from wikipedia: Secular humanism is not a "faith" but a way to look at the world that deals with everything that isn't faith. Your contention that it is taught on faith, combined with your previous description of your now defunct "faith" in evolution, lead me to believe that your problem is more a result of you making science into a competitor with faith, which it is not. Only if you are a biblical literalist (i.e. everything in Genesis happened as it said and 2000 years ago a woman came from the first man’s rib, etc.), is there any conflict between secular humanism and religion. If evolution was "dumbed down" for you to make it seem like irrefutable faith, that is more a problem with the education system, than the subject material.
I'll give you credit for framing this in terms of the scientific method but that still doesn't mean that it is correct because it is based on one key unproven assumption. I'll go through it. True but here at the observation stage is already where the key assumption is made. First off intelligent agents don't always produce what you term CSI. At the same time what can be termed CSI can be observed in non-intelligent actions for instance in complex patterns of storm formation or in star formation or biologically in the very complex structures built by termites (unless you consider termites intelligent actors.) I will agree this is a fair hypothesis again though based off of the assumption. That complexity is only due to intelligence. But again this is only assumed because that complexity must come from intelligence ignoring that complex structures have been shown to arise not from an active intelligence. The other problem with this is that while there is a lot of what appears to be amazing engineering ignores the fact that in biological systems we see a lot of bad engineering with waste and maladaption. The biggest problem though with taking this so-called scientific method of explaining ID is that its a circular argument. The hypothesis and experiment is already stated in the observation. Only intelligence can create complexity so therefore all complexity must be the work of intelligence. The problem with this is that its a closed argument and rigged experiment with the answer already pre-rigged in the observation. In scientific terms its not falsifiable. What's missing is an independent verification of an intelligent designer apart from saying that only intelligence can create complexity so there must be an intelligence since there is complexity. That is a self-fulfilling truism that can't be supported beyond itself. Compare this with how the theory of Evolution has been formulated and tested. Darwin began with 2 observations Observation 1. We live in a world with a variety of species. Observation 2. Within species organisms will undergo morpological changes to adapt to different environments. Hypothesis. Speciation is likely caused by differentiation of common ancestral types into several different species through adaption to differing environments. Unlike the ID argument this is an inductive leap of tying together two disparate pieces of observation. Experiment. Darwin's challenge was to show a likely differentation to the point beyond just physical adaption beyond just within species to new species. He started out by noting that there were various species of finches in the Galapogos that had wildly different morphologies but retained common finch features with each other and a finch on the mainland of South America. The finch on the mainland appeared to share the most in common with the Galapogos finches so therefore the Galapogas finches must have descended from the common mainland finch. He went further to examine fossil and other evidence to note that there appeared to be similar morphological features shared among hole orders of organisms with seemingly older organisms containing more common features. Conclusion. There is evidence supporting that species do change and adapt to the point of profound changes and also that older species that share common features with later species indicate that there was a progression from common types to more diverse types due to selective adaption. That's where Darwin got but its not the whole story either because there were still some key problems to it. 1. What causes species to adapt instead of just dying out? 2. While different species may appear externally morphologically similar what other evidence is there that they are related to each other? For instance a dolphin looks like a shark but they are very distantly related. 3. How do we know that a species or fossil that shares common features with other species represents an ancestor? This is where what's happened since Darwin and also independent of Darwin fills in the picture and elevates Evolution from hypothesis to theory. 1. Something must cause species to change since it seems implausible that on their own they would change. What we've found out since then is that organisms are subject to mutation and we've been able to identify several mutagenic agents occuring naturally and demonstrate their mutagenic functions. 2. Better anatomical studies have helped to show that within species certain interior structures bear a similarity to those of other species sometimes not morphologically externally similar. So the skeletal structure of a dolphin flipper appears remarkably like hands and in the pelvis of some cetaceans and pinepeds there are vestigial leg bones. Indicating that a dolphin rather than being a designed creature for the water is very likely a land dwelling creature that through a long chain of adaption has become a sea dwelling creature. Something like this is even more observables in poor adaptions such as the closest relative of the elephant is a small rabbit sized creature that lives on rocky hills in South Africa. It still has tiny elephant like feet that aren't really that great for life on the rocks but has made up for it by being able to hide well. The next part is genetics which have come completely independently from evolutionary studies. Once its been identified that DNA is the agent of genetic change its been able to note genetic markers among genes and tracing those indicates a relationship between species. Many of these markers are on DNA that doesn't relate to specific function, again sometimes in species very different externally like dolphins and horses, would indicate that rather than parallel creation to provide the programming for a particular function they are holdovers from common ancestors. 3. Here is where fossil dating and the DNA recovery techniques come in. The dating techniques we have on the whole have shown that there is a progression from previous types and that they progress. This isn't always a clean progression but it is one that's visible. For example there is a progression of fossils showing a line of species that begin being very ape like to ones to ones that appear more human. Since this chain is relatively chronological it would appear that logically it is a series of increasingly human like adaptions from a common ancestor between us and apes. One more counter intuitive peace of evidence from fossil dating also supports change through adaptive selection and mutation. Extinctions such as the one at the end of Cretacious seem to indicate a cleaning of the slate but what is more interesting is that following the cleaning of the slate a new order of fossils appear that seem to be diversifying to fit into the previous niches occupied by the dead order. It does seem to be a waste to wipe out previous species that filled the same ecological niche with a new species essentially morphologically and functionally similar like a pterodactyl and a condor. While all of this evidence doesn't absolutely prove Evolution it shows a high plausibility of Evolution. Evidence of mutagen and genetic information provide independent evidence supporting Evolution so Evolution isn't a self-referential argument, its not saying that speciation can only occur by adaption so since we have speciation we must have adaption. Instead there is independent evidence of the mechanisms of adaption and even a timeline of adaption. The problem with ID is that there is no independent evidence supporting an intelligent designer(s) and is only supported on the argument that complexity can only be created by intelligence so there must be an intelligent designer(s). A completely circular closed argument. This is again only assuming that complexity can only be created by a designer but totally ignoring that complexity has arisen with no visible intelligence such as a storm pattern. Its an observation yes but one that's limited and already states a built in bias. Further it clearly states a bias by saying that "(although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function)." that's often true but its an assumed bias because we have to assume that something we percieve functionless really has a function. If that's the case then it requires an independent test of its own to verify that that assumption is correct. We can't automatically a presume a function. These are fair hypothesis but ones based on pre-existing bias. All of these are again are based upon assumptions already stated initially in the bias of the observations. I would even go so far as to say these aren't experimental results but observations preceding a hypothesis in and of themselves. The only explanation for these is that it has to be an intelligence since only an intelligence can lead to these ignoring possible other explanations. What's lacking is an independent evidence of an intelligence. As noted there is independent evidence supporting mutation and selective adaption, and failure to adapt, has been witnessed so there is indepedent support for the methodology. What's missing in the analysis is indepedent evidence for the presence of methodology of a designer. Its all self-referentially. What's most troubling is that built into the experimental is not an experimental result at all but a hypothesis of its own that "Junk DNA" actually has a function. While one supporting evidence for Evolution is the presence of markers on "Junk DNA" among wildly different morphologically species as a sign of a common marker that evidence has more strength credence since DNA mapping has been done independent of Evolutionary study to map function and has so far not revealed a known function. So while there may be a function we at least no that the DNA in question doesn't relate to a function that we could identify as being a specific advantageous function and thuse more evidence for being a holdover than a designed adaption. It seems plausible that similar gene in dolphins and horses that has nothing to do with a known function would be a hold over. If it was from a designed standpoint though one would presume that a Dolphin would share more genes with a shark which they do not. For that matter from a designed standpoint why create an ocean going creature that needs to breath air and gives live birth underwater?
Sishir_Chang: Great post. Let me predict what will happen. Someone will say, "yea some of what you wrote is correct, but what about...." Basically, they will change the subject of debate or refuse to accept what you say even though they nod their head like they understand. Seriously, we can respond to 99% of the pro-ID posts just by copying old replies we made in the past...
Um, why not? Transitions of a dolphin from a land-dwelling pre-dolphin evolutionaries must account for: 1. The nose would have to move to the back of the head. 2. Feet, claws, or tail would be exchanged for fins and flippers. 3. Development of a torpedo shaped body for efficient swimming in the water. 4. Ability to drink sea water and desalinize it. 5. Rearrangement of it's entire bone structure and metabolism. 6. Development of a sophisticated sonar system to search for food. Which leads to these questions: Could the dolphin acquire these features gradually one at a time over a period of millions of years? What about the transitional stages? Would they have survived with just some of these features? Why is there a total absence of transitional forms fossilized? Despite what you may have read, genetics and fossil records are not supportive of the current evolution explanation. Instead, they have to be circumvented to continue the discussion.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." -- Charles Darwin I'm not saying evolution positively absolutely did not happen in some form...I'm saying there are some huge leaps to get there. And I'm saying that unless we can bottle a million years, we'll never know on a macro level. We can test it on a micro level and extrapolate out. But it seems there are gaps of faith within evolution. Am I wrong?? In all honesty...let me know how, why...I'd like to understand.
I understand the evolution side, and I like your posts. You don't have to trust me but there is nothing you posted that I haven't said myself years ago even before we had DNA and genetic mapping. What you may not see is that you have given a compelling argument against evolution. If you could 'imagine' that God created the world (call it a dream) and then ponder your arguments from that perspective you can see that every conclusion in evolution is circular also. It is like finding arrows stuck in a tree and then drawing a target around the arrows. The problem with this debate is that the gaps in evolution are there and if you want to see them you can. And of course evolution is plausible. But creation is not plausible if there is no Creator. So there is no way to take ID scientifically if there is not an Intelligent Designer. I will happily admit that ID science is religious, because in my heart it is. I don't pretend to know how God created the universe. I choose to believe it. And I choose to believe Genesis based upon the view Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul had towards those writings. I have studied how Noah's flood created much of the geological record etc etc and most of the creation science argument, but I wouldn't rest on that to decide what to believe. I have chosen the Bible to rest my beliefs on. However I cannot in good conscience accept that evolution was the vehicle God used when there are so many problems both with the science and the scripture. I may miss the right answer, but I am convinced that evolution is a bad answer. (Of course if you must take God out, then I would agree with everyone on this board that evolution is the best answer (better than aliens) in my mind.) I don't have any problem with a Christian believing fully in evolution as if that is of highest importance to one's faith. I have this opinion- the more intelligent and accredited a scientist is then the more validity is given to his own educated guess. And if that scientist is trained in evolutionary thinking the more biased his further research will be. And if that scientist does not believe in God the more ardent will be his own conclusions about evolution. I think that intelligent and brilliant guesses are just that- guesses. I still don't see all the concrete evidence that supposedly got us from Big Bang to Human Intelligence. I may just be slow. Remember I have made a choice to believe the Bible. But I have not been able to resolve evolution in my intellect and I cannot accept it as presented with all the problems I see. (I may also have poor sight) Even Christians disagree greatly on this issue. As for teaching ID in the schools- I vote no.
The problem with this debate is that the gaps in evolution are there You do not know this as a fact. You can not prove this anymore than macro-evolution can be proven.
i just want to understand...are you saying there are no gaps?? that all the proof is empirically there and there's no question?
Actually the fossil record is very supportive ~ this post is indicative of many of the problems with ID -- there is zero research into the subject only assumption based on personal beliefs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your personal beliefs I respect them, however they shouldn't be the basis of curriculum in a public school. ___________ Basic Dolphin Evolution All dolphins, whales, and porpoises are related. Fossil evidence from the early Eocene epoch, indicate that the early dolphins or Protocetidae were already aquatic 45 to 50 million years ago. However, they bore little resemblance to the dolphins and whales we know today. Fossil dolphins can be traced through time by the changes in their teeth. About 30 million years ago the early dolphins split into the two main divisions known today: the toothed whales, and the baleen whales. Delphie, the group from which modern dolphins arose, began to appear in the early Miocene about 25 million years ago. Because the dolphins evolutionary line diverged some 50 million years ago, their physical structure had time to develop independently from terrestrial mammals. For instance, the fossil record indicates that there was a stage when the animals were amphibious. However, this record also shows that once the early dolphins decided to be aquatic, it didn't take long for the bones of the hind limbs to disappear altogether. The obvious streamlining of a dolphin's bodies caused by living in water has produced several other modifications to the animal's physiology. The thickened body and raised head has caused the vertebrae of the cetacean neck to become fused. Instead of the major blood supply to the brain running up the outside of the neck, as in land animals, it passes through an artery within the fused vertebrae. This insures a constant supply of blood when the dolphin dives to extreme depths in the ocean. (Dolphins and man...equals?) What are cetaceans? Cetaceans is a collective term for whales, dolphins, and porpoises. It contains two suborders Mysticeti and Odontoceti. The baleen whales are members of the Mysticeti suborder, while the toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises make up the Odontoceti suborder. Within these two suborders contain eighty-one known species, separated into thirteen different families. (Cetacea) link
There are HUGE gaps. What percentage of the animals leave fossils? It is entirey expected that we do not have (and will never have) a complete fossil record.
Can we be exposed to al-Qaeda thoughts, please? Seriously anyone know anything about al-Qaeda thoughts other than they are EVIL?
i don't know what percentage leave fossils. but we're talking about a theory that says they ALL come from a common source. i'm thinking we should see broad evidence of it. we've been "digging up bones" for literally thousands of years. the romans had a full dinosaur assembled, if i remember correctly from reading a book about constantine. secondly...can we abandon the part of the discussion that says it should be part of public education? i know i'm not interested in that at this point...and rhester says he isn't interested in it either. here's another problem i have...don't you have to evolve for how conditions will be AFTER you've evolved? does that imply some intelligence?? if humans were to evolve today to meet conditions as they exist today...they'd be big time behind the 8-ball if those modifications became complete one million years from now with entirely different conditions.
nice post rhester. I have only recently walked the path of accepting Creation. "where we came from" is not a sticking point in my belief system. I think this whole debate is more about the concept of a Creator, God, or the absence of a Creator. If a person believes in the One God and live their life attempting to live how He suggests, then part of our responsibility is to recruit new believers. I don't understand why someone that does not believe in God bothers with recruiting people into a belief structure that is without God. What's the point? How does your godless state benefit from welcoming a brother into a world without hope?
