December 22, 2005
A Theory is a Theory... is a Theory
The Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Intelligent Design.
I am interested in what all of you have to say.
Please explain why you think either of these theories should be taught or not taught to our students.
(This is somewhat of an experiment. I am interested to see what we get when the article does not start with an opinion. Yes. I do have one.)
Evolution is a highly supported scientific theory that can be readily demonstrated in nature.
ID is religion and has no basis what so ever in any real scientific discipline.
Therefor: Evolution in any school. ID in Sunday school only, but only if you’re really desperate.
Posted by: Dave at December 22, 2005 10:22 PMThe Theory of Evolution does not equal the Theory of Intelligent Design.
Creationists argue that evolution is “only a theory and cannot be proven.”
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.
It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to “peer review.” This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.
Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts. The creationist mindset is distorted by the concept of “good science” (creationism) vs. “bad science” (anything not in agreement with creationism). Creation “scientists” are biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their sectarian religioius beliefs.
I haven’t done any extensive research on either one or anything, but I don’t see what’s wrong with teaching students both and letting them decide which they believe. Or at least in middle and high schools - elementary school kids might not appreciate either one.
Posted by: xxreadytorun at December 22, 2005 10:37 PM“….I don’t see what’s wrong with teaching students both and letting them decide which they believe. …”
Other than the separation of church and state arguement …
ok… first please take some time to browse through LawnBoy’s huge blog on the other side, if you haven’t already…
Posted by: Jon at December 22, 2005 10:43 PM“Intelligent Design” is code for the literal story of Creation as told in the Book of Genesis. As such, it is a religious idiom, and not to be supported by our government. The 1st Amendment makes that abundantly clear, and the principle has been upheld by both conservative and liberal jurisprudence.
This is not to belittle anyone’s legitimate religious views; however, if we are to begin teaching a Judeo-Christian ethic in our schools, then we are also going to have to teach the creation theories espoused by other religions. It creates a system that would be unwieldy, at best. There are classes where religious views can be explained, such as history or philosophy. Science classes are not the proper forum.
The reason is simple. Science seeks to explain the universe by means of observation; by taking what our senses perceive and rationalizing them. Religion is a matter of faith. As Paul said, “Faith is belief in things unseen.” That is the precise opposite of what science is. Science requires us to reach our conclusions based on what we see; faith requires us to reach conclusions based on what we believe. The opposition between between the two trains of thought is highlighted by the persecution of scientists and explorers who demonstrated the world is round, and not flat. Religious authority proclaimed the latter to be true (and continued to do so well into the 19th century!)
Personally, I do not think there is much difference between Genesis’ story and that of evolution. There are numerous references in the Bible about how Man cannot know the mind of God, nor how Man can even perceive God’s idea of time. God creates and destroys, retools, and tinkers with his Creations. With that in mind, I think that all of those who try to literally interpret the Bible are not really reading the same text I am. They are skimming through, and finding passages that support a very narrow interpretation. The Bible must be read in its entirety to understand the context-and that takes years of study.
Posted by: Ray at December 22, 2005 10:50 PMAldous,
Even though I disagree with you, your comment is well stated and uncharacteristically non-sarcastic for the most part.
Are you feeling OK?
There are many respected creationist scientists out there. I have sat under a few of them as has my wife. They have no problems with discussing evolution and its flaws with anyone including fellow scientists who believe in evolution. I have had the honor of listening to a fascinating debate on the topic. However, I will agree that there are some others who give a bad name to the creationist view and are incredibly myopic.
Posted by: Discerner at December 22, 2005 10:51 PMA scientific theory should have explanatory and predictive power. ID has explanitory power, but no predictive power.
Posted by: Erika at December 22, 2005 10:55 PMEvolution explains most of modern biology. If you apply its principles you can predict outcomes with reasonable certainly. Predictive power is the test of any theory.
The methods of evolution have been used for many years in breeding plants and animals. Current biotechnology is based on evolutionary principles.
No scientist will contend that any theory is complete. That is not a weakness. As new information becomes available, we can modify our understanding and we have. But the fundamental principles have remained constant for more than a century.
It depends on what you mean by intelligent design. If you simply want to contend that a higher power started or guided evolution, that is something that nobody can prove or disprove. It is truly a matter of faith. But IF a higher power runs the show, he runs it using evolutionary principles.
The pragmatic approach is very simple. Evolution is a useful theory. It explains the “how” of biology. It doesn’t require a higher intelligence to explain the useful part, but a higher intelligence is not precluded.
If you just want to teach that in school, I have no objection. It will take three minutes. There is nothing more useful to teach. If the intelligent design gets more complicated, however, it doesn’t belong in school because it is not useful. It is not part of science and doesn’t belong there.
Darwin’s theory is also being challenged. Shouldn’t it be removed from schools because it is being proven faulty?
‘New cellular evolution theory rejects single cell beginning’
It’s actually more than just separation of church & state. It’s bad (or non-)science versus good science. As Aldous & Dave already covered above, science is based on putting forward a hypothesis as a possible explanation, testing it and if it fails, looking for a better one. ID doesn’t provide a test, nor do it’s backers want to. Evolution has been under constant challenge, and it has held up. If at some point a test comes along that invalidates it, then the theory gets replaced.
Teach ID if you want to, but don’t pretend that it’s Science.
Both should be taught. Evolution is science, and should be taught in science class. Intelligent design is religion, and should be taught when and where people wish to study religion.
Posted by: Bob at December 22, 2005 11:03 PMThe word theory has various meanings. Two are important here:
When used in idle conversation, theory generally means “conjecture” or “speculation.” When used in the scientific world, it generally means “scientific law” or “accepted truth.” As one source puts it, “A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.”
The “theory” of intelligent design falls into the first class. There is no experiment that can verify or refute it. The “theory” of evolution falls into the second classification. Many experiments have been done that support it.
Nonscientists often fail to understand that the distinction is as major and as important as the one between a cat and a catfish.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at December 22, 2005 11:03 PMI sent the following email to USA Today. Thought you folks might be interested…
A MATTER OF FAITH
Dear sir/Madam,
Your article, “Ruling on ‘intelligent design’ one for the history books†is just one more example of liberal ‘irreverent’ irrelevance. In the article your writer stated, “The problem with comparing evolution with intelligent design is that ID is a matter of faith, not science. It can’t be tested. Evolution, by contrast, is backed by overwhelming scientific evidence.†However, nothing could be less scientific that evolution. Quite to the contrary, evolution is refuted by overwhelming evidence, not backed by it, whereas, all scientific evidence points to a Creator. Since it is more a matter of ‘faith’ – great faith at that - to believe evolution rather than creationism, it seems that the evolutionists take first place as the more ‘religious’ folk among us, hands down. Funny how their religion is given free run in the school system without so much as a complaint from you.
Your article went on to say that, “Judge John Jones’ 139-page ruling contains far-reaching wisdom that school boards everywhere can draw on when pressured to inject religion into science courses†as if “school boards everywhere†are ignorant enough as to actually want to ‘‘draw on†this pseudo-wisdom. You seem to have forgotten that most Americans remember that their great country was founded upon Godly principles. These principles say, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.†It’s in the Bible. Look it up sometime.
I also noticed that you were careful to detail that Judge John Jones is “a Republican appointed by President Bush,†thinking to sway ‘intelligently designed’ Americans toward your point of view. However, you are losing your hold (as you lose your minds) on the real America. Real Americans can see through you like a screen door. As a matter of fact, real Americans couldn’t care less if the judge had been appointed by Abraham Lincoln. You are so blinded that you don’t even realize the only audience remaining for you to preach to is your liberal ‘choir.’ What a shame that you have stooped so low as to print blatant untruths just to tickle their ears.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that there will always be communities like Dover, Pennsylvania - just as there will always be useful idiots such as your organization - I know that. To think otherwise would be foolish. My hope, however, is that there will be less and less of your kind – and their kind - as America becomes enlightened to the truth.
Someone said, “The reason Fox News is blowing you guys away is a little thing called Fair and Balanced.†Think about it – it’s the truth. Truth… What a novel idea. You guys should try it. You might sleep better at night.
Sincerely,
David Pillow
Dawn
Useful is the key.
We can never achieve truth through science, but we can achieve likeness to truth and that is whether it is useful.
Evolution, unlike ID, is meant to be used and the priciples work. It is like having an imperfect map. Some of the roads don’t correspond exactly to the facts on the ground, but if you use it you can find your way.
ID is more like a pretty picture of something completely different. It is nice to look at, but you won’t find your way using it.
Posted by: Jack at December 22, 2005 11:07 PMThank you xxreadytorun for being more open
minded & willing to look at all sides of the debate/theories than many of the older/set in
their ways types on this blog. That says alot
about your maturity.
While micro-evolution/adaptational evolution
is fact, macro-evolution is still theory. The
science doesn’t fully support the existance of
“transitional” species. Man from ape from lemur
from cat from bird from reptile from fish from
protoplasm, etc. .
Creationism/I.D. is also a theory based mostly
in faith, but is increasingly being supported
by some in the scientific community. Christian
scientists if you will, some who are recent
religious converts, some are life long Christians
who are scientists.
There are many complex aspects to our natural
world, from the tiniest organism to the vast
precision of the galaxies, that leads more open
minded people to believe that there must have
been a master architect of some kind rather than
DNA and planetary orbits just accidentally
falling into place at random.
Most people believe in the logic and facts of
science. Just as many believe that there are
supernatural aspects to life and death as well
( angels, ghosts, etc.). Many believe that these
two worlds are not exclusive to one another.
Nature = science = nature = a Creator. Did GOD
create science/nature?
I’m a big fan/believer of science. But realize
that not all science is fact. I’m also a man of
faith. But realize that not all things are true
in all religions, not even my own. I think GOD
wants us to be skeptical and not blindly believe
that everything that sparks our emotions or
imaginations are worth the fires they cause.
Intelligent Design isn’t a Theory, scientifically speaking. In Science, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence. It is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified. It is not mere conjecture, as many use “theory” to mean.
Evolution has been poked and prodded for decades by scientists, and it has survived. Our understanding isn’t complete, as the link dawn provided at 10:58 pm shows, but the overall premise has been verified countless times (even what dawn presented would be a clarification of the theory, not a disproof). Countless disproofs of evolution have been proposed, but Evolution has survived.
In contrast, ID is not a Theory. ID doesn’t tell us anything with predictive value, and it doesn’t provide a way to prove it or disprove it. From a Scientific perspective, ID is not a Theory. It is either a failed hypothesis, or an untestable interpretation that wraps over Evolution.
One is good science. One is pseudoscience. Only one is really a Theory.
p.s. Thanks for the plug, Jon.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 11:10 PMDarwin’s theory is also being challenged. Shouldn’t it be removed from schools because it is being proven faulty?
Scientific theories are not monolithic. They evolve over time, if you will forgive the pun. Discovering parts of a scientific theory are wrong just sends scientists back to the drawing board, it does not destroy whole theories.
Much the confusion over ID verses evolution comes down to the point that belief in science, including evolution, is different in belief in, for example, religion. When someone believes a scientific theory, they are, or at least ought to be, saying that they believe that the theory is consistent with observation and useful. A theory can even be known to be not completely right and still be science that people believe. For example, many people believe in both quantum mechanics and relativity even though the current phrasings of those theories are incompatible.
The other kind of belief is thinking something is True, with a capital ‘T’. This is a valid kind of belief to have, but it is very different than scientific belief.
Posted by: Erika at December 22, 2005 11:11 PMEvolution is a Scientific “Theory” in that it makes falsifiable predictions that can be tested through experiment.
Intelligent Design is a everyday “Theory” meaning hunch or guess. (ie, I think the butler did it)
Saying there is an “Intelligent Designer” is fantastic news, now all you have to do is…
1. Come up with some predictions based on this theory that we can test for.
2. Spend billions of dollars creating experimental apparatus and digital simulations to collect the needed evidence.
3. Spend 15 years publishing evidence and answering critics in science peer review journals.
4. The scientific community finally gives it the stamp of approval.
Or…
Just call it a theory, give it a funny name, and publish it in high school science textbooks as 15-year-olds wouldn’t know the difference between philosophy and science anyways.
I can’t believe this is coming from the same country that put a man on the moon!
What the hell happened?
Posted by: Jordan at December 22, 2005 11:11 PMDawn,
I have never been able to see the difference in the two. Evelution was always a word which meant that it was the way GOD designed things. To say that the universe is not intelligently designed is to say GOD is stupid. It has nothing to do with what the bible or the koran or the tora has to say. No matter what any man has to say or ever has said, it does not change the fact that GOD designed the whole universe, not just our part of it.
Science will eventually prove the existance of GOD. I, personally don’t see what all the debate is about. We do not have the capacity to emagine the greatest good or the greatest evil in the universe.
Man is a relatively young race compared to those born on other worlds, and anyone who claims we are the only intelligent race in the universe is walking around with his head up his ——. We should not be so arrogant.
Posted by: John at December 22, 2005 11:12 PMJohn,
I do not think it is necessarily true that science will eventually prove the existence of GOD. Science works within a particular axiomatic system, and it has been shown that any non-trivial axiomatic system is incomplete, that is, there are things that can be expressed in the axiomatic system which cannot be proven within that system. God may be one of those things.
Posted by: Erika at December 22, 2005 11:16 PMWhile micro-evolution/adaptational evolution is fact, macro-evolution is still theory.
The distinction between micro and macroevolution is an arbitrary construct with no real basis. Macroevolution has been observed.
There are many complex aspects to our natural world, from the tiniest organism to the vast precision of the galaxies, that leads more open minded people to believe that there must have been a master architect of some kind rather than DNA and planetary orbits just accidentally falling into place at random.
This is a great tactic by pro-ID people, but it’s fallacious. Science is not a matter of being open-minded and letting everyone have their say. Science is a tough discipline in which things are found to be true or not. Evolution has survived the test, ID has not.
No one has any objection to individuals believing that there was a higher power behind Evolution. However, falsly teaching that evolution is flawed based on that personal and untestable interpretation has no place in public school science classes.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 11:16 PMDawn,
I think they both should be taught in public
schools. After the more overtly religious
or specific religion themes are removed. I
belive there is, or will be, increasing
evidence ( or at least stronger scientific theories ) of the validity of I.D./Creationism.
What I’d like to know is, what is the scientific
community afraid of? I can understand how the
sci-comms may be more closed to presenting a new,
less scientific theory. But what are the liberals
afraid of? I thought liberals were all about free
speech, inclusion of ideas, tolerance of other
beliefs, etc.. This is why I love it when the
liberal left gleefully accuses the religious
right of hypocrisy. ;-)
I don’t see what’s wrong with teaching students both and letting them decide which they believe.
Because we have enough trouble teaching our children without wasting time on unrelated and unsupportable ideas.
Further, if we’re going to allow pseudoscience like ID in simply because some people believe it, we’ll need to also devote equal time to:
- Flying Spaghetti Monsterism [venganza.org]
- The Church of last Thursdayism of Queen Maeve [wikipedia.org]
- etc…
Kids are having enough trouble learning Science without confusing them with fake science.
I read an apt parallel for ID and evolution. It went something like this:
Intelligent Design is as scientific an explanation for the evolution of man, as Angels Bowling is as an explanation for thunder. Both are possible, but neither is science.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 11:25 PMDale, it is not that “the liberals” are afraid of ID. It is that the classrooms of our high schools whether they be public or private, are not the places for a new scientific theory. If the theory is found to have merit over time, it can be taught, first at the graduate level, then at the undergraduate level, and, finally, at the high school level.
Posted by: Erika at December 22, 2005 11:27 PMincreasing evidence ( or at least stronger scientific theories ) of the validity of I.D./Creationism.
Maybe you’re right (I doubt it, but…). However, ID shouldn’t be allowed into our schools on the hope that someday there might be justification for it. ID is disallowed now because it hasn’t earned the Scientific rigor to justify it. We shouldn’t let a weaker idea into our school just to bow to religious and political pressure.
What I’d like to know is, what is the scientific community afraid of?…But what are the liberals afraid of?It’s fear that America’s scientific leadership of the world will be weakened. It’s fear that future generations will not understand science and knowledge because this generation threw away the standards. It’s fear that the Constitution will be shreded.
Scientists are actually not afraid of ID. It was a new idea, which is the food of Science. Scientists analyzed the new idea, found it wanting, and moved on. For almost any other issue, that would be enough. However, politicians and religious activists refuse to accept the idea that their pet idea was given a fair hearing and found insufficient, so they try to force it in through education.
People who say “We should teach the debate” don’t understand the situation. Within science, there is no debate - Evolution is the best we have and ID is unsupportable nonsense. The only place the debate occurs is in the political arena.
If anything, scientists are afraid that competence will take a back seat to politics, and their fields of study will be destroyed - not by ID itself, but by the idea that science can be twisted so easily.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 22, 2005 11:31 PMWhat do you think about the young earth theories
calculate the drift of the moon back and it hits the earth about six thousand years ago.
The loss of magnetic pull per decade figured at the rate of today would flatten every live thing just a few thousand years ago.
The saline content of the oceans
The sun would burn the earth up if it’s loss per year was calculated back even half a million years.
Is this bogus science?
LawnBoy,
Your macro-evolution link did not come through. Could you repost it…Thank You
Jack said:
“ID is more like a pretty picture of something completely different. It is nice to look at, but you won’t find your way using it.”
Won’t find ‘my way’?
I thought that was what believing in ID and/or God was all about.
Kruse, links please? Preferably peer reviewed ones?
Posted by: Erika at December 22, 2005 11:41 PMFirst of all, ID is not now, never has been and never will be a theory. ID is a belief, impossible to prove or disprove, just like the Christian belief in the resurrection. ID looks at the complexity and variety of life and rather than trying to explain how it came to be the way it is, shrugs and says “It’s too complicated so the only possible explanation is that God must have done it”.
Evolution, on the other hand, (analogously to our current understanding of electricity, atomic structure, radio transmission, chemistry, light, gravity and astronomy) is a theory that explains known phenomena and attempts to predict phenomena which have not yet been experienced. As new information is discovered and new phenomena are detected, theories are confirmed or modified. This is what’s known as the scientific method.
Notice that Mr. Pillow does not offer a single speck of scientific evidence either refuting evolution or supporting ID. This is not surprising coming from someone who holds Fox news up as an example of “fair and balanced truth”.
Sure evolution is being challenged, as are aspects of the other theories I’ve listed above. Black holes are examples of recent detected phenomena that have challenged and resulted in modifications to the theories of light, gravity and astronomy. The difference between a theory and a belief is that a theory is liable to be challenged while a belief cannot be challenged because it is based on no available evidence. Do we throw out all the other scientific theories that explain and predict most phenomena just because they are challenged. Not at all.
I guess we could go back, as the proponents of ID would have us do, to the way things were when Galileo was persecuted and incarcerated for daring to challenge the belief held by the church establishment that the earth is the center of the universe. His theory, which I think (correct me if I’m wrong, I’m actually not at all confident what Mr. Pillow’s or other IDer’s opinions might be) is pretty widely accepted and supported by known phenomena, was that the earth revolves around the sun and that, although we don’t know for sure what is at the center of the universe, we do know for sure that the earth is NOT at the center of the universe.
And finally, notice that Mr. Discerner sez:
There are many respected creationist scientists out there.
yet he fails to name even one of these many respected ID people. Now just why do you suppose that is? My guess, my theory if you will, is that had he identified any of these many “scientists” we would have found they are scientists only in the perverted sense of “Christian Scientist” or perhaps “scientology”, which we all know are not scientists by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
Posted by: spongeworthy at December 22, 2005 11:46 PM““….I don’t see what’s wrong with teaching students both and letting them decide which they believe. …â€
Other than the separation of church and state arguement … “
In World History we learned about Islam, Judaism and Christianity, and no one objected. Our teacher was not shoving any one of those religions down our throats, simply telling us about their customs, traditions, beliefts, etc. This isn’t really that different. A science teacher could simply say “this is what some people think…. this is what others think about how we got here.” That’s what I don’t see the problem with.
Posted by: xxreadytorun at December 22, 2005 11:49 PMThe first thing to understand is that all forms of scholarship are at best approximations of the way the world really works, approximations that are intended to answer certain questions about certain phenomena.
But these are not static approximations. Science is a process, continually in motion. Everybody is looping back on what they’ve learned, what they’ve been taught, what they’ve guessed might be true, and they’re examining that, testing what is and is not the case by whatever means available, trying to work out that one significant set of details that will illuminate the way things work.
You take your best knowledge to that point, and you use that to refine your theory. You can do this because you assume there are certain underlying regularities to the world in physics, chemistry and other fields, regularities that don’t have big, unexpected exceptions. This is the naturalistic view of the world. It means you can set the process into what’s called a strange loop- a self modifying process. As you refine and improve your knowledge by various methods in other parts of the science, you improve, your ability to construct new bodies of hypotheses and then theories between already established facts. This interwoven nature is crucial to understanding what is so galling about Intelligent Design.
First, and foremost, Intelligent Design disputes the very legitimacy of that process, that system of interlocked natural explanations we call natural science. The proponents of Intelligent decry barring supernatural explanations from the running.
Second, it justifies itself not by mere facts and associated theories alone, but also by it’s supposed benefits to society and certain mistaken impression of Kuhn’s revolutionary science philosophy (better known as the concept of paradigm shift).
Third, it takes places where science does not have a full picture, and makes an appeal to ignorance to justify the intrusion of supernatural causes into the framework of causality.
Fourth, it uses measures of probability to determine the presence of these supernatural intrusions, calculating probabilities when many important pieces of information are missing, or impossible to retrieve.
Taken together, intelligent design fails to respect science’s methods, it’s intended purpose and application, and uses methods that have no real credibility to look for things that can’t really be found.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 22, 2005 11:49 PMThe word “theory” has a different meaning in common everyday use than its technical scientific meaning.
See: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
The scientific meaning of “theory” requires that the collection of assertions be systematically tested.
Stephen Jay Gould once wrote an excellent essay on this very subject. As a public service, I’ve tracked down a link to it here.
In short, there need be no contradiction between a “fact” and a “theory.” Some theories are facts while some aren’t, and you can’t say something isn’t a fact just because it’s a theory.
That the earth is flat may be a theory. But it is not a fact.
That organisms evolve is a theory, but it is also a fact. The extent of that organisms have evolved, and the precise processes that have occured are a matter of theoretical conjecture, but the underlying truth of evolution in some form is a fact. So evolution is both fact and theory.
An illustration of what I mean to show the error that some creationists make in this area: some believe that JFK was assasinated by a single bullet, perhaps fired from behind the “grassy knoll.” This is theory.
If the “single bullet theory” is disproved, however, it does not also disprove that JFK was killed by gunfire. And it certainly doesn’t mean that JFK is still alive today.
In the same way, disproving or even just calling into question certain aspects of Darwin’s particular theory of evolution (which modern scientists no longer accept in every detail) does not mean that the basic concept of evolution is wrong.
And none of this has anything to do with whether god created the earth. If he can create an infant who evolves into an adult, why be so hostile to the idea that species could grow and change in the same way?
Posted by: sanger at December 22, 2005 11:55 PMxxreadytorun,
Say it, by all means, just recognise that you are in a Science class and that you aren’t talking about Science.
Belief is not the same thing as Science.
In World History we learned about Islam, Judaism and Christianity, and no one objected. Our teacher was not shoving any one of those religions down our throats, simply telling us about their customs, traditions, beliefts, etc. This isn’t really that different. A science teacher could simply say “this is what some people think…. this is what others think about how we got here.†That’s what I don’t see the problem with.
The problem is with presenting ID as something that is scientific, which it is not. Would you also have pathologists learn about resurrection and OB/GYNs learn about the virgin birth?
I.e. “Well, usually what happens is a female is impregnated by a male but there was a documented case of a female who became pregnant when she was not impregnated by a male but rather by the Holy Spirit. So that will be on the test, OK?”
Or “Now usually when someone stops breathing for several days they stay dead but it has happened that a 36-37 year-old male stopped breathing for 3 days then came back to life. We are not exactly sure how that occurred, but I don’t want you guys thinking being dead is permanent or anything, alright?”
If you want to present this type of religious belief to someone in history class, or geography, or philosophy, that’s fine. But it’s not scientific and it’s not mathematical so it doesn’t belong in science class or math class.
Posted by: spongeworthy at December 23, 2005 12:02 AMMr. Sponge said,
And finally, notice that Mr. Discerner sez:“There are many respected creationist scientists out there.”
yet he fails to name even one of these many respected ID people. Now just why do you suppose that is? My guess, my theory if you will, is that had he identified any of these many “scientists†we would have found they are scientists only in the perverted sense of “Christian Scientist†or perhaps “scientologyâ€, which we all know are not scientists by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
Here are a few names for you:
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
I believe this is a reasonable start…
xxreadytorun:
World History requires you to learn other cultures as part of the education process. To understand History, you must learn the culture of the people. How would you feel if Physics were added to your World History Studies?
Posted by: Aldous at December 23, 2005 12:26 AMLawnBoy, Your macro-evolution link did not come through. Could you repost it…Thank You
Sure. I’m not sure what happened. Here it is.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 12:31 AMEvolution is based on something that can be proved with experiments and those experiments will always result with the same conclusion. In other words, SCIENCE. Does it explain the whole universe? Absolutely not. For the rest there is faith in a higher power. It is easy to fall back on faith for things not explained. For me that’s fine. For instance, I happen to believe in the BIG BANG theory. (If its good enough for Stephen Hawken, it’s good enough for me.) Now, I don’t know what started the BIG BANG. So until someone can prove what started it, I have to believe in some kind of instigator or higher power. I’ll call it God. (If I don’t I might be accused of dissing Christmas or something ridiculous.) Does the average 9th grader need to debate 2 or more different theories on why the duckbilled platapus exists? Give me a brake.
To get back to the main point of this, Should ID be taught in K thru 12 school? I don’t think so. For the elementary thru High school education, evolution theory covers those questions. If one wants to go past the basics, they can do that outside of public education. Or they will get into it in college. Besides, isn’t that what college is all about — debunking everything you learned before?
Posted by: Matthew at December 23, 2005 12:32 AMdiscerner,
What is the source of those name?
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 12:33 AMHaving a debate with a supporter of ‘creation science’ or the ‘theory of intelligent design’ is like having a debate about whether or not the Earth is flat. How can you discuss science with someone whose argument is based on faith?? Impossible. Why don’t the ‘creation science’ and ‘intelligent design’ supporters just admit that they want to teach their bible faith in public schools. If we can all agree to that, then I vote we teach Genesis along with origin stories and myths from Hindu, Native American, African, and other cultures. Why not?
Hari Krishna and baba ganoush to all!
Posted by: Rick at December 23, 2005 12:34 AMWhew. Thanks for the list. I am strongly conservative, yet I do not believe in ID. I believe in science. If we start teaching ID in biology because evolution is only a “theory,” can we start teaching the Theory of Intelligent Pushing in physics? Since the Theory of
Gravity is only a theory, after all, I guess you don’t have to believe in it.
Intelligent Design is not a theory. There is no scientific support or proof for Intelligent Design. As such, it is still a hypothesis. Use the scientific method and bring some credibility to ID. The “I don’t understand this, so it can’t be true” method just seems like a way to get out of doing your homework.
Posted by: Foxbat at December 23, 2005 12:34 AMOn one hand, it barely matters what is taught in the public schools, since our students aren’t learning what is taught there anyway.
But I think that much of the debate and dissatisfaction about whether creationism or evolution should be taught in schools would be resolved if ideological considerations took a back seat to what students need to know across ALL subjects.
Should students be taught evolutionary theory? Absolutely. It’s a central concept of biology, and not getting such information or having it polluted with psuedoscience would prove a terrible detriment. Students need to be brought up to speed with the foundations of Western thought.
For the same reason, the mandated black-out of anything that smacks of religion makes it impossible to do a good job teaching other subjects, such as history, geography, social studies and literature.
If, for example, you learn about Martin Luther King without learning that he was a preacher who based his speeches and campaigns on strongly Christian principles, then you’re only getting a sanitized and partial picture.
And you simply can’t even begin to understand the long and rich history of Western literature without a firm grounding in the beliefs of Judeo-Christian beliefs. The Bible is a major influence on literary texts. You can’t understand Faulkner, Dante, Chaucer, T.S. Eliot or hundreds of others without understanding the influence of religion on their work.
And you can’t understand the wars which raged in Europe for thousand of years, the Crusades, all of the various monarchies and revolutions without understanding the differences of opinion on religious doctrine which so much of this was based on. To understand this academic material at all, you have to study the religious element behind it.
Frankly, I think that students should have to read the Talmud, the New Testament and the Koran, together with Hindu and Buhdist texts. Without knowing what’s in those books, you’re totally in the dark about not only the major events of human history, but can only have a dim understanding of 99% percent of our modern world.
And this is education? I don’t think so.
Posted by: sanger at December 23, 2005 12:37 AMWhat do you think about the young earth theories
There’s nothing to them. They haven’t been taken seriously for centuries.
calculate the drift of the moon back and it hits the earth about six thousand years ago.
The loss of magnetic pull per decade figured at the rate of today would flatten every live thing just a few thousand years ago.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, but perhaps this answers your questions.
The saline content of the oceans
What about it?
The sun would burn the earth up if it’s loss per year was calculated back even half a million years.
Is this bogus science?
Yep.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 12:38 AMdiscerner:
Can you Post more of these guys? I want to make sure none of them, especially the MD’s, ever come close to me.
Posted by: Aldous at December 23, 2005 12:39 AMAldous,
I see your feeling better…
Posted by: discerner at December 23, 2005 12:43 AMDidn’t mean to italicize that whole part, just the word ‘hypothesis’. Oops.
Forgot to add this…
I also believe in God (I’m not a religious nut, either. If you don’t believe in God, then why would you celebrate Christmas?). I believe that it is possible to believe in evolution and God at the same time. I just do not believe that “creation” or whatever you want to call it happened in six days a few thousand years ago. I guess you could say I’m slightly a deist. I believe that God created the process of evolution, but does not interfere with it; i.e. no intelligent design. Evolution does not disprove or prove the existence of a God. God and evolution need not be mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Foxbat at December 23, 2005 12:45 AMLawnboy,
Here it is…
If you can read with an open mind, you’ll find it interesting, if not….well…..
I found one plausible source of discerner’s list at http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp
I’m truly shocked by the number of scientists on the list, although some of them are in fields that shouldn’t be considered, IMO (Linguistics?).
I checked out some of the bios. This quote, from “Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist” is instructive:
‘To accept the entire evolutionary model would mean one would have to reject Scripture. And because I came to know Christ through Scripture I couldn’t reject it.’ At that point he decided his only option was to reject evolutionary theory.
Basically, he’s saying that he decided to reject evolution because the Bible was more important to him. It doesn’t say that he was intellectually convinced of the arguments, but that he let religion overrule Evolution for himself.
The section from “Stephen Taylor, electrical engineering” is also interesting. He bases his beliefs on misunderstandings of the current explanation for the Big Bang, the fallacious irreducible complexity argument, and incorrect understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
So, I guess you have a big list here, but it doesn’t change the fact that Evolution is a Scientific Theory and Creation/ID isn’t.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 12:57 AMOFF TOPIC,
Foxbat,
—If you don’t believe in God, then why would you celebrate Christmas?—
The celebration of Christmas has very little, if nothing, to do with God or Jesus. It is not Jesus’ birthday nor the day he died or the day he was resurected. I believe Easter has something to do with the later. The reason most people celebrate Christmas is simply tradition.
Where it started? I’ll have to let some smart person answer that.
Posted by: Matthew at December 23, 2005 01:01 AMIf you can read with an open mind, you’ll find it interesting, if not…well…I found it interesting but not convincing. Do I still have an open mind?
I’ll explain why it’s not convincing by analogy. Last week, I heard a debate on the radio about whether the moon landing was a hoax. The doubter challenged the people who knew what they were talking about on the question of whether they would change their minds if Neil Armstrong said it had been faked. One guy said he’d be shaken, and the other guy said he’d wonder about Mr. Armstrong, but he would still think we went to the moon. The hoax-buff claimed this showed that moon-believers were illogical.
In fact, it showed that the second guy was logical. Even if Mr. Armstrong said it had been faked, there were still thousands of people involved and millions of bits of evidence to say we went to the moon. It’s much more reasonable to say that one guy is wrong than to say that the millions of bits of evidence are wrong.
That’s how I feel about your list. Yep, there are a few people there. It doesn’t change the facts.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 01:03 AMHow are children taught about the date these days?
(b)before (c)count and (a)after (d)?
Mr. Teacher. How do we know it is 2005?
Response: Because last year was 2004.
Did the world begin 2005 years ago?
Response: No. That’s just when we evolved enough to figure out how to count.
Posted by: dawn at December 23, 2005 01:05 AMDiscerner,
That list is appalling and embarrassing. I randomly chose a ‘scientist,’ astronomer Dr Danny Faulkner, and did a search. Here are some quotes from this respected astronomer, answers given in an interview:
“How old do you think the universe is?
Probably six to eight thousand years.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/stars.asp
I’m not making this up. This ‘scientist’ continues:
“Well, we have a very clear indication from Scripture that the creation really took place in six ordinary days.”
He puts forward a number of crackpot theories concerning comets, bizarre attempts to dismiss Big Bang theory and wave off the implications of light speed. I’d love to see him deal with relativity.
I could spend hours tearing this quack apart. What the hell! Are all of these ‘scientists’ also quacks? Omigosh! I can’t wait to read the pronouncements of a paleontologist.
Not much on paleontologist Dr Joachem Scheven. Interestingly, he has a “Flood Geology Display” in Germany. Isn’t that priceless? “Flood Geology.” Think about it. All right, enough.
This list is like a happy hunting ground of nuts and wackos. Are they all that amusing? What do these guys do when they see a periodic table, and are forced to confront atomic decay, half-lives, and potassium-argon dating?
Creation scientists? Perhaps. Respected by anyone possessing even a passing acquaintence with science?
No. Not even close.
“Flood Geology.” (giggle).
Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2005 01:05 AM
David Pillow,
However, nothing could be less scientific that evolution. Quite to the contrary, evolution is refuted by overwhelming evidence, not backed by it, whereas, all scientific evidence points to a Creator.
This is simply not true. Please check out talkorigins.org to address some of these misconceptions. Evolutions is backed by science - Creation most definitely is not.
Since it is more a matter of �faith� � great faith at that - to believe evolution rather than creationism, it seems that the evolutionists take first place as the more �religious� folk among us, hands down. Funny how their religion is given free run in the school system without so much as a complaint from you.
It is a matter of logic, not faith, to understand evolution. The rest of your argument falls.
After that, your letter devolves into name-calling and ranting that seems to ignore that America is not a theocracy.
I’d be shocked if your letter saw the light of day. Not because of editorial bias towards liberalism, but because of editorial bias towards reasoned arguments.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 01:28 AMI think I should clarify my previous post.
Evolution can works so well because it doesn’t merely support itself. In fact, it’s credibility has risen as other disciplines provided a more complete picture of the mechanisms by which Evolution operates. Geology and Cosmology showed that there was time for species to develop by this method. Heredity and Genetics demonstrated the basic unit of change and information. Modern Chemistry and biology gave us better ideas of how creatures interact with their environment, and vice versa.
The Study of Evolution then gives us insights into how different creatures came to occupy their niches, and how changes in environment, geography, and other factors result in new species, or different expression of the genes of species. It allows us to organize and understand species like no other theory.
What the intelligent design want is to take not only a well-established theory, but the naturalistic philosophy on which all modern scientific theories are based so successfuly, and toss it out the window. Why? In part because they believe it’s their time, and that the non-admission of supernatural possibilities is causing harm to our society.
Worse yet, the method is a dead end to inquiry It allows the ID advocates to hit the brakes, plant their glorious assumption in place, and use some sort of probability trick to assume that something qualifies as a result of divine intervention.
Since divine intervention is beyond our ability to test, we cannot refine it or revise it towards something better. It’s like a foreign object in the body of science. Additionally their probability method, must, by the nature of our incomplete knowledge of the ancient world (and even our own) be lacking in the information needed to tell us how truly how like something is. Additionally they neglect the role different chemicals, laws of physics, and other things might have shaped and influenced development.
Intelligent design is the cop-out.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 23, 2005 01:34 AMWell, I can’t let it go. Too funny. “Flood Geology.” (Snort). No point looking up plastic surgeons. Um, why are they on the list? Or medical doctors? Pediatricians? Philosophers?
Here’s a respected creation scientist, and an entry on him courtesy of Wikipedia:
“Dr Thomas Barnes is a creationist who posited that the magnetic field of the Earth was decaying at an exponential rate. Barnes calculated based on the available data, that the half-life of Earth’s magnetic field was approximately 1,400 years. He published these ideas in a 1973 book, Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, which was enthusiastically taken up by the creationist establishment. Today, most of his theories within the book have been discredited, largely as Barnes failed to take experimental uncertainties into account.”
Here is a detailed rebuttal of Barnes, putting this respected creation scientist six feet under:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
Maybe… maybe… you know, maybe, just maybe, Dr Thomas Barnes doesn’t belong on a list of respected scientists.
Sheesh.
Oooh, here’s a great quote from another ‘respected’ creation scientist, Dr Edmond Holroyd:
‘No evolutionary theory was able to anticipate all of the details revealed by the space probes. Whereas the only unusual prediction verified was that by Dr Russell Humphreys, a creationist scientist. He correctly predicted the strengths of the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune. It makes me think that God placed such an unsystematic variety out there so that we could never come up with a workable atheistic mechanism of their formation.’
Spoken like a true scientist.
Ha. Ho ho ho. HA HA HA HA HA. Whew! Stop. Where do these guys get their material?!
Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2005 01:36 AMIs Bush in such a hurry to get people on the moon in order to actually plant some footprint evidence there to substantiate the claim that we actually spent those 100’s of millions getting there decades ago?
Enquirer minds want to know.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 23, 2005 01:43 AMIt cannot be stressed enough that, unlike religion, science does not need to be right. It just has to be useful, and it is useful by being the best explanation with the most predictive power for observations. So yes, all you who believe that God did it, you may be more right, but it is useless for making predictions, therefore, not science.
(Or, as I like to put it, I would not be upset if evolution were rejected tomorrow as long as it were replaced by a explanation with superior explanatory and predictive powers.)
With that, good night.
Posted by: Erika at December 23, 2005 01:58 AMLet’s return to the site linked earlier. This is great! In the creation museum, talking dinosaur exhibits fill us in on the truth of the Bible. Shhh. Let’s tiptoe in, and listen:
“It’s easy to explain how we fit on the Ark. It was the size of an ocean liner and the average size of dinosaurs were the size of sheep. Even the few ‘big guys’ were most likely young adults (of average dinosaur size) when they boarded the Ark.â€
Posted by: phx8 at December 23, 2005 02:06 AMAs for Intelligent Design, what Ray said in his first comment.
As for Evolution, it is based on empirical observation, testing of those observations, and replication of those tests, hence, it is empirical science by definition.
I believe in a creator, I have always found wisdom in Anselm’s logical argument that one cannot have creation without a creator. Not sure if it was Anselm or another building on his work, but, there was a mirror analogy that was exquisite. Put two mirrors opposite each other and a candle between them. Then look into one of the mirrors and you see and infinite series of candles. This image is based on both the mirrors, the creator of the infinite images, and the candle the creation reflected. What happens if you remove the mirrors, the created infinite image disappears. What if you remove the candle. The mirrors have no image to create. Creation and Creator are inseparable, logically.
However, as we all should learn in school, one can logically defend the indefensible. I heard a theory on the operation of the gasoline combustion engine that depended entirely on the flatulence of gremlins inside the cylinders which copiously consumed the gasoline and air, hence creating pressure in the cylinders to drive the pistons upward. Perfectly logical. But take an engine apart, and lo and behold, there are no gremlins to be found.
The existence of God can be proved logically. The existence of God can never be proved empirically, nor can the the concept of a soul, heaven or hell as existing outside this universe. These are matters of faith.
Science takes nothing on faith. Science addresses anything that can be detected by the senses or extensions of the senses. Science is a matter of observation, projections of cause and effect from those observations, null hypothesis testing of those observations, and where conclusions are drawn, replicability of that testing which indicates cause and effect through empirical testing by others.
These are two entirely different human endeavors seeking answers in two entirely different realms of perception. One, the realm of imagination, logic, faith and belief, and the other the realm of the palpable, physically perceptible and measurable, through common sensory experience.
Put fifteen people of different religious faiths in a room and ask for predictions as to how the world will end, and you will get at least 8 different answers.
Put fifteen chemists in a small closet and ask them what will happen if they mix one gallon of ammonia with one gallon of chlorine in a bucket at their feet? The answer will be identical. The answer is they will all get the hell out of there holding their breath. (Don’t try this, it is lethal).
That is the difference between Intelligent Design as a theory and theories of empirical science. One seeks to always affirm assumptions, and the other always seeks to disprove assumptions. Buddhists, Hindus, Australian Aborigines all have different views of how the universe was created and the earth’s place in that universe, and they all differ from each other and Christianity. None can prove any other wrong, or their own version right.
Buddhist chemists, Hindu chemists, and Aboriginal chemists however, can all agree on what would happen in the closet. Therein lies the difference between Evolutionary theory and Intelligent Design.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 23, 2005 02:10 AMThe theory of evolution and Intelligent Design are polar opposites really:
Evolution is based in science
Intelligent design is faith based
Science is only concerned with finding out how things work, it is not concerned with who made them work.
Faith on the other hand is only concerned with who made things work and doesn’t concern itself with how things work.
Science makes faith possible.
Science seeks out proof, faith is believing in something even though there is no proof.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 23, 2005 02:43 AMI believe the werld was MADE IN SIX DAYS!!!! Yessireeee! Do you know where you are going if you LIBERALS don’t believe God created the world???
There you liberals go, Notice Rosie O’Donnell’s there too!!!
Posted by: Novenge at December 23, 2005 02:56 AMThat list was fascinating. Of course the people listed have to come out and say that they consider ID to be valid science and why.
One in particular, Dr. Russell Humphreys seems to be one of their big guns. His main contribution being an idea that allows for distant stars to be billions of light years away, but still fit into the Bible’s 6 day creation model. Now to his credit he’s made an effort (unlike IDers) to put forward a testable hypothesis, which I’m working my way through (will need to get back to y’all on that later). Basic idea is that the Milky Way is just about at the centre of the universe (okay, sounds familiar, but I’ll accept that for the sake of the arguument). Gravity in his model is strongest at the centre of the universe where the Earth is. Time according to relativity theory slows under stronger gravity (this is true), so a day can pass on Earth while billions of years go by at the edges of the universe. Okay, cute idea, and I’m willing to see if it holds up… so I’ll be back once I’ve properly absorbed the details. You see this is at least a proper attempt at science, and truth be told I’m going to actually enjoy myself with this, regardless of whether I confirm or debunk my own beliefs & prejudices. yeah yeah I know, nerd alert
So far it looks a little bad for our hero though. If other Christian scientists are having a go at you, it could be bad news.
Now if God requires me to accept that the world was made in 6 days, or I’m not getting in to heaven, well then I guess I’ll just have to choose eternal damnation (with appologies to Mr Mark Twain of course). Provide me with a logically consistent theory however, and I’ll freely accept it. So if Dr. Humphreys pulls it off, you’ll know about it on this blog.
Posted by: Jon at December 23, 2005 03:53 AMWhat they fail to mention was that his belief in creationism was the result of an accident he had where 440 watts were accidently shot through his brain. Not really, but this was what I was thinking as I read that bio especially with a PHD in Physics from Duke?
But then again PHYSICS is a far cry from biology and/or paleontology or some other field closely related.
Posted by: Novenge at December 23, 2005 04:09 AM…still working…
…but in the meantime if any of the Christians out there who have no issues with an ‘Old Earth’ concept want to bone up, here’s a link
That is if of course any of you are still awake ;P
To all the pro-intelligent design believers on this site.
I think it’s time to ask yourself this one question quite seriously—HERE
Posted by: Novenge at December 23, 2005 04:48 AMI’ve noticed some common errors made in defense of evolution. EVOLUTION is a fact. the mechanisms which power evolution are described in various scientific theories, such as punctuated equilibrium, sexual selection and natural selection through adaptation. the “wedge” concept of the ID’ers is that because the scientific community rigorously discusses these various theories to describe the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS means that there is a “CONTROVERSY” within the ranks. They depend on the ignorance of the general public on matters pertaining to science to exploit their position. The strawman of fairness and balance which should allow competing ideas to be dicussed is the way of insinuationg ID into the debate. The only reason i could possibly see allowing ID to be discussed in a science class would be to show just how laughable and outrageous the ID concept is. unfortunately, students are so busy these days studying for NCLB requirements, there is little time left for teaching critical reasoning. ID’ers believe that just by getting their concepts mentioned in a science class will give them legitimacy, because students are unprepared to assimilate anything other than “well if the teacher says it, it must be true” style of learning.
Posted by: synecdoche at December 23, 2005 05:35 AMI have to admit, this was the first time any anti-evolutionist has had the balls to put up a list of respectable scientists who support them. It seems pretty easy to discredit them, however.
What would be interesting would be to guess how long the list would be for the scientists who support evolution. How many times to the sun and back?
I pity those people whose self-identity is so weak that they have to waste so much of their life fighting against science because it might make them actually think for a change that what they have been taught is a myth.
I’m sure that people felt the same way when science proved to them that the Earth revolved around the sun. Scientists died for standing up for the truth back then. At least the ID people have evolved to the point that they don’t burn us at the stake any more.
Posted by: Loren at December 23, 2005 06:12 AMDawn,
Read the link you posted, regarding cellular evolution. It is not groundbreaking news; rather, it merely supports what I learned in Bio 101 more than 22 years ago. It describes the process of mutation, by which organisms evolve.
Mutations are the result of cells evolving to adapt to their surroundings, overcome obstacles, and promote regeneration. If mutations did not exist, then we would not be worrying about the possibilty of H15N avian flu creating a world-wide pandemic. It’s not a matter of if this strain of influenza will mutate into a form that easily transmitted between mammals, but when. We know from past examples that the odds are pretty good that it will happen. We also wouldn’t be dealing with strains of bacteria that have become immune to antibiotics. Those strains have mutated-evolved-into newer strains that share some characteristics with their predecessors, but are able to survive in environments that those earlier forms couldn’t.
As to the types of cells that existed at the beginning of time, it has also been widely accepted for decades that numerous types of cells had to exist. Simply put, there is no genetic relation between a virus and a bacterium; between prokaryotes of differing purposes.
I’m guessing that you posted this article to try and demonstrate that there is division within the scientific community regarding evolution. In reality, true scientists do not disagree on the basic tenets of of what science is, while they may disagree on particulars, they do not disagree on the basics. Disagreeing on particular interpretations of data is what makes science what it is; unlike religion, which can brook no disagreement regarding matters of faith.
Hence the reason for this debate: while science understands that it doesn’t have all the answers, religion says it does. The only problem with that is, which religion has all the answers? Since religion is a matter of personal faith, there is a tremendous amount of tension whenever religious tenets are tested by science and found wanting. Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, and hundreds of others were condemned as heretics in their day-but time has proven the “heretics” correct.
Something else to mull over: IF we are to teach creation “theory” in school, then WHICH creation theory are we to teach? Even within the Book of Genesis, there are two versions of creation presented! And let’s not forget about other religious traditions, which have their own “theories” regarding creation. Why not teach the Norse version of creation? It certainly is dramatic, and I would juust love to see some poor 6th grader trying to pronounce all of those names!
Posted by: Ray at December 23, 2005 06:26 AMI’m unbelievably shocked at how many evolution supporters there are here that don’t understand evolution at all. There are GIANT, and I mean great, big, huge, GIANT gaps in evolution theory. For beginners…
1. How did the eye evolve and where are the thousands of examples of steps of the evolution of the eye? The failures, the alternate designs?
2. Why have we found hundreds of thousands of bone fragments of 100+ million old animals all over the world but we have found ZERO bone fragements of any creature that links humans to any other creature in existence today? If evolution is correct, we should be finding millions upon millions of bone fragments of thousands of species between chimps and humans. None such have ever been found.
3. Why are so many very well educated evolutionists turning toward ID if evolution is the only theory that is logical and ID is for crackpots?
4. Why can’t evolutionists admit that Darwinism is just as much a religion as creationism?
I have studied both theories for many years and am close to the middle at the moment although I’m leaning more toward ID the more I study them both. It goes a lot further to explain how things actually exist in the world. In short, it takes a much bigger leap of faith to side with evolution because of the gaps, especially since the gaps are so large, it’s pretty obvious we’ll never find any evidence to fill them in and actually prove evolution.
Posted by: Bryan W at December 23, 2005 07:15 AMDawn:
There’s a huge gap between the common misconceptions that an ‘idea’ is a theory.
With anything else in science, there’s a common method of having a hypothesis, creating the theory and producing results to support your theory, then producing results to DISPROVE that theory. And then…. reproducing those results, over and over and over again. i’m sure you’re familiar with the Socratic method, right?
In science there are many that have a valid hypothesis, but upon discovery, realize that the basis for the hypothesis is incorrect. It’s fairly common to experience failure in your hypotheses.
ID is not science.
Posted by: john trevisani at December 23, 2005 07:27 AMTook a little time last night and read whatever a search would come up with.
Young earth is not really proveable.
The only questions I have for evo’s is how do organisms become more complex when physical laws tend toward decay. It would take chance after chance past the point of impossibility for cells to form from nothing let alone to form into complex organisms. Why are there so few links between species that they have to be manufactured? It seems like there would be fossel examples of every stage in abundance and you wouldn’t have to look so hard if evolution was true. Why are there definate eras? wouldn’t there be just a gradual blend in the fossle record?
I am open minded, but this faith in nothing producing complex things from chance really takes alot blind belief for me…
nuts.
Well I’m back (& making the big assumption that anyone cares). I’m actually kind of sad to say Dr. Russell Humphreys was wrong on so many counts, I feel like someone who’s slowed down to have a good long look at a car accident… after the paramedics are on the scene.
He misunderstands so much of relativity theory, I can’t tell whether it’s accidental or a botched attempt at a con job. The mathematical mistakes with the coordinate system for a start are just about criminal. Go here if you want a starting point to explore this for yourself. Warning: it gets technical very quickly.
Let me be clear here though. Those of us who find IDers and hardline Creationist who need the Young Earth view point to be valid as just a little silly, aren’t attacking Religion. We’re not going to be bullied into lowering the standard of Science though.
Some people of faith and who are claiming to take on evolution theory on a scientific basis actually welcome the legal debunking of ID. So bring on round 3, or was that 4, I’ve lost count.
Later folks, I’m off to hell.
Here is Lawnboy’s post with the links.
Dawn
1. How did the eye evolve and where are the thousands of examples of steps of the evolution of the eye? The failures, the alternate designs?
2. Why have we found hundreds of thousands of bone fragments of 100+ million old animals all over the world but we have found ZERO bone fragements of any creature that links humans to any other creature in existence today? If evolution is correct, we should be finding millions upon millions of bone fragments of thousands of species between chimps and humans. None such have ever been found.
This is just inaccurate
3. Why are so many very well educated evolutionists turning toward ID if evolution is the only theory that is logical and ID is for crackpots?
Besides being the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority, this is inaccurate in its premise. The percentage of trained scientists who believe that ID is an acceptable alternative to Evolution is so small as to be insignificant.
4. Why can’t evolutionists admit that Darwinism is just as much a religion as creationism?
Because we don’t like admitting things that aren’t true.
I’m leaning more toward ID the more I study them both. It goes a lot further to explain how things actually exist in the world.
Actually, it doesn’t explain anything. What ID does is say anything we can’t explain currently had to have been divinely inspired, so there’s no reason to study further. ID in this way is just filler that provides no new insight and explains nothing in a useful way. It’s a band-aid for what we currently understand, and it prevents us from learning more.
There are gaps in the fossil record, granted, but there are no more gaps than the mathematics and Evolutionary Theory would predict. Fortunately, even without the fossil record, the evidence for Evolution is convincing.
I’m unbelievably shocked at how many evolution supporters there are here that don’t understand evolution at all.
Yes, it’s true that not all of us know all about the theory. In fact, probably no one in the world knows everything there is to know about it. However, the problems you have with the theory have been answered.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 08:36 AMThere are many respected creationist scientists out there. I have sat under a few of them as has my wife
Kinky.
Posted by: Burt at December 23, 2005 08:41 AMScientifically, there’s a difference between a THEORY and a HYPOTHESIS. An idea begins as a hypothesis. Only after much scientific testing to verify it does it become a theory. Theories are sometimes proven wrong (or, more often, proven in need of update), but they must have VERY strong evidence on their side before they become theories.
It’s worth noting, by the way, that the entire fields of Chemistry and Nuclear Physics are based on the ATOMIC THEORY — the theory that matter is made of atoms. Just because we call something a Theory doesn’t mean that it’s still highly questioned.
For the record, I am a Christian who believes in a Creator and an Intelligent Design. I believe that science, through study of things such as Evolution, is uncovering the secrets of that design.
I do NOT, however, believe that my religious beliefs belong in a science class, any more than I believe that Shakespeare belongs in an Algebra class. Science classes should teach science. I will provide (and have provided) whatever religious instruction I want my children to have.
I have no desire to see the State determining which religions are acceptable to teach and which aren’t. The State should not be put in the position of making judgements between religions. That, at it’s heart, is what the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is all about.
Posted by: Rob Cottrell at December 23, 2005 08:46 AMThe only questions I have for evo’s is how do organisms become more complex when physical laws tend toward decay.
This not a problem. The question results from a misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which says that the total energy in the entire system will decay. The premise of the question ignores that a genetic line is not an isolated system. Another example of order rising naturally from disorder is a snowflake; it’s more ordered than the random distribution of water molecules. There’s no problem.
Why are there so few links between species that they have to be manufactured? It seems like there would be fossel examples of every stage in abundance and you wouldn’t have to look so hard if evolution was true.
Well, there are many links, so the basis of the question is inaccurate. Also, fossilization is a process that requires the perfect circumstances - only a small percentage of specimens become fossils, so it’s entirely reasonable that there are gaps.
…nothing producing complex things from chance…It’s not chance. Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 08:47 AM
I believe in evolution,i just wonder how long my monkey will take?I mean how many years before they all become human as well?
Posted by: G at December 23, 2005 08:51 AM1. How did the eye evolve and where are the thousands of examples of steps of the evolution of the eye? The failures, the alternate designs?
Here’ an explanation: http:// www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CB/ CB301. html
2. Why have we found hundreds of thousands of bone fragments of 100+ million old animals all over the world but we have found ZERO bone fragements of any creature that links humans to any other creature in existence today? If evolution is correct, we should be finding millions upon millions of bone fragments of thousands of species between chimps and humans. None such have ever been found.
This is just inaccurate: http:// www. talkorigins. org/ faqs/ homs/
3. Why are so many very well educated evolutionists turning toward ID if evolution is the only theory that is logical and ID is for crackpots?
Besides being the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority, this is inaccurate in its premise. The percentage of trained scientists who believe that ID is an acceptable alternative to Evolution is so small as to be insignificant. http:// home. entouch. net/ dmd/ moreandmore. htm
4. Why can’t evolutionists admit that Darwinism is just as much a religion as creationism?
Because we don’t like admitting things that aren’t true: http:// www. talkorigins. org/ indexcc/ CA/ CA610.html
I’m leaning more toward ID the more I study them both. It goes a lot further to explain how things actually exist in the world.
Actually, it doesn’t explain anything. What ID does is say anything we can’t explain currently had to have been divinely inspired, so there’s no reason to study further. ID in this way is just filler that provides no new insight and explains nothing in a useful way. It’s a band-aid for what we currently understand, and it prevents us from learning more.
There are gaps in the fossil record, granted, but there are no more gaps than the mathematics and Evolutionary Theory would predict (http:// talkorigins. org/ origins/ postmonth/ feb98. html. Fortunately, even without the fossil record, the evidence for Evolution is convincing.
I’m unbelievably shocked at how many evolution supporters there are here that don’t understand evolution at all.
Yes, it’s true that not all of us know all about the theory. In fact, probably no one in the world knows everything there is to know about it. However, the problems you have with the theory have been answered.
(sorry about the weird expanded links. For some reason, the server wouldn’t accept my comment with links this time. I tried to post several times with the links, so they might all show up one of these days).
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 08:51 AMWeather cou see Creation or Evolution is theory or fact depends a large part on your religious beliefs. If you believe there in God, you’ll be most likely believe in creation. If you don’t belive in God but believe there has to be a higher being, you might either one. If you don’t believe in God or a higher being, you’ll most likely belive in evolution.
I believe in God, and I believe in creation. However, I don’t try to prove creation as the Bible doesn’t try to prove it anymore than it tries to prove that God exist. It just states both and leaves it up to the reader to believe or not.
Evolution cann’t be proven either. It is a theory and one with from what I’ve seen and read has disagreement within the ranks of those that believe it.
If evolution is thaught in school, then creation should be also. Then let the students decide for themselves.
I believe in evolution,i just wonder how long my monkey will take?I mean how many years before they all become human as well?
I’m sure you’re being silly, but the answer is that it won’t happen.
We diverged from a common ancestor with monkeys, and our ancestors adapted due to different environmental factors to find a niche that was good for us. Monkeys have evolved in a different direction, won’t have the same environmental factors, and would find the niche already full if they evolved that way.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 08:53 AMYou know the funny thing about all of this whole debate was, and still is, faith. I used to think that if religious people could simple acknowledge that Evolution could be part of creation they could in some way coexist together. I was wrong. Now i know for certian that simply put, some men and Man in general is so arrogant that he would believe his ownself more knowing and powerful than God. That is it in a nutshell. Therefore, i Agree Creation is not science. Neither, is science creation!
Posted by: G at December 23, 2005 08:53 AMI do NOT, however, believe that my religious beliefs belong in a science class, any more than I believe that Shakespeare belongs in an Algebra class. Science classes should teach science. I will provide (and have provided) whatever religious instruction I want my children to have.I have no desire to see the State determining which religions are acceptable to teach and which aren’t. The State should not be put in the position of making judgements between religions. That, at it’s heart, is what the Establishment Clause of the Constitution is all about.
Nicely put Rob.
That’s where this whole topic should begin & end right? We evolutionists have just been feisty ever since Copernicus got bumped off.
So our common ancestor was? I guess i seem to think that while our DNA can be real close to that of the pre dated findings none of them that i have heard of have actually matched up. In other words. There has been no proof that one came from another. If your Dna is granted to you at birth and predetermines you, as in everything, then why is not traceable to these artifacts? Have we simply not found the right fossil yet?As for a gap exsisting in knowledge,well for sure that exsists. I do not think ID would create a lack of interest in study of evolution.The oppisite should happen. The interest in determining the truth should spark reasearch and the quest for more information. Last i checked that was part of learning any subject. Being Lazy and saying we will only study this subject one way is pretty much closeminded. The forefathers of science would be ashamed. I agree that Religion and science should be seperate, but i also think that Kids should have that thirst to find new theory and prove or disprove it.
Posted by: G at December 23, 2005 09:05 AMSo was it God’s design that the Nazis would try eliminate the Jews?
Was it God’s design that some children are born with birth defects?
Was it God’s design that the U.S. was attacked on 9/11?
It’s time to face the facts of evolution. The Bible is the greatest work of fiction ever written. What’s that saying about one been born every minute? A sucker I believe it is….
Look at the known history of man….EVERY war ever started was “in the name of GOD”. The Roman Cathoic church is the biggest land owner in the world. Their priesthood have more child abusers per capita than any other career.
Evolution in public school. Intelligent (Lack of Intelligence) Design in Sunday School.
Posted by: Jim at December 23, 2005 09:06 AMWeather cou see Creation or Evolution is theory or fact depends a large part on your religious beliefs.
And that’s just sad. There is ample proof of evolution and no proof of Creation. That you are admitting that you let your intellectual reasoning be overruled by your religious beliefs is indicative that you reject logic here.
If evolution is thaught in school, then creation should be also. Then let the students decide for themselves.
You’ve said this or a version of this many times in the other thread, and I’ve responded each time explaining why Evolution is science and creation/ID isn’t (which seems to be a slam-dunk argument about which should be included in science classes), and explaining that the existance of a Theory of Evolution does not mean that any other hypothesis is equally valid.
And yet, you keep returning to your point, never really responding to what I’ve said. Are you reading what I’ve told you? Are you following the links to research the evidence supporting Evolution and the definition of Science? Or are you just stuck in your decision, completely impervious to further logic, argument, and evidence?
Evolution has happened. It’s a fact. I’ve provided you links many times. Evolution is the best answer Science has. Evolution should be taught in schools.
Posted by: LawnBoy at December 23, 2005 09:10 AMThis is why the home schooling movement is gaining so much ground.
What is so hard about the logic that if something has order then it must be designed by a designer.
The ONLY proof of something that does not follow this order is EVOLUTION, which is a fraudulent theory.
No one would drive a car or an airplane that was designed by random processes. No one would let a doctor work on them who uses random processes or tools that were created using random processes.
No one builds their home using random processes
NO but the most complex thing in the universe is created by random processes…
and you call that education.
Homeschooling is for me, since I can’t afford a great private education for my kids. Let the masses indoctrinate themselves in the government schools. Sex, evolution and no education. I still pay for it. And you can call me backwards an uneducated…I am Soldier and I defend your right to have and speak your opinion.
Posted by: DC at December 23, 2005 09:10 AMSo our common ancestor was?
See the answer here, or at least what we know so far.
If your Dna is granted to you at birth and predetermines you, as in everything, then why is not traceable to these artifacts?
I don’t understand the question. Are you asking why we can’t prove with our current DNA what our ancestors looked like?
Being Lazy and saying we will only study this subject one way is pretty much closeminded.
Preferring Evolution to ID in Science curricula is neither lazy nor closeminded. Science has studied the hypoths