i'm not sure i'm following you. the questions brought to bear with macro-evolution are many. we've been through them many times. those questions are why i have a hard time getting there.
And what's your alternative that isn't ID? (too lazy to read threads) How is possible to believe everything came from a Big Bang singularity, but hard to swallow macroevoltuion and a common life ancestor (unless you propose there is more than one set of lifeless chemicals turned life ancestor)?
Not sure I have an alternative...you know what I BELIEVE. But it's not ultimately "proveable" in a scientific context. I'm not sure Big Bang leaves open the same number or degree of questions that macroevolution does. There is a certain amount of evidence I think I expect from macroevolution proponents that I don't require of Big Bang proponents...mostly because of the nature of the two propostions. Frankly, I find it all amazing...and see God in it all. Not because I read science books first...but because I knew God first. I recognize that ain't science, and I'm not asking you or anyone else to teach it in the schools.
I see what you are trying to say but I cannot agree with comparing a loosely connected body of contemparary scientists with a monolithic and oppressive medieval/renaissance Catholic church. In addition, scientists are constantly re-examining their field - by its very nature that is what science is. I don't believe in one corrupt overlord-type of image of contemporary science. To a degree there is institutional rigidity, but that does not cross countries and even universities the majority of the time. I know nothing of Kuhn, but I don't ever like to rely on one person to make my argument and he sounds as if he is too far against "established science" to give too much weight. I am reminded of a disagreement I had with Treeman over the construction of the pyramids. One geologist said there was no way the Egyptians built them and the sphynx and he got a few followers so treeman was in here saying similar things as you and trying to "prove" that the Egyptians didn't build them. Never mind that just about every other geologist/archaeologist/historian disagreed or that the geologist knew nothing about the history so did not know that there is documentation of the building process. The difference with this discussion is that science is less approachable than history. Scientists already seem foreign to the general population because of the limited specialization and the general inability of most scientists to communicate with the public in the 20th and now 21st centuries. No, I don't think that is correct. The Vatican had additional political power and individuals had political influence, but they were religious leaders. And, yes, their positions came from the Church's interpretation of the Bible. It was scientific/archaeological discovery, not theological debate, that corrected some of those positions. Also keep in mind that religious leaders have continually felt threatened by the discovery of evolution and have constantly been working to take it down, just as they did with the "earth is not the center of the universe" discovery. I just don't think it makes sense to bring up Galileo. My point about the spiritual-based position was not specific to you but was that ID would not exist in the public mind if it were not for religion. Again, it has been promoted most by Christians as the ultimate answer to the always troubling theory evolution. It is not just coincidence, nor do I think it is coincidence that the two main proponents in this thread have been devout Christians. The last is not an insult or anything, by the way, I am just saying that, try as you might, you cannot separate the ID debate/push from religion. I say this without even discussing the merits of ID. Biblical archaeologists don't shy from the motivation for their work so I don't think ID should, either...but, politically, I know why everyone is.
I wouldn't have a problem with ID proponents if they knew exactly what they were refuting about MacroEvolution. Most of the lobbyists can't even comprehend the flyers that supposedly ruin Evolution. I only care because they've been successful in watering down biology curricula and then claiming that it's principles could be similarly rooted in faith. Maybe fundamentalists want their time to shine in the PC cloud. Okay, get rid of the Origin theory and include, but don't detail, other possibilities by giving its proper context within biology. Generating interest in students is something everyone can agree. Let's do that by not weakening a foundation of our future industries. The world is catching up.
i'd like to clarify again that I am not promoting ID here. my posts have been questioning of macro-evolution theories, to be sure...but i'm not here arguing the alternative. i realize there can be many other plausible explanations for the development of life beyond macro-evolution and ID that one could reach. you don't have to be a Christian to find fault with the theory...or to see its holes.
I wasn't talking about you. You are not the center of the universe, you know (just trying to be consistent).
yes, I am!!! I DRIVE A DODGE STRATUS!!! I MAKE $48,000 PER YEAR!!!! (credit to will ferrell SNL skit)
Other than citing the Nova special I haven't brought up the issue about the origin of life and strictly speaking Evolution doesn't focus on the origin of life. Darwin titled his book The Origin of Species specifically and not the origin of life. Its actually a different topic in regard to how life came about as opposed to speciation and one I would be willing to discuss but it ain't Evolution. Apparently though ID is the theory of everything since it applies to biology, chemistry and physics (I'm waiting to hear the argument for intelligent design argument for the formation of crude oil and other geological theories), so ID advocates have moved beyond challenging Evolution to the Big Bang and everything else.
1. fair enough...it seems to me though, if you're going to say it all started with a simple cell and go from there, you kinda need to decide how that simple cell got there in the first place. i guess i assumed that was part of the equation. 2. no one is arguing ID like that, here. i'm certainly not. 3. challenge the big bang?? man, i think it pretty much affirms my theological beliefs on the subject!
If I just sent an email to the center, does that mean you will be able to read it and respond? Thanks.
MadMax; I'm going to apologize for my acerbic tone in response to your posts because I can see you're openly dealing with this situation.. I'm going to go back and restate what I believe are really at the core of this issue and why there seems to be such vehement of argument towards ID. Evolution is a theory in the scientific sense of the word but also in the common sense of the word that it is an educated guess but it is an extremely educated guess. The term "theory" as it is used in science didn't become vogue until the 20th C. prior to then hypothesis that reached the same standard of proof as things like Evolution and Relativity were called Laws. So even though we still have Newton's Laws those have been superceded by Einstein's Theories. In regard to questioning Evolution. The real engine of the Scientific Method is skepticism. For any scientific idea to have validity it must be continuously challenged and if found wanting it is either revised or cast away. In the case of Evolution there are tons of questions, unknowns, debate and considering the 3 billion year history of life on Earth probably very little discovered evidence. Even with that Evolution has still proved to be remarkably sturdy with it far more being an accurate predictor of discoveries than it has been challenged by new findings. So while there is always the possibility of overthrowing Evolution there is a very high level of proof that is needed to overthrow it. While skepticism is the engine of the Scientific Method Empiracism is the god. Criticism of Evolution is expected and even welcomed in science but the problem with Intelligent Design is when it asserts itself as a scientifically reasonable alternative. The problem with the idea of a higher power / unknown unobservable entity playing an active role in speciation or anything else is that it can't be proven empiracally. Further the justification for it put forward by ID advocates essentially overthrows the very scientific method itself by arguing that what can't be proven through present knowledge is itself the proof. As many have pointed out this is fine for philosophy and metaphysics but isn't science. The first problem is that it assumes that we know enough to assume that we've reached the point where we can't find out anything more empiracally so we need to chalk it up to a higher power, what I call "intellectual laziness". The other problem is that it says empiracism doesn't matter and that we should accept an idea because we can't come up with a better empiracally based explanation. Its second part of ID is what makes it unscientific where it asserts a positive alternative and not the first part where it points out problems with Evolution. The response from ID proponents to the charge that ID isn't scientific has been to accuse others of being close minded and dogmatic. In a way this is true. While debate and open mindedness is necessary to advance science science is also subject to a dictatorship of empiracism. The standard for consideration of any idea in science is dependent upon whether it is based off of empiracal observation, can be rationally reconciled with empiracal observation and can be tested empiracally. The idea of a higher power / unobservable entity might be based off of empiracal observation but it can't be tested empiracally. Speaking for myself this is why arguments that people are being close minded when they deny ID as science rankles me. Its because the necessity for accepting ID as a whole is it requires going beyond empiracism. Its why I will always rail against confusing the methodology of faith with the methodology of science. Its not that one is superior to the other or even that one is more true than the other. Its that they inherently deal with different issues and its a mistake to prove or explain one with the means of the other.
The Big Bang scientifically is far less proven than Evolution and has far more complex questions associated with it. Maybe not you but certainly our friend longing for the Vancouver Grizzlies is.
Turning page on debate: Go on, teach controversy By ELLEN GOODMAN I don't know whether to call this good news, but something is happening when the opponents of evolution recast themselves as defenders of academic freedom and guardians of open debate. This is the take-home lesson from Kansas, where another in the apparently endless controversies over science and religion took place on the 80th anniversary of the Scopes trial. This time, hearings were called by the State Board of Education on whether to change the science standards and require Darwin's theory be challenged in the classroom. This time, the anti-evolution crowd was carrying a new slogan: Teach the Controversy. The parade of Darwin's adversaries argued in terms that might have been ripped from the playbook of People for the American Way. One insisted, "We're looking for an objective approach that looks at both sides." Another called the evolutionists "the true censors." A third called evolution "an ideology." A fourth said, "It's important to foster academic debate and thinking and reasoning." My favorite remarks came from a member of the Kansas science standards committee, William Harris, who said, "Public science education is an institution. It appoints a teacher to be a referee among ideas. ... Nobody would tolerate a football game where the referee was obviously biased." Who knew the budgets were so tight that teachers were now referees? My, how the opponents of evolution have evolved. As recently as 20 years ago, the leaders quoted Genesis as the one true scientific source: The world was created in seven days, those geological layers were the work of Noah's flood, case closed. This evolved into creationism or creation science. But in 1987, the Supreme Court declared that teaching creation in the classroom was teaching religion and unconstitutional. Now the leading argument is "Intelligent Design," an intelligent redesign of the old arguments in new clothing. As Ken Miller, co-author of one of the most respected biology textbooks, says, "So-called Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism stripped of everything that a court would immediately recognize as religious content." Unlike the earlier creationism, ID is agnostic on questions such as the age of the Earth, but not on the role of an intelligent designer (or Designer) in the creation process. Unlike the earlier creationists who fought to get Darwin out of class, the new generation of intelligent designers ostensibly wants equal time to debunk him and promote their alternative. The Kansas rule-makers also want to change the way science is now defined as a search for natural explanations. Says Miller, "Think hard. What's a non-natural explanation? A supernatural explanation." He can imagine an earth science class teaching about tsunamis. "One side teaches about tectonic plates. The other side teaches about people punished for their sins." Miller also worries about mandating doubts about evolution: "I'm not the least worried these guys will prevail scientifically. What they may succeed in is giving young people the message that the science establishment is dishonest with the evidence. If that's written into the curriculum, it will drive a wedge between young people and science." It's the height of irony to hear the same partisans who intimidate science teachers positioning themselves as the defenders of fair and open debate. Open-minded? Listen to the words of committee member Harris: "Our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is in our schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications." Science that doesn't teach his religious beliefs is biased against his religious beliefs. This is what's going around. At least around the political circuit. If a court remains neutral on religion, it is now immediately attacked as hostile to religion. When an oil lobbyist argues against global warming, it's cast as a plea for open scientific debate. It's like tobacco companies criticizing the cancer researchers for only giving the bad news about cigarettes. In this case, the opponents not only cast evolution as a flawed "ideology" but deliberately characterize evolutionists as atheists. They then insist on a false equivalency between evolution and Intelligent Design, and demand equal time for the faithful with the so-called faithless. I suppose there is something positive in the audacious way that the right has taken over the language of the left. It means that values such as open debate and academic freedom are so universally accepted that the right is using this popular vocabulary. But only when they need to. The same political allies in Texas who argued for an open debate in science textbooks last year are back arguing to close the debate — abstinence only — in sex ed textbooks this year. So let's "Teach the Controversy." I'm all for it. But this controversy doesn't belong in biological science. It belongs in political science. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3178215
You really should have a look at the Kuhn link. It’s to a summary of his book and lays out his points quite well IMO. Here’s another introduction to his work. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ He’s not the only one saying these things. Paul Feyerabend is another very important writer in this area and there are others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend On a bit of a tangent, Kuhn is also quoted quite a bit by postmodern thinkers, although they misunderstand what he was saying. They point to his findings and say it proves that there is no such thing as truth. It’s all power and corruption and those in power simply create their own truth which they use to control the masses. Kuhn didn’t go to his extent. He felt that science does move forward but that it is subject to corruption and getting off track in the ways I’ve summarized. He said that it doesn’t in fact move forward in small increments, that once a theory is proposed there are inherent forces in the system and in human nature that cause people to become invested in these theories and to try to maintain them and support them as long as they can, often by use of power, politics, coercion, in other words, by non-scientific means. He did not say that this means that there is no truth, however. He believed that these revolutions do move science forward but that the process is much messier and more corrupt and prone to large tangents I’ll call them than is currently understood. I view his findings as sort of a synthesis that preceded the popular understanding of the antithesis in many ways. The modernist mindset said that science was truth. The postmodernist mindset said that there is not truth and (in extreme cases) that science was noting more than a power and control mechanism. Kuhn essentially said that it’s some of each and he placed each in their own interrelated contexts thus defining an overarching context that both exist in. Cool, eh? I’m saying that they were political in a practical sense, not in a strictly legal sense. That was the most corrupt time in the history of the Catholic Church and I believe that it was during that time that Popes were essentially straight political appointments. They were powerful people from the area around Rome and were no more than nominally Catholic and had wives and mistresses and the like quite openly. So while it was a “religious” organisation it was not really religious in any way. They interpreted the bible in completely unjustifiable ways to suit their purposes, (see indulgences). Some protestants would still say that the Catholic Church largely a political institution but even most Catholics today would admit that their church back then was completely corrupt and political, at least at the highest levels. This isn’t really true. It’s true for some. For the “religious” churches it tends to be but if you believe that Christianity is the truth then you have nothing to fear by examining facts and looking for truth. IMO the proper Christian attitude is one that is not afraid of real science. I believe that spirituality and science are all part of one whole, as I’ve said before. Most people in the churches I’ve attended would believe in evolution to a higher degree than I do in fact, but that’s just because they haven’t really thought it through. To be fair I think it’s a position that’s supported by some (not all) Christian, Muslims, Jews and others who are not opposed to considering that there may be a force greater than us in the universe. And a number of scientists have come to this position by examining evolution and seeing that if falls short. They came to believe that there had to be something more. So it isn’t true to suggest that this is merely an idea that was planted in people’s heads, although I don’t deny that some measure of this may have gone on in some circles. On its merits, however, it is a logical conclusion based on the available facts. This is a fallacy, IMO. Right back at you I can say that I know why you would say this, but it just isn’t true, at least not for all of those talking about ID. The same can be said for some of the evols who make claims at objectively that are transparently ridiculous and whose ulterior motives are quite apparent, but I don’t believe that this is an inescapable trap on either side. You know my beliefs but that doesn’t negate the logic or the facts I’ve put forward in this discussion. This harkens back to what I’ve just discussed regarding Kuhn’s findings. Is there no such thing as truth? Is there no such thing as objectivity? I would agree that not one of us can claim to be completely or flawlessly informed and without error and so no one can claim to be flawlessly objective, but if you are suggesting that any measure of objectivity is impossible then we are left in a fragmented, postmodern, morass. I don’t believe that and here is where I would start my spiel about humans being social animals and the need for us to come to agreements, enter Habermas and communicative reason and action … But I think we’ve done this one to some degree and it strays off topic a bit here.
I feel like I’m talking to a wall here but here goes. There were just too many falsehoods and inconsistencies in this post for me to pass on. Do you accept this as a justification for ID too? You have to if you hold this up as a justification for evol. You have to be consistent with your criteria. Ok, I’d like you to admit then that it’s grossly unjustifiable to call evolution “truth” given not only the “tons of questions, unknowns, debate and … very little discovered evidence” but that “the real engine of Scientific Method is scepticism.” Clearly by teaching evolution as “truth” in the schools and by precluding the teaching of other theories then we are shutting off the minds of our youth to the real engine of scientific method, scepticism. You make the point beautify here and I agree. There is no justification for calling evolution “truth” and further, to teach it exclusively in schools would be to train our youth to be non-sceptical, or non-scientific, thinkers. Yes and no. Elements of evolution, namely microevolution, have been proved to high confidence levels and have been very useful. Macroevolution (vertical evolution) has not been as successful a theory. In fact it hasn’t seen much success at all. It isn’t surprising that such a sweeping theory would have parts that were borne out and parts that weren’t, and yet we find many establishment people quite religiously hanging on to the failing elements and indeed denying sceptical inquiry into them. This would be a mystery if Kuhn hadn’t identified and explained this phenomenon for us, but he has. Well, clearly criticism of macroevolution isn’t welcomed. That’s made clear by this thread. Further, evolution itself is either not standing up to empirical testing or it can’t be tested empirically in many of the same areas that ID can’t be tested, at least not by traditional means. Again, this has already been discussed in this thread. Further, there clearly are empirical tests that can and have been done that suggest non-random, and therefore intelligent, design. Indeed it is the increasing failure of the data to support the theory of random development that is causing many to admit that the evidence is shifting toward supporting non-random design. Again, this has already been addressed in this thread. Maybe this is a logical point that has escaped some here. On this point the very thing that disproves evolution proves ID. Design is either random or non-random. There isn’t a third option. If the evidence suggests that it isn’t one, then the same evidence suggests that it is the other. Sadly there are many who will resist the facts any way they can to try to prop up a dying theory. This phenomenon, of course, is exactly what Kuhn refers to in his famous and landmark work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the most important historical and critical examinations of science ever written. I’m sure many if not most readers of this will be familiar with Kuhn. (rimbaud I’m sure just popped into the thread late and may not have even seen my link which would surely have reminded him, and had a brain freeze on Kuhn. There isn’t a shadow of a doubt in my mind that he will have heard of Kuhn and his work, so I’ll give him a mulligan on that post.) As a further point of contact for anyone less familiar with Kuhn, the term paradigm was popularized by Kuhn and the term paradigm shift was coined by Kuhn in the very work in question here, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. A paradigm shift is central to the very scientific revolutions we’ve been discussing here. These are not simply examples of paradigm shift. They are the phenomenon that gave rise to the term. This is where it came from. This book by Kuhn is the origin of the concept and the term paradigm shift which is a central part of the process of scientific revolution we’ve been talking about here. Kuhn is unquestionably a major, MAJOR, figure on this subject, but almost unbelievably I’m getting the feeling that, despite my referring to him numerous times and providing a link to a summary of his work, Sishir Chang doesn’t know who he is and hasn’t bothered to read the link I provided. I can’t explain his responses any other way. I’ll respond to the rest of the post later.
There is no paradigm shift going on. There is no debate taking place in science labs. This is a debate that is taking place in courthouses, public schools, politics, and other places that have no impact on the science community. I've posted this in another thread, but for the information... The most prominent organization that is spearheading ID is the Center for Science and Culture, whose mission is: Why would the primary goal of a scientific institution be changing public policy? It is because they are not a scientific institution... they are a political organization. Here is additional information from Wikipedia on "The Wedge Document", which was a leaked internal document: There is a published response to this on the CSC website titled, "The Wedge Document; So What" but it seems to be corrupted. This does seem to at least confirm it's existence.
I agree that science should be open-minded to new ideas and theories even very controversial ones. However, the main problems I have with ID "theory" is that in its current form, it is completely unscientific and therefore cannot be taught as science. IIUC, the is the gist of ID "Theory": Life and even the universe itself is so complex that it couldn't have arisen "randomly" through chance, a "designer" had to have designed it. But the problem is that if that's all there is to ID Theory, then it is not scientific. 1. Predictions - Does the theory make predictions that can be empirically observed? 2. Testability - How do we test for, look for, evidence of the "designer". The theory either makes predictions that can be tested or the theory itself can be tested directly. But it has to be empirically testable for it to be scientific, it can't just be "testable" from philosophical argumentation! 3. Falsifiability - Can the theory be shown to be false? It is obvious that "ID Theory" fails all three requirements It is in fact a philosophical and/or theological belief and can be taught as such but it can never be taught as a scientific theory whatsoever.
