a problem with ID is that it seems at odds with punctuated equilibrium. the evolution of anything happens in fits and starts, not on a smooth gradual curve. why would god have things unfold in this matter? doesn't seem to be the most logical way. in art, Las Meninas ,for example, was more revolutionary than evolutionary. in many ways this painting sinals the beginning and end of painting. sorry if this post is a abstruse or vague.
Actually it fits quite well with the theory that alien life forms may have visited earth at various points in the past and changed life on earth somehow. The theory that life evolved in fits and starts is the theory of punctuated equilibrium. It’s far from an established fact. Not even all evolutionists believe it.
i'm kinda just thinking out loud. having an epiphany, i guess this actually jibes with punctuated equilibrium and catholicism. things build up momentum and then expode, implode or wither. seems to be the way of the universe. nothing is created, nothing destroyed. change, that's all.
That article makes me dizzy! When I try and wrap my limited intellect around discussion of physics at that level I feel like Neanderthal man trying to figure out a cell-phone...hard to conceptualize when you are as mathematically challenged as I am! Tell me, who said that the nature of the universe or physics or a complicated, multi faceted scientific concept should will be simple enough to put on a Tee-Shirt once we are advanced enough? Or something to that effect... I think what is amazing about the Higgs-Boson particle and the nature of matter/atom is that we are all made up of unfathomable amounts of "space". That is, the emptiness between the nucleus of an Atom and an electron--what is that space between the accepted components of an Atom called? Is that were quarks/neutrinos and force carriers come in? Correct me if I'm wrong, But the distances between Atoms and their components and other Atoms are, on their unimaginable tiny scale, the same as the distances between planets, solar systems and galaxies right? In other words, moving from an electron to a neutron is the same, scaled to size, as moving from the Earth to the center of our galaxy.
Revolutionary in some ways, but heavily dependent in others. No way aliens came down and created it independently. It does fit in this context, though, because there is no way of knowing the truth about what Las Meninas is. It will forever remain a mystery. Theories but no knowledge.
There's a famous quote by Richard Fenyman If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics. My sig. also points out the issue. I think many people want to believe that the universe on an fundimental level operates in the same logical way as their lives, where good things happen to good people, and everything makes sence in a way that is easy to understand. On the quantum level results can happen before causes, things can be in two places at once, there is something Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". IMHO the fact that you realize that there are things too complex to wrap your mind around, make sense of, and manipulate would serve the most radical anti-evolution people well. To answer one of your questions:
Actually he very intelligent. The problem is that he is a lazy thinker, reducing things to the simplest terms, and he doesn't seem to particularly interested in learning for the sake of learning, but despite circumstantial evidence to the contrary, he is actually very smart.
I doubt that. I don't think he's as dumb as some people make him out to be. But he's definitely not at the top of the class.
Well, he did manage to graduate from Yale. I know I wouldn't have been able to do it when I was that age, and I'm not sure if I could now. He probably got in on nepotism, as all the Ivy's are big into that, and he has admited he was "a C student" which may even be an exageration. So, in one way your assertation that he's not at the top of the class is correct. I, however, consider graduating from Yale in any way shape or form to be clear evidence of high intelligence. I would never believe it by watching the man, but that diploma is factual evidence to the contrary.
This post is from the latest issue issue of SciAm. I'm posting it because I get the general feeling that many ID proponents think "evolution" has been some static and dogmatic unchanging set of rules ever since Darwin got off the Beagle and took pen to paper. (Also, I really dig the way that the title & body of the article are dogmatically conflicted in the current political environment.) Skeptic Rumsfeld’s Wisdom Where the known meets the unknown is where science begins By MICHAEL SHERMER At a February 12, 2002, news briefing, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld explained the limitations of intelligence reports: “There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” Rumsfeld’s logic may be tongue-twisting, but his epistemology was sound enough that he was quoted twice at the World Summit on Evolution. The June conference, hosted by San Francisco University of Quito, was held on the Galapagos island of San Cristóbal, where Charles Darwin began his explorations. Rumsfeld’s wisdom was first invoked by University of California at Los Angeles paleobiologist William Schopf, who, in a commentary on a lecture on the origins of life, asked: “What do we know? What are the unsolved problems? What have we failed to consider?” Creationists and outsiders often mistake the last two categories for signs that evolution is in trouble or that contentious debate between what we know and do not know means that the theory is false. Wrong. The summit revealed a scientific discipline rich in data and theory as well as controversy and disputation over the known and unknown. For example, Schopf began with the known: “We know the overall sequence of life’s origin, from CHONSP [carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus], to monomers, to polymers, to cells; we know that the origin of life was early, microbial and unicellular; and we know that an RNA world preceded today’s DNA-protein world. We do not know the precise environments of the early earth in which these events occurred; we do not know the exact chemistry of some of the important chemical reactions that led to life; and we do not have any knowledge of life in a pre-RNA world.” As for what we have failed to consider, Schopf noted a problem with what he called “the pull of the present”—it is extremely difficult to model the early earth’s atmosphere and the biochemistry of early life because we are so accustomed to conditions today. Rumsfeld’s heuristic was summoned again at the end of the conference by University of Georgia evolutionary biologist Patricia Gowaty, in response to Stanford University biologist Joan Roughgarden, who declared that Darwin’s theory of sexual selection is wrong in its claim that females choose mates who are the most attractive. “People are surprised to learn how much sex animals have for purely social reasons and how many species have sex-role reversal in which the males are drab and the females are colorfully ornamented and compete for the attention of males,” Roughgarden said. Gowaty agreed that exceptions to Darwin’s theory exist and that there are many unknowns. But, she added, since Darwin much has been learned about mate selection and competition. Between these Rumsfeldian bookends, scientific skepticism was rampant. University of Massachusetts Amherst biologist Lynn Margulis said that “neo-Darwinism is dead,” because “random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. Symbiogenesis—the appearance of new behaviors, tissues, organs, organ systems, physiologies or species as a result of symbiont interaction—is the major source of evolutionary novelty in eukaryotes: animals, plants and fungi.” University of California at Berkeley paleoanthropologist Timothy White suggested that his colleagues have engaged in far too much species splitting in classifying fossil hominids. American Museum of Natural History paleontologist Niles Eldredge explained how punctuated equilibrium—the idea that long periods of species stability are punctuated by rapid bursts of speciation—better accounts for the fossil record than the theory of slow and steady gradualism. During the conference, I had a nightmarish thought: creationists could have a field day yanking quotes out of context while listening to a room full of evolutionary biologists arguing over specific issues. In point of fact, such debates are all within evolutionary theory, not between evolutionary theory and something else. And this boundary between the known and the unknown is where science flourishes. Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His latest book is Science Friction. Disputation is at the heart of a robust science.
Here are some questions I have about ID. What is the age of the universe according to ID? What is the age of the earth according to ID? How long has life been on earth according to ID? Is it correct to say that, according to ID, genetic change in populations DOES occur, but through the influence of an Intelligent Designer and NOT through evolution? How long have (modern) humans been on earth according to ID? According to ID, do humans and apes share a recent ("recent" on a geological time scale) common ancestor? If not, what is the origin of humans? Raised Catholic, I think I can fairly accurately give the answers that would be expected from a Creationist point of view. However, what are the answers to these questions according to Intelligent Design?
Lol. Having a diploma isn't evidence of anything. Do you know what the average SAT scores were when GWB was entering college? Do you know the average SAT scores of people entering Yale at that time. It's a lot lower than now. You may claim that SAT scores are inflated now but that is not the case. It is more competitive now than ever.
What is the age of the universe according to ID? 15 billion years or so. What is the age of the earth according to ID? 4.5 billion years, give or take. How long has life been on earth according to ID? 3-4 billion years, or thereabouts. Is it correct to say that, according to ID, genetic change in populations DOES occur, but through the influence of an Intelligent Designer and NOT through evolution? Yes. How long have (modern) humans been on earth according to ID? Around 100,000 years. According to ID, do humans and apes share a recent ("recent" on a geological time scale) common ancestor? If not, what is the origin of humans? Yes.
Thanks for the quote and the graphic Ottomaton...sorry if my choice of words could be used by the "rabid" anti-evolution camp, that wasn't my intention as I don't support them in ANY shape or fashion. However, I do like to keep and nurture my sense of wonder when I look at the stars or contemplate quantum physics or be awed by the beauty of the Grand Canyon at sunset. I freely admit that there are a great many things that I don't understand in the cosmos, earth and evolution--but that lack of complete understanding doesn't mean that any form of ID should taught and sanctioned in public school. I don't see how Christians can be at odds with the science behind Evolution, it's compeling and well proven--it has never effected nor diminished my faith and I completely support the scientific process and evidence proving evolution. I DO believe in God as a creator, but I have followed my own path and understand I God as the great purveyor and father of chance. I think the creation story of Genesis, in whichever form since there are numerous renditions, can be as spiritually significant taken as metaphor than word for word interpretation.
