How can you say there is no macro transition? There is in fact a relatively smooth transition from early hominids to modern man. top ten missing links Hominid Skulls As more skull/bone fossils are discovered the gaps in time will continue to be filled.
Uh, in a discussion about science and the cosmos being constantly tinkered with by a supernatural being? It's a joke. These people are just clinging. That is all. Cause and effect pervades the universe and rules all.
Oski -- you're right. i'm not a scientist. i don't speak daily in terms of theories. i can only tell you how evolution was taught to me. as fact. not as theory. not as something yet to be explained...but as something that just is. that's what i got from my public school education (which, overall, is something i'm very thankful for!!) that's why you have people bristle at it. there's a certain arrogance about the way it has been presented that is startling...and at least a bit offensive. much in the same way i've heard from many that the Gospel has been presented to them, and they've found equally offensive. perhaps it is philosophy...maybe that's where it's best left. which philosopher was it who touched on this before when he used the analogy of finding a clock in the middle of the desert. he said if you found an clock with intricate working parts working in the desert, you wouldn't assume that it got there by the force of the wind blowing all the parts together by accident. rather, you'd assume a creator. because FROM OBSERVATION, you know that complexity like that doesn't come together on its own. at least from observation...which leads me back to science, frankly. which i thought was supposed to be based on observation as well. but, to be honest, my last science class was a blowoff freshman level physics class in college.
Discussion about ID or Evolution has been around forever, even on this board. Before you dismiss one theory, you have to either prove exclusively the exact opposite theory, or exhaust all the possibilities of the theory you want to refute and prove them wrong. Existing data, facts, studies, or any research results do not satisfy any of those two directions. Therefore, it's not easy to "get over it". Besides, we all know that "the best we have" does not mean "we found the right one". Still, I don't think ID should be taught at science class. It doesn't meet the criteria of science. Majority of the World believes that somehow somewhere supernatural spirit exists, although in different forms perhaps. If ID will be taught at school, what God would be introduced? Then, there is conflict in different believes. If Bush said that religions should be introduced to students, why not? As long as all the religions are given the fair exposure, but I just don't see that happen. But, taught as a science subject? As a Christian myself, I think that's just wrong.
Rhester, I'm not meaning to ignore you, but i'm at work. I'll have to answer your questions/concerns later.
Evidence of evolution. Your assertation that evolution hasn't been questioned is just plain wrong. Wikipedia article on history of evolution. A prime example is how Darwin described evolution as a slow process. It is now, after further examination, believed that evolution occurs most often in bursts as a result in spontanious environmental shifts. Evolution is commonly studied using the geneticists favorite creature, Drosophila melanogaster, aka the fruit fly. Becuse life cycles are so short and the the genome so well sequenced, fiy populations are subjected to numerous studies in which Flies are pressed to evolve specific characteristics. Here is one study in .pdf form and a simple search or the web will turn up googles more. There is also a case which mimmics the evolution of the dog from the wolf using related vulpine species. In 1959 the Russians tried to breed the silver fox, renowned for it's coat, into a more tame animal. The results are here, but in summary when subjected to selective pressure a new subspecies has formed in 40 freaking years! The tame foxes are to normal foxes as dogs are to wolves. They have doggie attitudes, irregular coat paterns and floppy ears. Finally, the unquestioned evolution of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. is just about the strongest proof available. Hell, the Roses in my back yard which bloom 10 months a year are a perfect example of evolution. If you want to know what an unevolved rose looks like, examine the Cherokee Rose. People, however, decided that they wanted roses with more petals or roses that bloomed more than once a year, and we ended up with this.
Now we are debating, that's more like it. 1. rhester says evolution is viewed as "sacred" by quacks.- I did not say that at all. 2. Finally, I think it's silly of you, rhester, to post a list of like a 100 or 200 scientists and say, see, it's valid because they all believe it.- I did not say it is valid because scientists believe it. I said it is taught in high school as fact with disregard to scientists who are challenging it and it shouldn't be treated 'sacred'. To clarify my use of that word 'sacred' I mean it should not be protected from scientific critique because of a majority rule. Could I explain my own view from a different perspective and ask you to consider this. I wouldn't change my belief in God if I was personally convinced that evolution is fact. It insults my intelligence though to be told there can be no serious critique of evolution. And that it HAS to be fact not theory. And that there are NO other theories. I am opposed to all such nonsense. My faith in God is not dependant on science and I don't think anyone would ask me to validate my religion scientifically. I can't and I am fine with that. Nor do I propose that you all be 'converted' to any religious view for scientific reasons. But to dismiss very qualified scientists who are now challenging evolution is to show the greatest of bias and prejudice. Why not read what the ID scientists and creation scientists are researching and finding? No need to be so defensive of a theory. That 'sacred cow' reaction is what bothers me. When something cannot be questioned or challenged there is something wrong.
Oski -- I don't know about the percentage of scientists believing in ID, but according to my understanding, it's not in minority. Even Darwin himself believed in God on the end. Science are provable by experiments, but ONLY under certain premises. Axioms are not provable, and they are just assumed to be true by default and accepted as premises for most of the science. By the same token, under the big premise/"axiom" that God exists, everything in ID is inferrable. You chose not to question any axiom in Math, and believers chose not to question of God's existance, they are virtually the same. By definition of science, ID doesn't meet the criteria, so it shouldn't be taught in science class; however, why does ID have to be a science to be true?
All are scientific knowledge is the best we have. I don't see much "controversy" anywhere else. That is what kills me. Christians have too much invested in this one. Why is this such an issue? It shouldn't be a bigger issue than any other scientific theory, but it is. Who is fighting it and why? Do you really think religions will be given fair exposure? Who will be the one answering questions objectively? I don't think it is possible.
Everything you listed supports the book of Genesis- God created after 'kinds' man came up with species. And there is breeding within kinds. Now the study you listed on fruit flies and bacteria proves what? What different kind (species) did the fruit fly evolve into? What new organism did the bacteria evolve into? Try breeding a fish with a mammal. Reptile with a bird. Human with a horse. Breeding and "micro-evolution" ONLY work within kind. Another proof against Macro-Evolution having any validity. Micro-evolution is the evolution and transition within kind (flies) and it is scientifically proven. I fully believe in Micro biological evolution. It is scientific. But it in no way has anything to do with origins.
That would be William Paley, though you've got the story a bit wrong. Ironically, Charles Darwin was a big fan of Paley's work, but his eventual disillusion helped spark his search for Evolution. I could not agree with you more that hypothetical ideas in science should be taught more clearly as such. I wholeheartedly agree with the assertation that when evolution is taught in school, it should be made clear that much is still open to debate and some commonly held beliefs are almost assuredly wrong. In fact, IMHO, this should be the central theme of any discussion on everything, from history to science. Perhaps you can excuse elementary mathamatics. BTW, most of the proponents of intelligent design don't consider it to conflict with the established theories of cosmology or evolution or biology, despite the way the argument is framed by some here. To relegate inteligent design to the realm of philosophy isn't in any way an insult. Many Physicists, in fact, describe the hottest thing in physics, String Theory, as more a philosophy than a science because establishing proof is difficult. This doesn't stop them from spending their best efforts on the subject.
For every one there is a rebuttable from non-evolutionary scientists. But that does not matter because no one can prove that these ancient apes/humans were transitional species. There is not evidence that suggests that. The hard evidence needed is where did humanoids come from and where is all the transitional organisms that would be necessary to validate evolution. Did humanoids evolve form lizards? Was Lucy An Ape-man? (#11) by John Morris, Ph.D. Abstract "Lucy," consisting of a skeleton forty percent complete, was discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson in 1974, and was dated at 3.2 million years of age. He calculated her to have stood about 3'6" tall, and to have weighed about 50 pounds. Certain features suggested to Johanson that it may have walked erect, and was therefore evolving into a human. In a recent interview, Johanson recollects, "I happened to glance over my right shoulder . . .and there on the surface of the ground was a little bit of an elbow, I recognized it immediately as belonging to a human ancestor." Lest one get the impression that Johanson is blessed with an unusual gift of discernment, let me point out that many in the anthropological community have yet to be so convinced. Indeed, it is impossible to make snap judgments like this, while a number of sophisticated studies have shown that the austraiopithecines, in general, and "Lucy," in particular, were not ape-human intermediates, but rather, an extinct species of ape which probably spent most of its time in the trees. Let us look at some of the specific features of "Lucy" which are important in this study. Everyone agrees that from the neck up, "Lucy" was gorilla-like. Her brain size was about one-fourth the size of a human brain; her jaw was "U"-shaped, typical of gorillas; her teeth were large, far larger than those in humans. From the neck down, nearly every: feature was likewise non-human. Australopithecus fossils, including those which are thought to be much more recent and therefore should be more human-like, have long, curved fingers and long, curved toes—well adapted to swinging from tree limb to tree limb. The features which suggest upright posture to Johanson are primarily the hip and knee joints, but numerous studies on the hip have shown otherwise. Oxnard, in his 1987 book, Fossils, Teeth and Sex (which contains an excellent summary of these various studies), claims that, "These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes than do these living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique" (p. 227). Evidently they could walk somewhat upright, as pygmy chimps do today, but not in the human manner at all. Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower. Clearly, the knee does not belong with the rests, but even if they do go together, the knee is not diagnostically upright, and; points more specifically to tree-climbing abilities, according to Oxnard and other authorities. Several investigators, including Richard Leakey, have now concluded that two or perhaps three species have been wrongly combined in "Lucy." She was not a human ancestor. At best, she was a form of extinct ape; at worst, she was a mosaic, yet she is still touted as the best "evidence" for human evolution. As the eminent, evolutionary anthropologist David Pilbeam has stated, "Paleoanthropology reveals more about how humans view themselves than it does how humans came about." Unfortunately, many textbooks, as well as many museum exhibits, still portray the humanistic view of mankind, as well as the evolutionary view of mankind's origin, as if it were well supported by the data. Addendum to BTG No. 11b Article This article, published in November 1989 has come under criticism by certain evolutionists. At issue was the statement that "Furthermore, Johanson seldom reminds us that he found the knee joint—the strongest evidence for upright stance—in a location some two to three kilometers away, and in a layer of rock some 200 feet lower." The statement was based on reports of Johnson’s public comments and the slides he used at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986, (see ‘Bible-Science Newsletter", October 1987 pp 1-3), compared with a photo he published in his book Lucy: the Beginnings of Humankind (1981) page 157 and a National Geographic article in November 1985, page 593. Evidently, there were two knee joints, found in different locations, and confusion between the two has led to numerous erroneous articles, of which mine was one. The article is included here as published for archival purposes, with this retraction of the sentence in question. However, the point made in the very next sentence remains true, and that is the main point—"…even if they (i.e. the knee and the other bones) do go together", it does not demonstrate human ancestry. The most that could be claimed for Lucy is that she was a chimp-like primate, who spent most of her time in the trees, who perhaps walked a little more erect than other tree-dwelling primates when on the ground. I would be willing to concede this point. Study of the tactics used in the decades-long harangue by evolutionists to re-establish the pedigree of Lucy’s knee is instructive. Evolutionists scour the creationist’s literature for any error, no matter how trivial. (Creationists are not infallible, and error does creep in, despite our best efforts.) These minor errors are trumpeted far-and-wide by self appointed evolutionary watchdogs, and used to claim that creationism is not credible, all the while ignoring much more significant misstatements or inappropriate museum displays, etc., by evolutionists. An error in detailing Lucy’s knee does not change the fact that she was a tree-dwelling primate! Humans and apes are quite separate. Discovery of the needle does not make the haystack disappear. A look at the big picture finds little evidence that can be used for macro-evolution, and much to support creation.
I pretty much agree with this, except I would say that 1 and 2 should both be done (each addressing different levels of theory) and in practical terms 1 would take more than 5 minutes. It’s like the beginnings of the realisation that the world isn’t flat. There may be mounting evidence that it isn’t flat but no clear consensus on what its shape really is. For me the most important step in the science classes is to open the door to inquiry, to show and acknowledge the places where it was once thought that the evidence supported the flat earth theory but that now the new evidence is not supporting that theory. That’s more than a 5 minute footnote. It’s a shifting of emphasis at a number of points along the way. And it’s a shift away from faith based statements like, “there’s no fossil evidence for this but it will eventually be found,” and “we can’t explain how evolution occurred in the Cambrian explosion, but it must have happened.” This is not science and yet you hear this continually from many evolutionists, even in science class. This kind of thing should be taken to the social science/philosophy class along with the various higher level ID theories. So in a very real sense teaching ID at this level is reintroducing science to the science class room. It’s reintroducing the principle of inquiry and removing the faith based elements of the theory of evolution. It won’t be a simple or smooth task to do this though because this is the process of a paradigm shift and there are many who are committed and beholden to the theory of evolution for non-scientific reasons and who will be threatened by anyone even questioning it, just as Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Rhester while I respect many of your views and find discussions with you enlightening and thought provoking this statement of your's I find incredibly troubling and shows that there is no possible rational debate with you on this issue. There are tons of transitional fossils and there is also observable biological transitioning happening all around us. The fact that even you use the term "macro-evolution" vs. "micro-evolution" shows that you are aware of the fact that observable morphological and genomic changes within organisms has been observed within the span of recorded human history and are being disingenuous to claim that there is no observable transistion. That most ID proponents reject this as support for the overall theory of evolution by parsing it into micro and macro halves is fine from an intellectual standpoint but ignores one of the fundamental methodologies of science by rejecting inductive logic.
Sishir- I can accept that, I have tried to make a declaration that my debate here is limited to second hand reading and I don't qualify. You know I believe in the Bible account. I am not trying to prove anything. I do respect the scientists who don't swallow evolution just because the world has been 'flat' for the past 150 yrs. Let's see how this all plays out, who knows ID might catch fire in mainstream science. Don't be offended if it happens. I am not offended it hasn't.
Rhester, John Morris ignores the fact that "Lucy's" skull has been extensive studied since it was found. Morris writes as if there was no attempt to ever verify through the scientific process beyond Johanson's "snap judgment" ~ beyond those that disagree of course. This is all moot though unfortunately John Morris is not your typical dissenting scientist ~ he’s a full-bore Christian skeptic. Here are some of the other questions he has answered: Will We Have Any Work to Do in Heaven? What responsibility will be given us in eternity? Scripture only reveals that "His servants shall serve Him" (Revelation 22:3) in heaven and that he who has been "faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things" (Matthew 25:23). How Could Noah and His Family Care for the Many Animals on Board the Ark? Earlier studies have shown that the total number of animals in question are less than the millions the detractors envision. Noah was told to take two of each "kind" of animal on board, probably represented by today's "families" or "genera" rather than species. For instance, the dog "kind" includes many species—wolf, domestic dog, dingo, coyote, etc. Furthermore, most animal types are small, only a few dozen are large, making the average size something on the order of a cat. It's well known that all animals can survive on a meatless diet. Care must be taken to satisfy their nutritional needs, but it is possible. Some carnivores even choose a vegetarian lifestyle. Other animal studies have noted that some animals, such as the bear, hibernate to survive times of undue stress. How Could Noah Have Built the Ark All by Himself? The Lord predicted that His judgment on the sinful civilization in the days of Noah would come in 120 years (Genesis 6:3). When He told Noah and instructed him to build the Ark (6:14-16) is unclear. But let's assume that Noah had the full 120 years warning. Noah's three sons began to be born 100 years before the Flood (cf. 5:32 with 7:6) and within a few years were able to help. There may have been others to help as well, for grandfather Methusalah was alive during the entire construction period, dying the year of the Flood. There may have been others in a godly remnant of whom we know nothing. All we know now is that only eight people, Noah and his wife, their three sons, and their wives, constituted the faithful still living when the Flood finally came (7:13; II Peter 2:5). It may also have been that Noah hired construction workers to help. creation research
Humor aside. You still haven't answered the question. ID proponents often say the theory isn't about proving god by saying that it could be intelligent aliens but then the obvious question is "who created the aliens?" If we were to ignore that then that would be allowing ID to get away with its key criticism of Evolution. So if ID wants to be considered a science then it has to be able to withstand the same tests. Eventually ID has to be based upon the existence of God and for ID to be science God has to be scientifically proven. To not do so completely truncates the theory of ID and allows ID proponents to propose anything like aliens or intelligent crawfish.
