I am not sure I buy that, because if you see this particular documentary film you will see that even some scientists (including Richard Dawkins, the atheist overlord) are not completely dismissive of ID as a possible explanation for the origin of life. Know why? Because -- by their own admission -- they have absolutely no idea how life originated. At one point, even one of those hardcore evolutionary scientists says that may be some 'higher being' (an alien, he ponders) had a role in bringing life into existence. I am not advocating ID or any other alternative theory that's argued in a logical, scientific way. The problem is if you can't adequately -- and logically -- explain the origin of life, then you can't really outright dismiss the null hypothesis, no matter how 'ridiculous' you think it is. The p-value is just too high to ignore it and move on with the assumption that you've found 'the Truth' and it no longer needs to be addressed. I understand the scientific 'necessity' of doing so at some point, though. The bottom line is I've seen this 'movie' before, so I understand where the scientific 'establishment' is coming from. In academia you have 'dominant paradigms' or theories that made careers, where you have entire industries 'spring up' from one theory that eventually dominates the mainstream, and so the majority of scholars have a vested interest in keeping the 'status quo'. That also means effectively 'silencing' other scientists who dare to challenge the dominant paradigm. I've seen that happen before, even in the social sciences. It's people protecting their careers/reputation of their work more than anything else. Most scientists are people who are self-interested and have careers to think about/reputations to build up, and so to think that they're somehow 'neutral observers' is delusional. I am not vouching for the 'authenticity' of the movie or anything like that, but I think its worthy because it makes you 'think' at some level. Scientific 'dogma' is dangerous, I don't like the deterministic attitude in any field (in this case, evolutionary biology) where there are so many foundational questions that have yet to be answered. You can ignore it and move on for the 'sake of science', but that doesn't mean that it's 'dangerous' to attempt to address some unanswered questions.
Tiger: Good post, and I understand the sentiment. To a large extent, I agree. Where we differ is in the quoted text above. ID is not argued scientifically or logically. It's just a rationalization as to why creationism "must be" correct. That's not logic, and it damn sure is not science.
If it's true that life can arise (we know that it can because it has... here we are) and over billions of years slowly give rise through natural selection to a species with the ability to think/reason and drive technological advances, why should that be unique to our world? We are one planet in the Milky Way galaxy with 400 billion stars in a visible universe that contains hundreds of billions of galaxies. Our brains just can't intuitively understand numbers that size so it seems like we dismiss them. Given that our particular star is relatively new compared to others (billions of billions of others), it's very possible that we weren't the first to evolve to this point. Who knows how far we'll go as a species? Are we destined towards self destruction or will we one day be technologically advanced enough to see more of the universe than we do now? I would feel extremely lucky to be the first, but I doubt it. We don't know that yet, but it should be up to us and our free will. I can imagine that because of the rate of technological progress that we've seen in just a couple hundred years, someone with maybe billions of years of time in the cosmic oven might "look" like gods to us. A person could easily and within reason imagine a scenario like the one I described above. Compared to the alternative that our existence must be magic and come from something other than the natural processes that govern the universe we live in... I think Dawkins has a very reasoned point. But you could easily take him out of context to an audience with superstitious reservations and say that he believes in moon men but not the Lord, and from an emotional standpoint I can see how your point could be well received. There's even a chance that I will be viewed as "a nut" now for basically saying I "believe" in the possibility that either intelligence could have arisen independently elsewhere or that it only arose once somewhere and could have been seeded in a way either deliberately by intelligence (which arose through natural selection over billions of years) or by asteroids. Whew.
rhadamanthus- I think I was called a crusader. That word for me means someone out to take over, pushing the agenda, defeating the heretics! My personal life doesn't quite ring true with that. But think about it you also don't march down a theory without continually allowing questions, debate and criticism. That is how Darwin challenged the prevailing belief structure of his era. Darwin in his time was the "ID scientist." (may the god of mother nature forgive me for lumping those words together ) Saying evolution has no holes is an absolute statement that borders more on philosophy than science. The idea of origins is so poorly addressed by evolution that it should be held up to honest scientific criticism. If you decide to see the movie, please let me know if that point isn't clearly made. I do believe in creation, and I don't believe in it for scientific reasons. I don't believe in evolution for scientific reasons and that makes me a religious nut?
I came away thinking the same way, and admittedly being biased I do not think the movie was designed to bring a crushing blow to evolution as much as make one think about what happens when ideas are crushed. Maybe I should see it again, it was short and not very painful to watch.
I hope I haven't made an *** out of myself, if you do see the movie please email me or post you reaction. thanks
No, it does not. But it does make you confusing. You believe in creation, despite lacking scientific rationale. Yet you won't believe in evolution, because of insufficient scientific rationale. Ow. My head hurts. You know, I really don't have any issue with people believing whatever they want. But when you wrap that belief in a poorly constructed scientific framework and try to pass it off as legitimate analysis, you're no better than a traveling elixer salesman. It's decietful - and that's what bothers me. Sorry if I wrecked your thread rhester. I will try to see the movie - although it may be a while. Infant children are demanding...
If this movie is about free speech, why did the producers kick out PZ Meyers at a screening that was open to anyone who registered? He was interviewed IN the actual movie and they wouldn't let him in to see it! They let Dawkins in though. He didn't register under his name, he was registered by Meyers as 'guest'. Ouch.
You are polite and present your case well. This is the D&D after all, so everyone is free to present their side. The only thing I have people saying evolution is not the truth we should not teach it is this: evolution theory is the best current scientific model we have in the area of life science. Does it have holes? Of course, but that's the whole point of scientific theory, you try to improve your understanding over time and complete the picture. You would only discard the theory if it is complete proven wrong by facts (for example, the theory that earth is the center of solar system). If anyone can come up with a better scientific model than evolution, I am sure he will be crowned one of the greatest human ever. However, the ID theory does not come close to accomplish this, there is no way to prove or disprove the theory, thus not a scientific theory (philosophy theory? sure).
The thing is though that most of the scientists who 'float' the ID theory aren't ID theorists. And the even bigger problem is that there is a huge elephant in the room that evolutionary biology has failed to address: how did life originate? They can hypothesize about the 'process', but there are some issues they refuse to address. For instance, there is a part in the movie that talks about what elements are 'necessary' to form life (something like 250 particular proteins). What's the 'probability' of that happening in a vacuum, you may ask? Well, about 1 in a few billions or trillions or something. So how does evolutionary biology address that HUGE question about the 'improbability' of life formation in the first place? Well, apparently most scientists prefer not to. So all I am saying is I understand the 'practical' reasons behind just 'moving on' for the sake of 'doing science', but it doesn't mean that the question doesn't need to be addresses or is better left unanswered. The bigger problem is that in the existence of such a 'vacuum', there will be people who will try to tackle that question, even in ways that may not be satisfactory to the overall 'establishment'. Scientific determinism is as dangerous as anything else. People are free to speculate and theorize, at this point I am not willing to 'dismiss' either side. To me, the most 'logical' conclusion to arrive at based on scientific knowledge about the beginning or formation of life is this: it's overwhelmingly improbable that life "came to be" without some outside 'guidance', whatever that may be. If anything, scientific knowledge about the beginning of life is strong circumstantial evidence for a 'higher being' or an 'intelligent being' that helped things come together. You may arrive at a completely different and logical interpretation than I do, and I would be interested in hearing it. However, one thing for sure, there is no ground for dismissing ID as a scientific theory, you can call it 'philosophy' if you want, but in science you can theorize about something, develop expectations/hypotheses, and then conduct empirical testing to see if it's at least 'plausible' or not. In this case, based on the scope of scientific knowledge, ID is a 'plausible' theory. There's a great book about science by Steven Johnson called "The Ghost Map". I highly recommend it for anyone who's interested in the topic of 'good science' and cultural/religious dogma etc. I think you in particular would enjoy it, rhad.
You are right, I am confusing Here are the logical steps of the conclusions I have come to believe. 1. I used to believe in evolution based upon classical definitions and my own personal belief (at that time) there is no God. 2. I began to question the origin theories not because I believed in a creation but because there was no solid theory using the scientific method to grab on to as "IT" So I was searching in college for that "one" sure scientific answer- I was disappointed and frustrated by the answers I was getting from academia and my own research. I was not searching for an alternative I was searching for the evolutionary answer that fit the scientific method with regard to origins. 3. I began to have questions about transitional forms in the classical evolutionary tree. 4. I became a Christian in 1979 (3 years after college.) 5. I first believed in the creation story kind of mixed with an evolutionary scientific explanation. 6. I still had serious doubts about classical macro evolution as a theory and the 'holes' I was referencing related to origins and 'missing'' links issues (transitional forms) in development of species. 7. I lost interest in the subject. 8. ID- reared it's head and I read up on it and thought it was interesting. 9. I finally came to the conclusion personally that I could not support evolution and that it did indeed poorly present a true scientific model for origins and the development of life and living species. 10. I realized in my faith that Jesus, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter all referenced creation dogmatically and as a matter of actuality. I then read all the accounts where they referenced creation, studied their writings and context for their statements on creation and came to a matter of faith that they were being literal in their own belief in a creation. 11. At that point I decided to believe with them. That's my journey, crazy as it sounds.
NO NO NO. How do you test for god? Sure it's plausible - what isn't? But it is NOT scientific. Sounds interesting. I'll have to check it out. Wish I had more time to talk about this right now...
I am not against it being taught. I do think it is wrong for it to be beyond any rational questioning and I think there is room for alternatives even if they point toward religious or metaphysical answers. I am neither afraid of good science or religion.
Ah! But therein lies the problem. It's true that evolution is the strongest model/theory right now, but that doesn't make it the only one. Scientific theories come and go, and some are proven and only solidified by further scientific research. However, I wouldn't put the theory of evolution in the same category as gravity, and based on some of what I've read (I am not a biologist, but I take a lot of interest in it in my spare time) the theory of evolution has a lot of 'holes' in it, enough so that it's worth challenging. Proving gravity is easier because we live it, we feel it, and the evidence is overwhelming and counter-evidence is strongly lacking. However, based on my understanding, some aspects of evolutionary theory don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny, and have only served to raise more questions than answers. If the pursuit of science is desirable for its own worth, then that should actually be a good thing, and should be 'welcomed' by the scientific establishment. Unfortunately, that's not always the case (e.g. theories that serve to strengthen/support evolutionary theory are encouraged, others that weaken it/bring it into question are discouraged/dismissed; and no, I am not saying ID is one of them, I am speaking in general terms here).
About the transitional fossils, I'm not sure it's commonly known how hard it is to create a fossil. If humans were to disappear today, all traces of our existence would vanish in a lot less time than it would take for a fossil to form. The conditions have to be just right to preserve something over millions of years. Why should every transitional form become a fossil? And when you say transitional, you do realize that in a genetic sense we are all transitional forms. The primates that exist today are different from their ancestors just as we are. Genes change over time due to mutations. And anyway, every fossil ever found has been found within the geologic strata we'd expect to find it in. There are no human fossils found at the same depth as dinosaurs for example. There is an order to where we find certain fossils and that record tells a story. The "holes in the fossil record" is at the least a misunderstanding and at worst misrepresentation.
This is a great post tiger. It should work this way. As it relates to the thread, the issue is that ID is not scientific. Taking a "complexity implies god" approach into a science classroom is preposterous.
I am not sure you have an accurate understanding of what constitutes science. Science refers to the scientific method not some irrefutable, absolute knowledge. Science refers to the process of obtaining knowledge. In most cases, theories are developed and then tested, and they're rarely -- if ever -- enshrined as 'truths'. You work is scientific if you follow certain guidelines in the pursue of knowledge. It's not based on the 'validity' of your conclusions. I understand, I will just say it's a terrific little book, I read it in a few hours.
I think if you will critically think about what you just posted and really consider the questions you raised it will lead you to a questioning of classical evolution. You have very well stated some of the problems of darwinism.
Tiger, I know the scientific method. I have debated it endlessly here. Nowhere in my post was I requiring validity of conculsions. I was referring exactly to what you bemoan in the above mildly condescending post. What I was requiring was a testable hypothesis. More accurately, a falsifiable hypothesis. ID is not science, nor is it maintaining the scientific method. If you think this is inaccurate, please - show me how ID maintains the aforementioned fundamental requirement.
You do realize how big the Universe is, right? There's something like an estimated 10^24 stars in the Universe. Which, if my logic is right, is something like a trillion trillion - so in a vacuum we could potentially expect to see it happen a trillion times, right? Who knows...the point is, throwing out huge numbers as reasons something may be unlikely, when the universe is involved, changes the game. This is looking like it's going to turn into another evolution debate thread, which is fine. As for the movie. I haven't seen it. But I at least now know I won't. Rhester, I respect your opinion, and know you to read like an intelligence person based on your posts, but surely you understand the power of the documentary medium. When things are distorted to be presented one way, in a way that if not a complete outright lie, is a gross misrepresentation and surely a lie of ommision, how can you possibly believe or be moved one way or another by anything in that piece of work? And I like and find Ben Stein to be a very intelligent person, too. But c'mon. Portraying someone to be fired for something he wasn't actually fired for, if he was even fired at all. Lying to your interview subjects. Selectively cutting and pasting quotes together to get them to fit your story? It's all complete bs. Assuming you didn't know these things before starting your thread, aren't you upset that you were "lied" to like that? ^ Did the movie go this far? Maybe not. Maybe there was context that made it more understandable. But if were allowed to just pick and choose other people's words out of context, I might as well call you an evolutionist. After all, you said I am in your first post and pro-evolution in post #8. Again, I have no problem with arguing evolution, being pro ID, whatever. and I haven't seen the movie. But, if the items in this thread are to be believed, I can't fathom why anyone, on either side of the debate, wouldn't denounce the movie.
