm afraid I don't fit your definition of a "thinking person," then, as I see "allowing for" as potentially inclusive when it comes to a cause-and-effect chain of explanations.

EDIT: You use "science" as an all-encompassing ideology, rather than as the processes and applications that utilize the scientific method.

I would argue that it doesn't fall flat, but that it does call some current areas of reasearch into question. It is called criticism, and that is normally a healthy part of science.
It "falls flat" because, with the supernatural as the declared cause of a natural effect, the only scientific investigation that can take place is one that proceeds to politely ignore that "cause" and progress forward from that point.

Just to jump in for a moment, a logical proof for naturalism...
See your post on the other thread, where I replied. ;)

Umm....wrong. Obviously, you're not reading the proof correctly. Step 6 is logically derived from Steps 4 and 5. The non-reality of a God (or any supernatural being) proceeds inherently from the definition of said deific or otherwise supernatural entity. Omniscience is unnecessary if the logical derivation of the definition logically proves lack of reality.

Umm...no, I'm right. There is nothing in 4 and 5 that meant that God logically cannot exist. You've just said "God does not have a concrete existance in reality" how do you prove this?

Now I'll just summerise the arguments for you

- Science does not have anything to say on the supernatural, it is neutral as it analysises the natural

- The scientific persuit has been around much longer than the idea that the supernatural is discredited by science

- Since science cannot understand the supernatural, it cannot say whether or not the creation of life and the universe was by the supernatural

- Issac Newton was one example of a scientist who supported the supernatural

First, it isn't the job of science to "discredit" the supernatural and no one ever said that this would be the role of science. As you summed up, science can neither measure nor understand the supernatural. Science simply can't address the supernatural.

Therefore, science cannot accept the supernatural as science.

Therefore ID is not science.

"People have told you time and time again" does not make those people right. He has actually given reasons, you havent. You have just said "your wrong". And to clairify, he hasnt said science accepts the supernatural, just that it has no opinon on it either way.

Here's his point again so you can actually go about trying to refute some of the points



Now I'll just summerise the arguments for you

- Science does not have anything to say on the supernatural, it is neutral as it analysises the natural

- The scientific persuit has been around much longer than the idea that the supernatural is discredited by science

- Since science cannot understand the supernatural, it cannot say whether or not the creation of life and the universe was by the supernatural

- Issac Newton was one example of a scientist who supported the supernatural
If science gives a good explanation of how things happened we have no reason to accept a supernatural explanation. Current evolutionary theories are quite good at explaining the living world around us.

Issac Newton also believed in Alchemy. Chemistry and physics have proven that Alchemy was as wrong as creationism.

1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
Existence is not a trait. A trait 'belongs to' or is attached to something (a 'red' apple); therefore that something must exist in order for there to be a trait of that thing. A trait cannot exist independent of something.

So what you are declaring in #3 is "A = God exists."

4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of
inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
This (#8) does not logically follow from the above. The logical conclusion is "God is not real," or "God has a nonreality-rooted existence."

9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.
#9 is a premise. #10 is another premise, equivalent to #3, but not a conclusion. #12 is invalidated as #8 is incorrect.

This (#8) does not logically follow from the above. The logical conclusion is "God is not real," or "God has a nonreality-rooted existence."
God has no physical existence that can be demonstrated, actually. Surely this is what your faith is based on?

God has no physical existence that can be demonstrated, actually. Surely this is what your faith is based on?
When did this become about me? lol :)

I was addressing the logic.

It goes like this:

3. God exists.
4. God is supernatural blah blah inherently immaterial and inexplicable.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' is concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality.

The logical conclusion of all these premises is that God has existence that is not concrete, and not a part of concrete reality. God's existence is then best described as unreal.

When did this become about me? lol :)

I was addressing the logic.

It goes like this:

3. God exists.
4. God is supernatural blah blah inherently immaterial and inexplicable.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' is concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality.

The logical conclusion of all these premises is that God has existence that is not concrete, and not a part of concrete reality. God's existence is then best described as unreal.
Well quite, but isn't there this routine about proof denying faith? Given that any proof for God's existence must be denied as erroneous by those who believe in Him.
(And I beg your pardon: I thought you were actually arguing that. My bad.)

Well quite, but isn't there this routine about proof denying faith? Given that any proof for God's existence must be denied as erroneous by those who believe in Him.
(And I beg your pardon: I thought you were actually arguing that. My bad.)
I don't know about "proof denying faith". I have faith in lots of people who exist, though my faith is about what they are able to accomplish, the goodness of their hearts, etc. The actions associated with these things are unreal things, as they have not yet materialized; but their associated actions materializing would not eliminate my faith, only justify it.

Faith in God is more about what God means to a person than in God's existence.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

I wish I could remember the guys name but he wrote the biology book that is used in 1/4 of America's highschool classes.

He basically said this about the argument about the big bang and ID starting out the same way(this works with your string theory argument).

Not exact:

The proponents of the big bang didn't hire a publicity firm to help their cause. The proponents didn't get involved in politics to further their cause. They didn't hastle school boards. They didn't write endless op ed pieces attacking an opposing theory.

They kept experiementing until they got enough data to suggest they were right. Enough people tried their own tests to belive their arugments.

ID "science" is based on the ignorant stance of we can't explain it so there might be a designer involved.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).
I am officially confused, because it sure sounded to me like what they were referring to as "string theory" was mostly the idea of multiple universes. Then again, I probably don't understand much about string theory...
Anyway, I don't remember ever being taught that the idea of multiple universes was truth, and I imagine if I had been taught about it, it would have been as a hypothesis.

About string theory, as far as I know they are correct that it has yet to make a testable prediction. It's still in its early stages compared to most other theories, if I've been hearing corectly.
The last sentence is quite amazing. Detection of a new, thirtieth decimal fine-tuning won�t directly prove the landscape, but it would be a big push in that direction! Why? Because there is no other explanation of course, other than, well�design, and that�s not science!
Err, no? The fact that we are here shows that things happened in a certain way, sure, and if things hadn't happened this way, we wouldn't be here, sure. But what would a number being more accurate have to do with design? I mean, surely the fact that we can only be here if things were exactly this way provides a decent explanation on its own as to why we see it?

Just to jump in for a moment, a logical proof for naturalism:

The 'God Is Not Possible' Proof: (This can be applied to any supposedly supernatural entity, effect, or event)
1. A=A
2. 'A' can be any trait of any concept, in that something that is red must be red, something is exists must exist, etc.
3. 'A' is given to correspond to the existence of God.
4. 'God' is defined as a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent entity of inherently immaterial and inexplicable nature who created life and the universe.
5. 'Natural', 'material', and 'explicable' are defined as a group to mean that which has concrete existence in reality.
6. God does not have a concrete, reality-rooted existence.
7. To exist, a thing must have existence, and to be real, a thing must be within reality. (refer to #1)
8. God does not exist.
9. God created reality, controls the material universe, has a hand in existence and its events, etc. etc.
10. God exists.
11. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. (refer to #1)
12. A!=A
13. God as defined is not possible.

Notes:

'Concrete' is defined as being observable and following structural/systemic patterns and rules. That is, matter, energy, information, spacetime.

I originally did this for a discussion on religion, but it as I said can be applied to any supposedly supernatural entity, being, effect, event, etc.

An interesting exercise. However, there seems to be a lot of criticism for ID regarding it's attack on evolutionary theory. Apparently, attempts to point out the flaws in evolutionary theory do not prove ID has got it right either. I accept that point, as would, I suppose, most of the IDers. But this applies to your exercise. You cannot prove naturalism is true by trying to establish logically that God does not exist.

But as for the logic you have used, others have already pointed out some areas of concern. I have not much to add except that one really needs to be careful when trying to put God into a box made of logic. For example, you have included the assertion that God is supernatural, or immaterial and inexplicable to nature. I take that to mean that you think of God as completely spirit, without a basis in the material world. However, a common view point, which is by no means restricted to Christianity, is that humans consist of a material body, and a spirit. Thus to say that humans belong to the material world is true. However, to say that humans do not belong to the spiritual world is false, according to that view point.

Perhaps that is where the clear distinctions between natural and supernatural begin to break down, depending of course, on the definitions of the terms and the accepted world view. Perhaps an interesting question would be if humans have spirits, do those spirits belong to the natural or the supernatural world? At any rate, that is not a question for science.

"People have told you time and time again" does not make those people right. He has actually given reasons, you havent. You have just said "your wrong". And to clairify, he hasnt said science accepts the supernatural, just that it has no opinon on it either way.

Here's his point again so you can actually go about trying to refute some of the points



Now I'll just summerise the arguments for you

- Science does not have anything to say on the supernatural, it is neutral as it analysises the natural

- The scientific persuit has been around much longer than the idea that the supernatural is discredited by science

- Since science cannot understand the supernatural, it cannot say whether or not the creation of life and the universe was by the supernatural

- Issac Newton was one example of a scientist who supported the supernatural



It's nice to know that there are some who do read my posts and actually look for the reasonings in there. In fact, I feel that you may have presented my points in a better way that I.



Issac Newton also believed in Alchemy. Chemistry and physics have proven that Alchemy was as wrong as creationism.

The point was not that an acceptance of a supernatural means that every opinion one has is correct, only that one is capable of very good science, in spite of some incorrect opinions, and more importantly, regardless of one's opinion on the supernatural.

Thus, Newton may have accepted alchemy. Many scientist did. But what about all those scientists who believed and accepted all sorts of strange ideas about evolution, which were later proven to be false? Does that mean we throw away the theory of evolution, because some of those earlier scientist had things the wrong way. Not necessarily. Thus, your point regarding Newton is quite irrelevant.

Your last sentence was about physics and chemistry proving that creation and Alchemy were wrong. I can understand them proving Alchemy wrong, but how do they prove creationism wrong? You have some explaining to do there.




First, it isn't the job of science to "discredit" the supernatural and no one ever said that this would be the role of science. As you summed up, science can neither measure nor understand the supernatural. Science simply can't address the supernatural.

Therefore, science cannot accept the supernatural as science.

Therefore ID is not science.


You are building a strawman. You are right in saying that science cannot address the supernatural, in that the scientific method cannot be used to measure or observe it. However, science itself (using the encompassing definition) consists of people, ideas, theories, philosophies, facts, etc. Thus, if one thinks of science in this way, it can easily accept the supernatural. Of course, it cannot accept that the supernatural can be included in the scientific method, but nobody is trying to do this, and that I why I say you are building a strawman. Science does not equal scientific method.

Well... that is only an example of the belief system being a part of the decision for career choice. I see what you're saying, though, that the belief system remains in place, and is a motivating cause of, and inspiration for, 'the science that he does', and is therefore "a part" of the science. But that looks at science in a much broader context, not in the context I was using, which is applications of scientific method: observation, research, etc.

It may help to distinguish between science and the scientific method. Scientific method would be the part of science that is almost neutral regarding the supernatural, although it cannot be free from it. As you pointed out above, one can never remove the motivation from the researcher. While the raw data generated by the scientific method may look the same for both the religious scientist and the atheistic scientist, the interpretation of the raw data may be different, depending on the motivation of the scientist. And since the scientific method does involve interpretation of results, one cannot free it entirely from the issue of the supernatural.


I'm afraid I don't fit your definition of a "thinking person," then, as I see "allowing for" as potentially inclusive when it comes to a cause-and-effect chain of explanations.


I reckon you do, but you just don't see it yet. I live in hopes :)

Look at this another way. How did life get here? Naturalism would say that it occurred through natural forces. That is another way of saying that the supernatural did not interfere, wouldn't you agree? Another view point may allow that the supernatural may have interfered, and we cannot tell by using the scientific method, but only through an indirect inference. Is that any less scientific? This recognises the limitation of the scientific method, and restricts scientific investigation to observing the world based on the assumption of e.g. a designer. It can never test this assumption, just as naturalism cannot test it's assumption.

Naturalism may argue that in such a case of interference from the supernatural, the supernatural was not really supernatural, since whenever it can interact with the natural, it is no longer supernatural. Clever, but not really dealing with the primary issue of whether the supernatural did interfere (and remain in all other cases a practicing supernatural) and thus not really answering the question of how life got here (except through natural causes). Thus if naturalism's way of getting around the problem of the question is to redefine the term 'supernatural' as that which does not interact or interfere with the natural, then the 'supernatural' to which naturalism refers and the 'supernatural' that I think of are no longer the same thing. One wonders, then, how discussion can proceed so long as the definitions of terms are different.


EDIT: You use "science" as an all-encompassing ideology, rather than as the processes and applications that utilize the scientific method.


True. We have to look at the details here, because people (myself included) have a tendency to misuse terms. An example would be the statement that ''evolution is fact''. It depends on the definition of the word 'evolution'.
Another example would be that 'science tells us that eating chocolate, drinking wine, and enjoying pornography are good for you'. (I have seen all of these statements in the media.) So we need to think about what the definition of 'science' the media is using. Perhaps they should say that there are some people within the science community that have arguments that are based on some data which they interpret to mean such and such (although that kills a sexy article title). If it is a good article, the reporter will include arguments from the opposite side. Then one might be forgiven for going away thinking that 'science' contradicts itself. It doesn't. Interpretation based on data generated by following scientific procedure often does.

At any rate, I think I have demonstrated that even something as objective as the scientific method cannot be entirely free from bias. We need to be careful with that.


It "falls flat" because, with the supernatural as the declared cause of a natural effect, the only scientific investigation that can take place is one that proceeds to politely ignore that "cause" and progress forward from that point.

Much of science can 'politely ignore the cause', as you put it, and get on with it. But there is, within science, many areas of research that is not happy with ignorance about the cause. For example, those who seek to understand the development of organelles in prokaryotes (and thus the evolution of eukaryotes) approach the issue by suggesting the causes. They are confined to studying the molecular interactions of the chemical world and the way in which the characteristics of those interactions eventually led to increasing biodiversity. They see the nature of the material world as a general 'cause'. Thus you cannot define scientific investigation as that which ignores causes. Rather, it may look at cause and effect. It cannot know all causes, granted, but it just works within its limitations. Such is the goal of ID, so far as I understand it. The difference with ID is that it allows that some causes may not be directly observable (although evolutionary theory also allows that some causes are also hidden, but assert that such causes would still belong to the natural world).

It may help to distinguish between science and the scientific method. Scientific method would be the part of science that is almost neutral regarding the supernatural, although it cannot be free from it. As you pointed out above, one can never remove the motivation from the researcher. While the raw data generated by the scientific method may look the same for both the religious scientist and the atheistic scientist, the interpretation of the raw data may be different, depending on the motivation of the scientist. And since the scientific method does involve interpretation of results, one cannot free it entirely from the issue of the supernatural.
But that's exactly why the broader scope of "what is science" is less workable. Because it is expanded to encompass more than just "doing science", to encompass all the duties of the scientist, the part of the job that is actually the "doing" of "science" has lost most of its meaning. If I understand you correctly, the way you use it the scientist's job description defines "what is science" rather than that the science is a part of his job.

The scientist cannot be entirely objective or "neutral", but he can do a very good approximation of it in order to do the best "science" he can on his job. He can separate in his mind and in his attitude what is his belief from what is data interpretation. His conclusion can contain both; should, actually, contain both, so as to be more useful in application. But the way I use it, the "doing science" part is the "neutral" part, or as close as can be.

I reckon you do, but you just don't see it yet. I live in hopes :)

Look at this another way. How did life get here? Naturalism would say that it occurred through natural forces. That is another way of saying that the supernatural did not interfere, wouldn't you agree?
Sure.

Another view point may allow that the supernatural may have interfered, and we cannot tell by using the scientific method, but only through an indirect inference. Is that any less scientific? This recognises the limitation of the scientific method, and restricts scientific investigation to observing the world based on the assumption of e.g. a designer. It can never test this assumption, just as naturalism cannot test it's assumption.
Well, let's see if it is scientific. On one hand, you have an assumption that might someday be tested; on the other hand, one that can never be tested. On one hand you have an event that you know is part of a contingent series of events; on the other hand, you have an event that you cannot know how it happened. On one hand you have the potential for data and analysis; on the other hand, you have an indirect inference. If the posit is that the supernatural caused life, then that directly impacts the natural chain of events that the scientist needs to be able to define through its limited methodology in order to claim scientific knowledge of that thing: this is a necessary limitation. So, no, what you propose is not a scientific viewpoint, in my opinion.

The world investigated by the scientist who holds the assumption that God created life is not doing his science based on that assumption, he is just a person with that assumption who is doing his science. Unless he includes that assumption in his hypotheses, it is not a part of the science, however strongly the scientist might hold to it.

Naturalism may argue that in such a case of interference from the supernatural, the supernatural was not really supernatural, since whenever it can interact with the natural, it is no longer supernatural.
"Not really" supernatural is not the same as "no longer" supernatural. The former is correct; to the materialist it never was supernatural, it never was real. The supernatural cannot change into the natural, and vice-versa.
EDIT: I should say rather, it always was real. d'oh.

That's why monster and ghost movies are so silly to me. ;)

Clever, but not really dealing with the primary issue of whether the supernatural did interfere (and remain in all other cases a practicing supernatural) and thus not really answering the question of how life got here (except through natural causes). Thus if naturalism's way of getting around the problem of the question is to redefine the term 'supernatural' as that which does not interact or interfere with the natural, then the 'supernatural' to which naturalism refers and the 'supernatural' that I think of are no longer the same thing. One wonders, then, how discussion can proceed so long as the definitions of terms are different.
True, the naturalist and the scientist do not yet have an answer to question of how life got here. But they could someday answer that question, because as part of a contingent series of events, it is discoverable.

With a supernatural explanation, the possibility of discovering the truth of that is effectively eliminated.

I'm not sure if the naturalist defines 'supernatural' the way you suggest, but I know I do.

Will respond to the rest later.

But that's exactly why the broader scope of "what is science" is less workable. Because it is expanded to encompass more than just "doing science", to encompass all the duties of the scientist, the part of the job that is actually the "doing" of "science" has lost most of its meaning. If I understand you correctly, the way you use it the scientist's job description defines "what is science" rather than that the science is a part of his job.


I can appreciate your point, I think, although I'm still not sure why you think redefining 'science', using a more general definition means that the 'doing of science' loses its meaning. However, I still maintain a difference between science and the scientific method. While it may not be necessary for a dialogue between you and I, there are plenty others on this forum who have yet to understand this particular limitation in science, particularly those who tend to think that science has proven religion to be false.



The scientist cannot be entirely objective or "neutral", but he can do a very good approximation of it in order to do the best "science" he can on his job. He can separate in his mind and in his attitude what is his belief from what is data interpretation. His conclusion can contain both; should, actually, contain both, so as to be more useful in application. But the way I use it, the "doing science" part is the "neutral" part, or as close as can be.


While complete objectivity is not needed to discover truth in science, you are right in saying that a scientist needs to do a very good job. Except that we cannot tell what a 'very good job' might be, unless we knew what 'pure' objectivity might be, and then make a comparison. On a practical level, while we do not need 'pure' objectivity, our way of getting around this is to make repeated observations under controlled conditions, contrasting results with positive and negative controls. That way, we make sure that the generated data is as close to objective as possible. However, the interpretation of data is never free from subjectivity. So long as the scientist is hypothesizing about something that cannot be observed or repeated, the issue of subjectivity/objectivity becomes rather critical. It's not hard to see much in evolutionary theory that cannot be observed. Thus it remains the domain of subjective thinking. At this point, it isn't more objective than the subjective thinking involved in ID.


Well, let's see if it is scientific. On one hand, you have an assumption that might someday be tested; on the other hand, one that can never be tested. On one hand you have an event that you know is part of a contingent series of events; on the other hand, you have an event that you cannot know how it happened. On one hand you have the potential for data and analysis; on the other hand, you have an indirect inference. If the posit is that the supernatural caused life, then that directly impacts the natural chain of events that the scientist needs to be able to define through its limited methodology in order to claim scientific knowledge of that thing: this is a necessary limitation. So, no, what you propose is not a scientific viewpoint, in my opinion.


I consider it a technicality, in which everything in the naturalistic world view is technically testable, but practically isn't, and will never be.
In your contrast of ID and naturalism, you have not been exactly fair, I feel. You described ID as something that can never be tested. This is not completely true, since it is possible to look at biological information systems and make the statement 'If it was designed, one might be expected to find such and such.' Thus, the progress that an IDer makes is not to find out how the designer made life. It never has been. That is the great strawman of this whole debate. Rather, he will find ways to see if the data can be consistently interpreted according to the premise suggested above, i.e., that a designer of life should leave tell-tale signs behind, and that a detailed analysis of the information that one finds in life (e.g., genes, proteins, etc.) should reveal this. This is the testable part of ID. Knowing how the designer did things is not necessary to the progress. Finding data that indicates a designer is.

Within naturalism, while one does have a system for investigating the material world, it is based on assumptions that can not be tested. You have said that they may one day be tested, but I cannot imagine how one is able to test the hypothesis that life arose from a single ancestor, or that there isn't a supernatural interference. Thus naturalism has it's fair share of untestable assumptions.

What we in science want to know is the truth. However, we know that there are some questions that we cannot answer with science. For example, science cannot KNOW for certain that there is a designer. The best ID can do is make discoveries that make a designer look likely. Likewise, naturalism is forever trying to find ways in which the nature of the material world provides a more likely explanation for life and its diversity. Consequently, in regard to the supernatural, if it considers the possibility of the supernatural at all, it would see itself as pushing back the requirements for a supernatural, or to put it another way, removing ignorance and superstition. In this way, it doesn't do more with the supernatural than to assume that it does not exist, rather than proving that it doesn't exist. It assumes that the non-existence of the supernatural is a truth on which to base it's assumptions. I realize you know this already, but this leads me to a following point.

If the supernatural is true, and God did create the universe, naturalism is very wrong. What one might expect from such a situation is a theory that is strengthened by the data that can be explained consistently with this, but full of holes and gaps. That is precisely what we do have in the evolutionary theory.

If naturalism is true, and there is no supernatural, then those who allowed for the possibility of the supernatural interfering with the natural are still closer to the truth, for they have not assumed a falsehood, only allowed for it. For me, this means naturalism is really the philosophy with the greater potential for falsehood. I would be interested if you have arguments against that.





The world investigated by the scientist who holds the assumption that God created life is not doing his science based on that assumption, he is just a person with that assumption who is doing his science. Unless he includes that assumption in his hypotheses, it is not a part of the science, however strongly the scientist might hold to it.


However, the assumption that each researcher has will always influence his interpretation of the data. While both the religious scientist and the naturalist are both capable of discovering antibiotics and saving lives, the religious one will say that it is because e.g God created an ordered world which makes such progress possible, while the naturalist will say that the nature of the material world means that nature can be manipulated to make such progress possible. In each case, one needs his assumptions in order to make progress. It may be that, in many cases, the assumption is not obvious. But I argue that it is nonetheless, incredibly important, so that no scientist is ever free of assumptions when investigating the material world.



"Not really" supernatural is not the same as "no longer" supernatural. The former is correct; to the materialist it never was supernatural, it never was real. The supernatural cannot change into the natural, and vice-versa.
EDIT: I should say rather, it always was real. d'oh.

That's why monster and ghost movies are so silly to me. ;)


Agreed. Of course, when I said 'no longer', I didn't mean that the naturalist thought that the supernatural was once supernatural and then became natural the moment it interfered with the natural world. I mean 'no longer' to mean 'not really', as you pointed out.


True, the naturalist and the scientist do not yet have an answer to question of how life got here. But they could someday answer that question, because as part of a contingent series of events, it is discoverable.


I would argue that it isn't possible for the naturalist to ever discover the question of how life got here. He may find arguments and data that make his view point more likely, but that is not the same as proving it, and thus leaves him in a similar position as the IDer. For a religious person to be religious, I suggest that he will always be required to have faith. For a naturalist, he has to have a belief that is similar to faith in his assumption.


With a supernatural explanation, the possibility of discovering the truth of that is effectively eliminated.


That cuts both ways, sister.



I'm not sure if the naturalist defines 'supernatural' the way you suggest, but I know I do.

Will respond to the rest later.

You have really helped me develop my arguments, Willamena, with your critical and intelligent thinking. I am indebted. Though I cannot tell whether my arguments are true or right, at least they seem to me to be getting more developed.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.
Just for the record, subjects like Economics, History, even Law, and so on are social sciences. English would be an art/humanity.

You are building a strawman. You are right in saying that science cannot address the supernatural, in that the scientific method cannot be used to measure or observe it. However, science itself (using the encompassing definition) consists of people, ideas, theories, philosophies, facts, etc. Thus, if one thinks of science in this way, it can easily accept the supernatural. Of course, it cannot accept that the supernatural can be included in the scientific method, but nobody is trying to do this, and that I why I say you are building a strawman. Science does not equal scientific method.

I wish that was true, but ID'ers do try to include the supernatural into science. The idea that we would have been designed, would lead to the question of who designed the designer, which ultimately leads to a "undesigned" supernatural being.

You described ID as something that can never be tested. This is not completely true, since it is possible to look at biological information systems and make the statement 'If it was designed, one might be expected to find such and such.'

But such a statement would be completely and utterly meaningless. Try giving an example of where it isn't if you disagree - keeping in mind the designer can choose how he designs.

Thus, the progress that an IDer makes is not to find out how the designer made life. It never has been. That is the great strawman of this whole debate.

Incorrect - that is in fact exactly what IDers claim they wish to do,

Rather, he will find ways to see if the data can be consistently interpreted according to the premise suggested above, i.e., that a designer of life should leave tell-tale signs behind, and that a detailed analysis of the information that one finds in life (e.g., genes, proteins, etc.) should reveal this. This is the testable part of ID.

No it isn't. And I must give IDers credit for not being stupid enough to actually claim this....
I can find signs that you were made from my excrement that magically travelled back in time if I wish. That does not make it right.
What I must look for to give my hypothesis any semblance of scientific credit is proof that my hypothesis is wrong. If I and others despite many tests fail to do so, then it may be worth something. Just finding supporting evidece however is nowhere near enough - you can find support for almost everything.

Knowing how the designer did things is not necessary to the progress. Finding data that indicates a designer is.

And except for an actual "artists signature" (as found in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy) such data will never be convincing.

An interesting exercise. However, there seems to be a lot of criticism for ID regarding it's attack on evolutionary theory. Apparently, attempts to point out the flaws in evolutionary theory do not prove ID has got it right either. I accept that point, as would, I suppose, most of the IDers. But this applies to your exercise. You cannot prove naturalism is true by trying to establish logically that God does not exist.

That wasn't my point; someone was talking about naturalism v. supernaturalism, so I put in the proof. This wasn't a proof of evolution, etc. at all.

But as for the logic you have used, others have already pointed out some areas of concern. I have not much to add except that one really needs to be careful when trying to put God into a box made of logic. For example, you have included the assertion that God is supernatural, or immaterial and inexplicable to nature. I take that to mean that you think of God as completely spirit, without a basis in the material world.

No, that's not what I meant. "Spirit"?? What do you take me for? That would make me as bad as those who claim that God exists on some "spiritual plane", that people have "spirits", etc. 'Spiritual', when in a context referring to existence, reality, etc., has absolutely no meaning. Completely meaningless. Like 'soul', you couldn't give it a meaningful independent definition if you tried. The entire concept of spirit, spiritual, soul, etc. is pointless.

However, a common view point, which is by no means restricted to Christianity, is that humans consist of a material body, and a spirit.

See what I said above; either you exist, or you don't. The empty nonconcept of 'spirit' fits nowhere in there. Material, or not real.

Perhaps that is where the clear distinctions between natural and supernatural begin to break down, depending of course, on the definitions of the terms and the accepted world view. Perhaps an interesting question would be if humans have spirits, do those spirits belong to the natural or the supernatural world? At any rate, that is not a question for science.

Yes, because science studies things that are actually real, not mythologies and logical fallacies....

"You cannot prove naturalism is true by trying to establish logically that God does not exist."


Who is to say what is posible or not posible. Science is theory. Art is abstraction of thought for a purpose.
Engineering is application of theory and probabilities (tested standards) to create a tool or artifact. Religion is cutural beleif.

These ideas all integrate to create part of reality something that we beleive is happening. Is it such a hard concept to understand.


Naturalism is - primalism in most cases - it states that things occur because that is the way they occur.

Supernaturalism is to say that there are a variety of levels to occurance some of it is common and other of it is not common or reproducabe thus - not scientific (because it can't be reproduced at will by common people i.e. everybody)


Understanding of logic leads to understanding of paradox and understanding of paradox leads to a comprehension of the idea of true illogic and chaos.

G-d exists on some "spiritual plane" people have "spirits", there are mental levels of identity and there are spritual levels. We have identities towards objects and emotions.. our emotion which is our memory is our spirit. Our soul is our desire in how we use that spirit. Everything has spirit that we have in mind. I won't go into nuerosciences but the natural identity or ruleset to emotion is a singularity thus a law but the basis for proving poly identity can not occur except by beleif that communication between our outer personalities (other people and things) think and act the same way as our inner personality (what most people are vaugely aware of about themselves or taught to think is them, their bodily requirements rather then them as an awareness in all reality having mind beyond their body but still experiencing new memories at that point, etc... as a result of their overall 'spirit' and communication with g-d.)


We exist.

The natural and supernatural world are the same, but close themselves off to schools of study, and anything outside previous knowledge is thrown into 'theoretical' yet science is theoretical, thus science as religion or a beleif system is 'sorta' appears to be accepted in the minds of many, simply because that is the way it is for them. Parapsychology is just one 'scientific' feild but there are paranormal and parascience studies that exist in many institutions globally, including US special forces, the KGB is said to have done many parascience studies. It is just what people choose to beleive, and anything that doesn't fit the image for what they would like to beleive is a ghost or magic, is discarded, eseciallly if they can't control it. Who you gonna call?

There are many scientific studies of mythologies, for that matter science often prooves itself wrong and replaces itself with a scientific theory. Is that to say that all 'scientific theory' that is producable is accurate or 100% correct? Doubtful.

Try to proove a logical fallacy. And I will tell you that you must be dead. And if you are talking to me, does that mean I am dead to, or ghosts are real? All time is not acconted for except as g-d. But you choose to limit yourself to a spacetime continum that is proposed on theory and limitation of application in a universe that came from nowhere as to beleive it must have came from somewhere cause I'm in it, and at the least I remember when I was a kid. Or is memory not real?

There are many signs left behind. but science isn't always provable, even carbon dating is only accurate to a point, you see all matter is 1 energy that is fragmented it is flowing, it is just that the time in which we think at we see things as largely static, on a universal 'sped up thought basis' or rather slowed down everything is moving fluidic very fast. Or on the oposite everything is very slow. The hotter you are the faster you are because everything moves on a number of energy streams according to theory. The ammont of energy determines host 'fast' it thinks or acts, or expereinces. But the slowest point is the anchor and pathways, like a circuitboard or a wire. It is all resistance and flow and all the other physical properties.

We are all 100% biased, if we are creating a theory it is definately our overall assumption of what is to be stated. We are all neutral in the way we represent ourselves taking into account everything we know is in existance.

Science is more so the way things commonly occur and the processes of this occurance, then you slap a bunch of names on it so that another layer of interaction can be utilized.

Everything that happens exists it is just how it interacts, so many people are stuck in a purely physicalist reality that they loose so much more to what really exists in reality. Reoccurance is not the only experience of value, but individuals who attempt to create a solid basis for understanding what is occuring for a basis of greater communication or interaction. It is not required, things will happen the way they happen as g-d's will and our union, however, life grants itself to have different experiences, our self incination largey appears to create ourselves in our own image, that is to understand what we are, but in doing so we make ourselves, thus we are free as one with g-d, the will of g-d and in communication.

Everything fits together, attempting to disprove something rather then integrate it is denile.

Energy Feilds have been proven to exist any composition of energy is potentially intelligent as conciousness only requires difference, it is just that human intellgience is a basis of adaption for an understood purpose and done so seeminly within a cultural intelligence frame work. Seeing things as a cultural intelligence and limiting your own intelligence seems foolish especially if you do not have a root defined. The root is the source. However intelligence can be seen as an ability to 'control' that is if I do something I will get a predictable response. There has to be some level of interaction on a basis of growth perhaps.. intelligence is questionable that way. Ultimately a different definition of intelligence and a level of interaction may create a different number of intelligent objects. it is just the bias you express.

Humans tend to place it upon the basis of if I can make this happen and I have this reasoning at this time then this reasoning is attached to this event.. Empiricism.. leading to the sceintific method it is just where you draw the lines.

Thus feild theory occurs because there has to be limits to 'what occuring creates what' otherwise everything would cause everything. but with no referance beecause all time hasn't ended.

----

This is as most as I can respond for right now I'll see about adding the rest latter.

According to String Theory, the mathematical probability of our Universe existing is close to nil. They cite dumb luck as our reason for existance. ...

Simply because something has a slim chance of happening does not mean that the fact that it happened is not for that reason. See Prosecutor's Fallacy (http://www.answers.com/prosecutor's%20fallacy). The chances of winning the lottery are extremely slim, but if someone wins the lottery you don't discredit the win as being genuine and say that they didn't win because the chances are so slim. It doesn't mean that they cheated.

The chances of winning the lottery are extremely slim, but if someone wins the lottery you don't discredit the win as being genuine and say that they didn't win because the chances are so slim. It doesn't mean that they cheated.

I also like this illustration:

Assume you are dealt a random bridgehand (13 cards out of 52). The probability of getting any particular combination is 1 : 52! / 13! (52-13)! = 1 : 635 013 559 600.

So... would you look at your random hand, calculate the odds against it - and then decide it is not possible you got it ?

I also like this illustration:

Assume you are dealt a random bridgehand (13 cards out of 52). The probability of getting any particular combination is 1 : 52! / 13! (52-13)! = 1 : 635 013 559 600.

So... would you look at your random hand, calculate the odds against it - and then decide it is not possible you got it ?
I thought that's how you win at card games?

I thought that's how you win at card games?

Asking for a re-deal till you get one you like :p ?

It does amuse me how people would yell "wow... what are the odds" when they get a 4-aces, kings and queens hand, while any other common hand is just as likely but receives no awe.

Asking for a re-deal till you get one you like :p ?

It does amuse me how people would yell "wow... what are the odds" when they get a 4-aces, kings and queens hand, while any other common hand is just as likely but receives no awe.

Depends you you look at it. Obviously a 4 ace hand has a low probability, like any other hand, but the probability of getting a bad hand is very high so its good to avoid it.

I wish that was true, but ID'ers do try to include the supernatural into science. The idea that we would have been designed, would lead to the question of who designed the designer, which ultimately leads to a "undesigned" supernatural being.

The approach that ID takes may indeed raise some questions that cannot be answered through science, but I find it doubtful that raising such questions means that therefore ID cannot be science. An example of a question that science cannot answer being your point about who designed the designer. However, when you consider that good science is careful to recognise its limitations, and will not try to investigate that which it cannot, then you have a peaceful coexistence of science alongside questions that it cannot answer. As usual, I find it helpful to think about the assumptions upon which naturalism stands, and how the approach that naturalism takes in science is also raising questions that science cannot answer. For an example, you have to wonder how randomness can produce order, not just any old order, but the incredibly complexity that led to the existence of you and me, capable of asking such questions. It isn't that we cannot seek to provide some sort of answers to such a problem, but that those answers must come from mathematics or some such related theoretical approach--not science. We would make very bad scientists indeed if we thought that science should be capable of providing such questions. Our first job would be to find an authentic source of randomness in our universe, and find a way of measuring it's ability to form order. While that may be theoretically possible, no one has found a way of using science to do this, thus the question remains unanswered except for by some untestable speculations. Thus it isn't any better than the so-called speculations that religion might provide for ID.


Simply because both naturalism and ID raise some questions that cannot be answered with science, it doesn't mean that they cannot find truth in our material world. Thus your point about ID 'unfortunately' raising some questions that cannot be answered through science is not relevant to the debate.

Who says that it has to be one or the other. Why cant it be that evry thing was created with the ability to evolve because the world is an ever changing place. To deny that possibility is to say that the creator was a fool and only thought everything would always be exactly the same. Come on give him more credit than that. besides you cant make something from nothingand where did that very first piece of something come from:

Depends you you look at it. Obviously a 4 ace hand has a low probability, like any other hand, but the probability of getting a bad hand is very high so its good to avoid it.

Ah, but that's no longer about the odds of getting cards. This is about the value you assign to the cards you did get.
And I think this is where it starts to confuse people who want to believe that there has to be some supernatural power, because the odds of life evolving on exactly this planet which happens to orbit this sun at this exact distance of 8.14 light minutes, thus having the right environment to support life, are so slim.
They're looking at it from the wrong angle. The univers was not set up to create us. We were within the odds and just happened to be dealt. If it hadn't been us, it would have been some other cards, who knows?

But such a statement would be completely and utterly meaningless. Try giving an example of where it isn't if you disagree - keeping in mind the designer can choose how he designs.

What I had in mind was something like the information system required to proof-read DNA, for example. When we look at such a system, we can easily see the purpose for it. Thus the information in the system needs to fit with this purpose. On one hand the information present in the system would be a product of mindless nature blindly and accidentally finding the information needed to make such a system work (which in turn would possibly leave some tell-tale signs of such a process), while on the other, the information would be because it was 'placed' there. The role of an IDer would be to observe the information from both points of view and to see which view point would fit in best with the observed information.

He need not assume that nature has not impacted the information (obviously). If there was a designer, one can hypothesis that nature may have modified the information from the original copy. Thus he needs to be able to distinguish between information that came from a designer and information that comes from 'mother' nature.



Incorrect - that is in fact exactly what IDers claim they wish to do,


It is a little disappointing when you present absolute statements without an argument to support them.



No it isn't. And I must give IDers credit for not being stupid enough to actually claim this....
I can find signs that you were made from my excrement that magically travelled back in time if I wish. That does not make it right.
What I must look for to give my hypothesis any semblance of scientific credit is proof that my hypothesis is wrong. If I and others despite many tests fail to do so, then it may be worth something. Just finding supporting evidece however is nowhere near enough - you can find support for almost everything.


I don't agree. You only have to look at the huge changes in thinking over something like human evolution to see how the hypothesis have been built on sketchy evidences. There are many hypotheses that are mostly speculation, based on some sort of evidence. When new evidence comes to light, the fact that those hypotheses change so dramatically suggests that the evidence upon which they were built is incomplete. It's not hard to think of examples, one being how one hypothesis was that modern humans evolved (from their pre-human ancestors) at several locations around the globe. This hypothesis was the dominant one for many decades. Within the last two decades, this hypothesis has been discarded in favour for the one based on genetic similarities between all modern humans, suggesting that modern humans are all related to a single female ancestor, and most likely a single male ancestor.

Using your standards of ''Just finding supporting evidece however is nowhere near enough - you can find support for almost everything.'' would mean that such research on human evolution was a waste of time, or at least not science, just as you have labeled ID.


And except for an actual "artists signature" (as found in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy) such data will never be convincing.

It is a somewhat discomforting thought that the IDers might actually find some evidence that is almost as convincing as an 'artist's signature'. I'm not holding my breath, but if they did, it would make their critics look rather foolish. I cannot imagine what would happen next. But I am personally not in favour of giving such information to the religious 'right'.

Ah, but that's no longer about the odds of getting cards. This is about the value you assign to the cards you did get.
And I think this is where it starts to confuse people who want to believe that there has to be some supernatural power, because the odds of life evolving on exactly this planet which happens to orbit this sun at this exact distance of 8.14 light minutes, thus having the right environment to support life, are so slim.
They're looking at it from the wrong angle. The univers was not set up to create us. We were within the odds and just happened to be dealt. If it hadn't been us, it would have been some other cards, who knows?

Yeah, i agree with you about universe not being set up to create us bit. I was just being pedantic about the card hand analogy. But I was talking about the odds of getting cards, not the value. Think about it this way, how many really good hands are there in poker? as a complete guess about 100,000, including all four of a kinds, straight flushes etc, out of a possible 312,000,000 if you take all combinations of 52 cards thats a 1 in 3120 chance, so of course its reasonable to get excited about it. Though there could be more or less good hands that 100,000.

One thing I'd like cleared up about ID: if this designer you're talking about is all powerful then he must have had the ability to create the universe to look like he had no part in its creation. To create a universe which shows signs of his involvement must have been a choice on his part so my question is: why leave small very unobtrusive and questionable signs of his involvement which are only understandable by a select few when he could just put in a large neon sign or something notifying everybody that he exists?

Yeah, i agree with you about universe not being set up to create us bit. I was just being pedantic about the card hand analogy. But I was talking about the odds of getting cards, not the value. Think about it this way, how many really good hands are there in poker? as a complete guess about 100,000, including all four of a kinds, straight flushes etc, out of a possible 312,000,000 if you take all combinations of 52 cards thats a 1 in 3120 chance, so of course its reasonable to get excited about it. Though there could be more or less good hands that 100,000.

You were talking about the odds of getting good cards as in good hands, not simply the odds of what cards you can get. Getting four aces is just as likely as getting four twos, or any other combination. The odds only shift once you decide to prefer certain combinations, i.e. the four aces, and to regard all others as worthless. That's when the odds to get good cards suddenly drop.

You were talking about the odds of getting good cards as in good hands, not simply the odds of what cards you can get. Getting four aces is just as likely as getting four twos, or any other combination. The odds only shift once you decide to prefer certain combinations, i.e. the four aces, and to regard all others as worthless. That's when the odds to get good cards suddenly drop.

I thought the point was to get good cards, I know any hand is likely as any other but does anyone really care about that? A bad hand is much more likely than a good one so when someone gets a good one its reasonable to say something like "what are the odds!?"

That wasn't my point; someone was talking about naturalism v. supernaturalism, so I put in the proof. This wasn't a proof of evolution, etc. at all.

I realize that you were dealing with naturalism v supernaturalism, but used the point about ID versus evolution as an example. My point was that finding apparent holes in the 'logic' of the supernatural does not amount to proof against the existence of the supernatural, particularly when the assumptions in our logic table are questionable.



No, that's not what I meant. "Spirit"?? What do you take me for? That would make me as bad as those who claim that God exists on some "spiritual plane", that people have "spirits", etc. 'Spiritual', when in a context referring to existence, reality, etc., has absolutely no meaning. Completely meaningless. Like 'soul', you couldn't give it a meaningful independent definition if you tried. The entire concept of spirit, spiritual, soul, etc. is pointless.


It is not stupid to allow that the spirit world may indeed exist. It certainly explains some things that the material world does not, or at least not yet. The question of spirits and the spirit world is not an answer that science can provide, mostly because it does not try to. Thus science cannot tell us whether yet-to-be discoveries in the material world will explain everything (thus making a spirit world unnecessary), or if other discoveries will make the spirit world more apparent.

Spiritual may have no meaning in the world view of a materialist, but most people in the world are not materialists, and do find a lot of meaning in the spirit world. I think you would find that the materialists are the minority, even among intellectuals. I could give you definitions of the spirit of a human, but my definitions would not be independent (obviously) of my world view. The concept of a spirit may be pointless to you, but that is a long way from making it pointless to me.


See what I said above; either you exist, or you don't. The empty nonconcept of 'spirit' fits nowhere in there. Material, or not real.


If the spirit world exists, it is real, but not material. Apparently, it is your world view that has no room for the concept of a spirit. (not meant as an insult, but an observation that you are welcome to refute.) You simply cannot prove the non-existance of the spiritual world on the basis of what appears to be your own world view, since your own world view is based on assumptions. That would be using an assumption to prove the nonexistence of the spirit world.


Yes, because science studies things that are actually real, not mythologies and logical fallacies....

Belief, even a false belief is real, wouldn't you agree? For example, if I believe in unicorns, unicorns may not be real, but my belief in them is. Myth, even if not based on a factual event, contains meaning that is real, and perhaps more meaningful and more important than a factual event. How, then, can you say that a myth is not real?

More importantly, how can you know that the spirit world does not exist? Because you assume it does not exist?

One thing I'd like cleared up about ID: if this designer you're talking about is all powerful then he must have had the ability to create the universe to look like he had no part in its creation. To create a universe which shows signs of his involvement must have been a choice on his part so my question is: why leave small very unobtrusive and questionable signs of his involvement which are only understandable by a select few when he could just put in a large neon sign or something notifying everybody that he exists?

Good question, and I have to say that I don't know the answer. I could guess, though. Perhaps because he wanted people to come to him through faith, not through science. Just a guess....

More importantly, how can you know that the spirit world does not exist? Because you assume it does not exist?
It's entirely irrelevant to this world whether it exists or not.

It's entirely irrelevant to this world whether it exists or not.

You may like to present an argument for that statement.

I thought the point was to get good cards, I know any hand is likely as any other but does anyone really care about that? A bad hand is much more likely than a good one so when someone gets a good one its reasonable to say something like "what are the odds!?"

... and to link that example back to life, the universe and everything : It's just as likely to get a planet that can support life as it is likely to get a planet that is a methane blob or one that is bright pink.
We just assume that one that can support life is better than the others....

Good question, and I have to say that I don't know the answer. I could guess, though. Perhaps because he wanted people to come to him through faith, not through science. Just a guess....

Then why waste so much time on setting up this huge, splendid and fascinating world, that works through scientific/natural processes, not faith? To distract the weak-willed?

Then why waste so much time on setting up this huge, splendid and fascinating world, that works through scientific/natural processes, not faith? To distract the weak-willed?

Hmmm, hadn't thought of that one before. But do you think of faith as being evidence of a strong will, or a weak one? I don't quite get that point.

At any rate, why not? i.e., why not create a marvelous universe that runs according to principles (e.g laws of nature) and then require us to know him through faith, not through knowledge of the laws of nature?


I actually thought someone was going to ask why God is so big on faith. Why does he require faith? (I'm still thinking that one through.)

Perhaps one could think of faith as a kind of law of nature that is dependent on the humanity within us, in the sense that faith is typically something only found in humans. That is clearly speculation on my part. I'm not a theologian.

Edit: Perhaps because faith is such a major part of any decent relationship, and we were originally made to have a relationship with God.

Hmmm, hadn't thought of that one before. But do you think of faith as being evidence of a strong will, or a weak one? I don't quite get that point.

Maybe I should just have said "weak", or "easily distracted"... it was just an example


At any rate, why not? i.e., why not create a marvelous universe that runs according to principles (e.g laws of nature) and then require us to know him through faith, not through knowledge of the laws of nature?

It doesn't make sense. But then, god tends not to, according to most religions.


I actually thought someone was going to ask why God is so big on faith. Why does he require faith? (I'm still thinking that one through.)

I would suggest this book. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061092177/qid=1137590579/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2720588-1268123?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)
It suggests that gods grow in strength with the number of believers they have, and that faith provides them with their powers. ;)


Perhaps one could think of faith as a kind of law of nature that is dependent on the humanity within us, in the sense that faith is typically something only found in humans. That is clearly speculation on my part. I'm not a theologian.

Actually, not quite. Humans seem to be the only species who felt the need for divine guidance at some stage during its development.
Faith, i.e. belief in something that has supernatural powers even though this something has never been witnessed before, can be created in chimps as well, for example.
I've read about this ages ago and I don't have any links to prove it, but there obviously is a female chimp who firmly believes in an entity called "Susie" (I think). Susie acts very much in the same way as Santa Claus will work for a small child. The chimp never saw Susie, but the biologists she lives with and communicates with told her about Susie and what she can do. Susie sometimes leaves treats for the chimp if she had been nice, and if she has been misbehaving, her "parents" will threaten her that Susie might be angry with her.
Apparently, the chimp has taken to lying, too, telling people that Susie did something like breaking a vase...

I can appreciate your point, I think, although I'm still not sure why you think redefining 'science', using a more general definition means that the 'doing of science' loses its meaning. However, I still maintain a difference between science and the scientific method. While it may not be necessary for a dialogue between you and I, there are plenty others on this forum who have yet to understand this particular limitation in science, particularly those who tend to think that science has proven religion to be false.
Because when you broaden the definition of "science" you include in it things that are "not science", thereby weakening what "is science."

Science has not disproven religion, but it has provided support for a position contrary to the literalist/realist's interpretation of the Bible.

While complete objectivity is not needed to discover truth in science, you are right in saying that a scientist needs to do a very good job. Except that we cannot tell what a 'very good job' might be, unless we knew what 'pure' objectivity might be, and then make a comparison. On a practical level, while we do not need 'pure' objectivity, our way of getting around this is to make repeated observations under controlled conditions, contrasting results with positive and negative controls. That way, we make sure that the generated data is as close to objective as possible. However, the interpretation of data is never free from subjectivity. So long as the scientist is hypothesizing about something that cannot be observed or repeated, the issue of subjectivity/objectivity becomes rather critical. It's not hard to see much in evolutionary theory that cannot be observed. Thus it remains the domain of subjective thinking. At this point, it isn't more objective than the subjective thinking involved in ID.
Whoa. I'm not sure what you mean by 'pure' objectivity. If you mean reality, then I was using the word in another context.

The objectivity that the scientist must employ is in attitude and language. There, in this context, we do know precisely what objectivity is: it is removing the personal, subjective viewpoint and incorporating a stance that is neutral to the data being observed; this the "neutral" in science. No personal observations, nothing that isn't based on prior observation or knowledge ... "just the facts, m'am." That sort of stuff. This is where the "beliefs" are put aside in order to "do science." This is, for the scientist, doing a very good job.

If by 'pure' objectivity you refer to a "truth" of reality, then no such beast exists. There is nothing to "compare to" in that sense, there is only prior data and conclusions to compare to. They are what define reality, here in our modern world. Unless I am mistaken, everything else would be relegated to being speculation.

Will respond to the rest later.

Why? Because it's just as unscientificallly testable as ID. Interesting article here (http://helives.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_helives_archive.html#113647655910558704).

I don't think the argument against ID should be "It is not science." If that's the case, we shouldn't teach English or history either. The question that needs to be asked is, "Is it establishment of religion?" That one's harder to prove, as broad ID (as opposed to deity-specific creationsim) is merely philosophical. Why not have it as part of a classical philosophy and logic class? We could damn sure use more philosophy education in public schools.

Bugger off.

Anybody else notice how far this thread has strayed from the original topic?