Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

[Ossai]

Vagabond

This is utter crap. We don't know there are any planets in the universe other than the ones in our solar system.

Ignorance speaking there. We certainly do know that there are other planets besides the ones in our solar system.

We certainly do not know if even one of any of these imaginary planets is earthlike. You can't counter my logic so you resort to stupidity and insults.

Currently true, but theoretically possible due to the size of just the galaxy.

stamenflicker

Faith is 99.9% wrong in areas of science because it attempts to impose its structure (usually biblical inerrancy) upon a field which neither needs its assistance in discovering, nor desires it. Where the theist in general contributes in my opinion is not in the "how" or "what" questions, but in the "so what" and "now what" questions.

In other words, the theist contributes not at all.

Kitty Chan

Anyway, I could see if God had the nature you imply, combined with a unloving attitude. He actually could torture a dead person! Raise them up, torture, kill, repeat. So there would be no worry about using up people, wouldnt need a fresh supply.

But the fresh supply is what keeps it new and interesting. Imagine the look on everyone’s face when, after they die, instead of arriving at the pearly gates, they’re dumped into hell and greeted by Adam Sandler.
The ‘not me – I was a good person’ look or the ‘I killed in your name’ look, etc. Imagine it being wiped from their faces as they come to the realization that they’re in hell.

Even then it would probably be easier to just erase the whole thing and start from scratch again, pulling the wings off flies can only be entertaining so long. Better to move onto other things.

That’s why god stopped all the obvious smiting. He wanted to see what humanity has learned from the master. Sitting back and watching what other inane divisions we can come up with as an excuse to torture one another.

Problem with what your suggesting is, it does not reconcile itself with other aspects of Gods nature. Kind of like looking at a person of ethnic origins and assuming they are out to rob you. They have the same sort of hopes, dreams, problems we all share.

I’m not proposing an omnipotent or even omniscient god, merely one vastly more powerful that us and a sadist.
What other aspects of god are you referring to anyway? There is vastly more circumstantial evidence for the one I’m proposing than yours.

What of love your neighbour more than yourself? Have the little children come to Him, because we should see how they see as they are special?

Mental torture. Another excuse – not that he needs one, he just likes have them.

Adam and Eve messed up but when Eve gave birth she said With the help of God I have brought forth a man. Just a little forgiveness on each side there. We say it was horrible what Job went through, but to him we would only be the friends who were sent to torture him. Job had no problem with God but he did with those friends. Who are we to judge how Job felt about things.

If I see you get mad at the other driver on the road, can I assume you are always mad, so probably kick the dog and beat the wife. To judge you because of it, would be to miss the rest of your nature, which is who you are as a whole.

By what has been presented so far, my version of god is in the lead in the home stretch while yours hasn’t even left the gate.

This is like the conversation thats going on in the corner

But an interesting corner.

Ossai

 

[stamenflicker]

Os,

In other words, the theist contributes not at all.

Well, there are theists who do good science. What I'm saying is that those theists who (from the outside of science) want to impose a "revelation" onto "reason" do bad science. Hence, I'm not real keen on ID theory.

However, the ID theorists raise good philosophical questions for the scientists regarding the assumptions of science and reason, and the ability of human beings to even know anything at all. These questions are very valid, and science would benefit greatly by asking them from time to time.

But Ossasi, you are also saying that questions like "So what?" and "Now what?" are of no interest to science. I disagree. When these questions are not asked, then science becomes just as equally about power as it is about knowledge. It's fine with me if scientists themselves don't want to ask these questions, but it's not fine with me if they take offense to them being asked at all.

Flick

 

[Ossai]

stamenflicker

However, the ID theorists raise good philosophical questions for the scientists regarding the assumptions of science and reason, and the ability of human beings to even know anything at all. These questions are very valid, and science would benefit greatly by asking them from time to time.

Exactly what ID theorists have raised those questions? All I’ve ever see/heard/read from IDists are logical fallacies and attacks on evolution.

But Ossasi, you are also saying that questions like "So what?" and "Now what?" are of no interest to science.

No. They are already a part of science and have been for centuries. It’s part of the gap that theists don’t realize they lost decades ago.

Ossai

 

[Dr Adequate]

However, the ID theorists raise good philosophical questions for the scientists regarding the assumptions of science and reason, and the ability of human beings to even know anything at all. These questions are very valid, and science would benefit greatly by asking them from time to time.

Now this should raise a question in your mind. If these "philosophical questions" (but not answers, never answers...), are so "good" and "valid", why are they exclusive to the "philosophy of science" as preached by various creationists (as your post, attributing these "questions" to them as their contribution to science, seems to imply)? Why do these questions not disturb other philosophers of science without an axe to grind?

A clue may be found by examining this "philosophy". Here's a fair sample:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57260&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Now, as I point out, the creationist would not wish his philosophy of science or theories of education to apply to the periodic table versus the four elements of the Greeks, nor to the germ theory of disease as against the miasma theory of disease, nor to the theory that humans are one species with a common origin as opposed to the theory that black and white are two different species. No, he only wants his "philosophy" to apply to the theory of evolution.

Indeed, your own references to the substance of this "philosophy" are a dead giveaway. "questions ... regarding the assumptions of science and reason, and the ability of human beings to even know anything at all".

Now, when someone attacks "science and reason", he always wishes to put forward something which is unscientific and unreasonable. But they have to go further than that, and question "the ability of human beings to even know anything at all". And this should tell you something. In order to put creeationism and evolution on the same footing, they have to question the possibility that we can know ANYTHING. Well, this would indeed put the two theories on the same footing (as with my other examples of the germ theory of disease versus the miasmal, etc, and, indeed, the theory that I am a human as against the theory that I am a penguin), but it seems that no less radical "philosophy" of knowledge can achieve this --- for if we can know anything we know that evolution kicks creationism's butt. Hence the need for this "philosophy".

Of course, the people who advocate this "philosophy" do not wish children to be reminded that it is impossible to know anything at all before every class. It might affect their motivation. They just want it mentioned when the children are taught about evolution. When it might also affect their motivation just a little.

In my experience, people never just casually mention that there's no such thing as truth: they're always working themselves up to abolish some well-known truth and replace it with a falsehood --- just as no-one rails against "conventional notions of right and wrong" without having some particular unethical action in mind which he'd like to commit.

The very fact that creationists need to resort to this "philosophical" gibble should be regarded, then, not as an interesting contribution to the philosophy of science, but rather a sign of utter despair at finding a shred of evidence for creationism or against evolution. If all the facts are against you then the very last resort to protect yourself from reality is to invent a "philosophy" which denies the existence of facts: a philosophy of science which declares all science impossible. And this is what, in desperation, creationists are trying to do: for if only you can find some principle which will dispose of every truth --- then that will dispose of evolution too!

But the real philosophy of science must be built on principles which get rid of falsehoods and leave truths alone. The reluctance of creationsts to adopt such an attitude is quite... understandable.

... and they would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky facts!

 

[stamenflicker]

Now, as I point out, the creationist would not wish his philosophy of science or theories of education to apply to the periodic table versus the four elements of the Greeks, nor to the germ theory of disease as against the miasma theory of disease, nor to the theory that humans are one species with a common origin as opposed to the theory that black and white are two different species. No, he only wants his "philosophy" to apply to the theory of evolution.

And I suppose you believe that the periodic table stands on equal footing as the theory of evolution? I'm sorry, but that is bad science. I know, I know, the theory of evolution is far, far too complex for those who don't subscribe to it. It says nothing about evolution that one should doubt it, but rather it says everything about a person's intelligence.

In essense you answer your own question. Philosophy applies to evolution simply because the "theory" allows it to. It is still at its very core, an argument from absence, an assumption... a story told with words with selected observations that self-validate, and neglected observations that keep a student from doubt.

If evolution is so strong a science, why is it questioned at all? O yes, people just aren't smart enough to understand it. If it is such a factoid of universal truth, why not put bad science (ID theory) right beside it and actually let students see the glory of evolution's mighty revelations? Why not "educate" our kids rather than "endoctrinate" them? Let them pick bad science, learn to recognize it so we can end the debate once and for all.

Now, when someone attacks "science and reason", he always wishes to put forward something which is unscientific and unreasonable.

Thats right, too many questions are "attacks." Evolution has to defend against such attacks because unlike the periodic table, there are places that deserve a closer look. Any questioners of the great evolutionary dogma should be considered "attackers." They are instantly "unscientific" and "unreasonable." How dare they question? Who are these people? Sub-reason, sub-intelligent, how long until the Darwin club brands them sub-human?

for if we can know anything we know that evolution kicks creationism's butt.

Then what has evolution to fear? Bring the strongest dogs to fight and let the student witness the carnage.

If all the facts are against you then the very last resort to protect yourself from reality is to invent a "philosophy" which denies the existence of facts: a philosophy of science which declares all science impossible.

Give me a break. This is ludicrous and a strawman if there ever was one.

just as no-one rails against "conventional notions of right and wrong" without having some particular unethical action in mind which he'd like to commit.

This probably the saddest statement I've read in such a long, long time that I'm at a loss for words. Indeed, the Abolition of Man was written precisely for such a statement.

The absolute arrogance of theories masqurading as facts, of branding the question-maker both uneducated and unethical. Indeed the dogma here is measurable only by that sad stick of Catholisism stretched out in the Dark Ages.

In order to put creationism and evolution on the same footing, they have to question the possibility that we can know ANYTHING.

No, its not about equal footing. It's about humility and knowing the limitations of our assumptions. It's about asking questions and I never thought good scientists would find that so offensive.

And why is this so important?

Hawking speculated that within 500 years there will be a scientific research paper of merit written every seven minutes. Knowing that there will be no way of reviewing all these papers, man will continue to refine and shape what directions he chooses for his "science" to go. What this means is that our assumptions will be pre-selections, and science will become less about knowledge and more about preference. I would argue its already there.

Flick

 

[FireGarden]

Flick

I know, I know, the theory of evolution is far, far too complex for those who don't subscribe to it.

Actually, those that do subscribe to it are just as likely to misunderstand. It's one of those things that sounds so simple, any fool can imagine they understand it in complete detail. I have had to correct many of my own misconceptions about evoltion, and I've always accepted it as true. I probably still have more to correct.

I read earlier in the thread that you were going to read a book on evolution. Why don't you start a thread in the science forum to discuss it and test your understanding of it. I'll post too, just to have the pleasure of getting my misconceptions corrected by those who are more knowledgeable than myself.

It is still at its very core, an argument from absence, an assumption... a story told with words with selected observations that self-validate, and neglected observations that keep a student from doubt.

Then the proper way to attack it is to return to the debate those obseravtions that have been neglected.

If it is such a factoid of universal truth, why not put bad science (ID theory) right beside it and actually let students see the glory of evolution's mighty revelations? Why not "educate" our kids rather than "endoctrinate" them?

I actually agree.
I learnt plenty about scepticism from a debunking of von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods". Bad science should be put there alongside good science, so that the difference is more easily demonstrated.

I note the "Abolition" argument, and Dr A's statement before it. Bring it up in the other thread.

Hawking speculated that within 500 years there will be a scientific research paper of merit written every seven minutes. Knowing that there will be no way of reviewing all these papers, man will continue to refine and shape what directions he chooses for his "science" to go. What this means is that our assumptions will be pre-selections, and science will become less about knowledge and more about preference. I would argue its already there.

That our horizons are limited by our ability to take in infomation is one thing. That our horizons are limited by our ability to ignore what we don't want to hear is another.

 

[stamenflicker]

FG,

Actually, those that do subscribe to it are just as likely to misunderstand. It's one of those things that sounds so simple, any fool can imagine they understand it in complete detail. I have had to correct many of my own misconceptions about evoltion, and I've always accepted it as true. I probably still have more to correct.

I probably know personally at least 200 Christians. Of those 200, I could not name a single one, not even myself, who doesn't believe evolution "proper" happened to one degree or another. Some of them are scientists, some doctors, some polititians, many work in the helping profession-- like medicine, psychology, or the juvenile court system.

And yes, there are some misunderstandings among many hard core scientists, and many endoctrinated subscribers to evolution. There is also the rentless pursuit of truth among these same hard core scientists that is colored by the particular science to which they subscribe. The reason we have so far to go is that while we can be certain that things evolved to one degree or another, we are so very very uncertain as to how they evolved. There are bound to be misunderstandings.

But think for just a moment what theory all hard core evolutionists share. What is that every one has in common? Answer that question and you'll quickly see where so many us find intellectual displeasure in their conclusions.

Then the proper way to attack it is to return to the debate those obseravtions that have been neglected.

Of what use would that be to the first church of Darwin?

That our horizons are limited by our ability to take in infomation is one thing. That our horizons are limited by our ability to ignore what we don't want to hear is another.

Its not just that we will "want" to ignore. Its that we will soon have no choice.

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

And I suppose you believe that the periodic table stands on equal footing as the theory of evolution?

Yes.

I'm sorry, but that is bad science.

Ah, proof by confident assertion.

In essense you answer your own question. Philosophy applies to evolution simply because the "theory" allows it to. It is still at its very core, an argument from absence, an assumption... a story told with words with selected observations that self-validate, and neglected observations that keep a student from doubt.

Saying this will not make it true.

If evolution is so strong a science, why is it questioned at all?

Religion.

O yes, people just aren't smart enough to understand it. If it is such a factoid of universal truth, why not put bad science (ID theory) right beside it and actually let students see the glory of evolution's mighty revelations?

Or to put it another way: "If it is such a factoid of universal truth, why not put bad science (the four elements theory of the Greeks) right beside it and actually let students see the glory of the periodic table's mighty revelations?". But of course you wouldn't say that. You just want this line of reasoning to apply to the one scientific theory you don't like.

Why not "educate" our kids rather than "endoctrinate" them? Let them pick bad science, learn to recognize it so we can end the debate once and for all.

I quite agree. Let each science teacher spend five minutes explaining creationism and pointing out that there's no evidence for it. Then a semester on the evidence for evolution. Balance, you see.

Thats right, too many questions are "attacks." Evolution has to defend against such attacks because unlike the periodic table, there are places that deserve a closer look. Any questioners of the great evolutionary dogma should be considered "attackers." They are instantly "unscientific" and "unreasonable." How dare they question? Who are these people? Sub-reason, sub-intelligent, how long until the Darwin club brands them sub-human?

Welcome to the wonderful world of paranoia. I thought better of you.

Then what has evolution to fear? Bring the strongest dogs to fight and let the student witness the carnage.

As I pointed out in my link, the problem with teaching creationism is that creationist arguments are all based on misinformation. If we are to teach it, what are we to teach? Their gibble about "the law of cause and effect"? But there's no such thing. Their gibble about the second law of thermodynamics? But they rewrote it so that Helmholtz himself wouldn't recognise it. Their gibble about "no intermediate forms"? This is a flat lie. So what are we to teach? I say, five minutes to state the theory and point out that it has no evidence. What do you say?

Give me a break. This is ludicrous and a strawman if there ever was one.

It's also what you said ""questions ... regarding ... the ability of human beings to even know anything at all". If this is a straw man, you provided it.

This probably the saddest statement I've read in such a long, long time that I'm at a loss for words. Indeed, the Abolition of Man was written precisely for such a statement.

The absolute arrogance of theories masqurading as facts, of branding the question-maker both uneducated and unethical. Indeed the dogma here is measurable only by that sad stick of Catholisism stretched out in the Dark Ages.

Rhetoric apart, can you actually find one thing wrong with what I said? This would be a better debating tactic than declaring yourself at a loss for words. As for the stuff about "arrogance", "dogma", and "the Dark Ages", I think the pot just called the refrigerator black.

No, its not about equal footing. It's about humility and knowing the limitations of our assumptions. It's about asking questions and I never thought good scientists would find that so offensive.

Let's see. They spend a lifetime searching for the truth, and you, sitting on the sidelines doing no research into their field, question their ability to "even know anything at all". I'd find it offensive and arrogant.

 

[Dr Adequate]

There is also the rentless pursuit of truth among these same hard core scientists

I wish I could return the compliment.

But think for just a moment what theory all hard core evolutionists share. What is that every one has in common? Answer that question and you'll quickly see where so many us find intellectual displeasure in their conclusions.

Ooh, ooh, I can answer that question! The theory they all have in common is the theory of evolution. Yes, I see why you find intellectual displeasure in that.

Of what use would that be to the first church of Darwin?

Yes, yes, bring out the old "evolution is a religion" spam. It's easier than finding one thing which is wrong with it, after all. When reason and evidence won't back you up, empty rhetoric will be your friend.

Its not just that we will "want" to ignore. Its that we will soon have no choice.

I'm not sure I follow you. At what point will you have "no choice" but to ignore the things you don't want to hear?

 

[FireGarden]

Flick,

But think for just a moment what theory all hard core evolutionists share. What is that every one has in common? Answer that question and you'll quickly see where so many us find intellectual displeasure in their conclusions.

Let me guess.... Faith in the scientific method?

If you want to criticise the arrogance of scientists you'll have to explain why that arrogance is unjustified in the face of science's huge contribution to civilisation. Do you want false modesty?

Its not just that we will "want" to ignore. Its that we will soon have no choice.

You haven't seen what I was getting at. The difference between one and the other is the presence/absence of intellectual honesty.


BTW,
When you've read up on it, will you test your understanding of evolution in the science forum?

 

[Dr Adequate]

If evolution is so strong a science, why is it questioned at all?

Anything can be questioned. All you need is a crank and a soapbox. There are people who question the germ theory of disease. And, in accordance with what I said above, they never just question the germ theory of disease, and leave it at that. No, they question the germ theory of disease and then explain the wonderful new theory that they believe in. And try to sell you medicine to cure the "real" causes of disease.

In the same way, I never saw anyone "questioning" evolution who didn't have some magical wonderful theory of his own to put in it's place. Can you find just one person who "questions" evolution, but who, when asked "if not evolution, what?" replies that he has no idea: or that he doubts "the ability of human beings to even know anything at all"?

Religious zealots question evolution because they want to scrap it and replace it with their own religious dogma. It would not occur to them for one moment to question it if it did not conflict with their dogma, any more than it occurs to them to go about questioning the periodic table.

The Institute for Creation Research is an affiliate of the Christian Heritage College in San Diego, California. The Institute was established to address the "urgent need for our nation to return to belief in a personal, omnipotent Creator, who has a purpose for His creation and to whom all people must eventually give account." 1 id., at E-197. A goal of the Institute is "a revival of belief in special creation as the true explanation of the origin of the world." Therefore, the Institute currently is working on the "development of new methods for teaching scientific creationism in public schools." Id., at E-197 -- E-199. The Creation Research Society (CRS) is located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. A member must subscribe to the following statement of belief: "The Bible is the written word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true." 2 id., at E-583. To study creation science at the CRS, a member must accept "that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truth."

(Note: this is from the judgement of the US Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguillard case.)

Hawking speculated that within 500 years there will be a scientific research paper of merit written every seven minutes. Knowing that there will be no way of reviewing all these papers, man will continue to refine and shape what directions he chooses for his "science" to go. What this means is that our assumptions will be pre-selections, and science will become less about knowledge and more about preference. I would argue its already there.

Would you really argue that? I should like to see you try.

 

[stamenflicker]

Ahh yes, I'm the recipent of three grand posts. Glad my questions are so worth your time.

Dr. A,

Or to put it another way: "If it is such a factoid of universal truth, why not put bad science (the four elements theory of the Greeks) right beside it and actually let students see the glory of the periodic table's mighty revelations?". But of course you wouldn't say that.

Actually I would. And I recall my high school science teacher alluding to the history to show how far we’ve come. Since the periodic table is rooted in fact and there is almost no disagreement among the authorities themselves about it, I have no intellectual displeasure with it.

Let each science teacher spend five minutes explaining creationism and pointing out that there's no evidence for it.

Hmm. I bet if you let Behe spend an hour in the classroom, he’d use up more than five minutes talking about complexity. But then again, he’s an authority you’d not appeal to.

I thought better of you.

Did you?

As I pointed out in my link, the problem with teaching creationism is that creationist arguments are all based on misinformation. If we are to teach it, what are we to teach? Their gibble about "the law of cause and effect"? But there's no such thing. Their gibble about the second law of thermodynamics? But they rewrote it so that Helmholtz himself wouldn't recognise it. Their gibble about "no intermediate forms"? This is a flat lie. So what are we to teach? I say, five minutes to state the theory and point out that it has no evidence. What do you say?

I believe creationist arguments are sometimes based on the wrong questions. As to what are we to teach? Teach that it is an amazing complex theory based on hypotheses to which many of our observations bare out. Teach that the observations often conflict with the hypotheses and therefore new hypotheses are constructed around the observations. Teach that evolution is a fluid theory and that the facts themselves are only important to evolutionists when they bring something to bear upon their theories. See Gould quote below.

It's also what you said ""questions ... regarding ... the ability of human beings to even know anything at all". If this is a straw man, you provided it.

If you could please point me to my exact quote, I’d be appreciative so that I could at least provide it my context as opposed to yours. However, (in very general terms) this is a theory I’ve always held regardless of a discussion about evolution. Evolution didn’t spring it, nor did my theism. It’s a product of logic.

Rhetoric apart, can you actually find one thing wrong with what I said? This would be a better debating tactic than declaring yourself at a loss for words. As for the stuff about "arrogance", "dogma", and "the Dark Ages", I think the pot just called the refrigerator black.

One thing wrong: For me personally, I’m not out to replace evolution or anything else by science so that I may tend to my unethical ends unfettered.

Let's see. They spend a lifetime searching for the truth, and you, sitting on the sidelines doing no research into their field, question their ability to "even know anything at all". I'd find it offensive and arrogant.

So as long as I appeal to your authorities, I’m ok.

Ooh, ooh, I can answer that question! The theory they all have in common is the theory of evolution. Yes, I see why you find intellectual displeasure in that.

But even theists (most of them) have that in common. No what the hard core evolutionists have in common is anti-theism.

It's easier than finding one thing which is wrong with it, after all.

“Wrong” in science can only be the selection of evidence and/or the interpretation of evidence. As Mark Twain said, “Figures lie and liars figure.” In other words, there’s too much data and too many questions out there to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt about much. Evolution occurred to a degree to which we are still uncertain, by a means through which we are still trying to understand. I see no problem with teaching that way.

In the same way, I never saw anyone "questioning" evolution who didn't have some magical wonderful theory of his own to put in it's place. Can you find just one person who "questions" evolution, but who, when asked "if not evolution, what?" replies that he has no idea: or that he doubts "the ability of human beings to even know anything at all"?

Once again, if you are going to quote me at least let me provide my context, not yours. The idea that something HAS to put in its place is not an idea to which I subscribe.

Religious zealots question evolution because they want to scrap it and replace it with their own religious dogma. It would not occur to them for one moment to question it if it did not conflict with their dogma, any more than it occurs to them to go about questioning the periodic table.

Religious zealots? Sure, you’d probably easily convince me of that. But since when are evolutionary zealots a safer alternative?

(Note: this is from the judgement of the US Supreme Court in the Edwards v. Aguillard case.)

And a rightful judgment at that.

Would you really argue that? I should like to see you try.

Luckily I don’t have to. See below....

 

[stamenflicker]

Again, its more about honesty to me and my intellectual displeasure has less to do with evolution and more to do with a failure to address and acknowledge the limitations of the theory. As I indicated before (from Behe, who again I don’t particularly subscribe to), it’s hard enough to justify science with numbers, but to have a science without numbers, but one without numbers? Why aren’t things like odds or probabilities appropriate things to ask in evolutionary theories? Why aren’t those odds placed along side the age of the universe--- in the student’s textbook?

Then there is the issue that Hawking raises, and it’s a good one. The time is coming and is nearly upon us that science will be less about what is uncovered and more about what one has the time (or more often money) to bother uncovering? It’s a critical question and I’m not the first one to ask it.

Mathematically each of the three different formulations [for the theory of gravity] …give exactly the same consequences. What do we do then? You will read in all the books that we cannot decide scientifically on one or the other. That is true. They are equivalent scientifically. It is impossible to make a decision, because there is not experimental way to distinguish between them if all the consequences are the same. But psychologically they are very different in two ways. First, philosophically you like them or do not like them; and training is the only way to beat that disease. Second, psychologically they are very different because they are completely un-equivalent when you are trying to guess new laws. [R. Feynman].

Hacking on the above quote:

One of the things that happens, in the evolution of a science, is that functionally non-equivalent systems become, are made, equivalent, and all traces of the former nonequivalence are obliterated.

To think this doesn’t happen evolution is just an anti-theist quirk. It does in fact happen, and the “evidence” or the “facts” indicate that it happens all the time. All I’m asking for is a tad bit of honesty about what we know, what we don’t know, and what we will likely never know. Is that too much to ask? I am certain my Freshman biology instructor did not ask these kinds of questions, nor did he present evolution within this kind of framework for science:

"A scientist commonly professes to base his beliefs on observations, not theories. Theories, it is said, are useful in suggesting new ideas and new lines of investigation for the experimenter; but "hard facts" are the only proper ground for conclusion. I have never come across anyone who carries this profession into practice—certainly not the hard-headed experimentalist, who is the more swayed by his theories because he is less accustomed to scrutinise them. Observation is not sufficient. We do not believe our eyes unless we are first convinced that what they appear to tell us is credible. It is better to admit frankly that theory has, and is entitled to have, an important share in determining belief." (Eddington, Sir Arthur [late Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University]., "The Expanding Universe," Penguin: Harmondsworth, Middlesex UK, 1940, p.25)

"During the period of nearly universal rejection, direct evidence for continental drift-that is, the data gathered from rocks exposed on our continents-was every bit as good as it is today. .... In the absence of a plausible mechanism, the idea of continental drift was rejected as absurd. The data that seemed to support it could always be explained away. ... The old data from continental rocks, once soundly rejected, have been exhumed and exalted as conclusive proof of drift. In short, we now accept continental drift because it is the expectation of a new orthodoxy. I regard this tale as typical of scientific progress. New facts, collected in old ways under the guidance of old theories, rarely lead to any substantial revision of thought. Facts do not `speak for themselves', they are read in the light of theory." (Gould S.J., "The Validation of Continental Drift," in "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.161)

“Context indicates that when evolution is asserted to be a fact, not a theory, the view actually being pushed includes that of common origin, ultimate inorganic ancestry, and modification through nonpurposive mechanisms: a set of beliefs that goes far beyond the mountain of fact that is actually there, which consists largely of fossils that demonstrate *some* sort of relationship and *some* sort of change over time." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana and Chicago IL, 1994, p.65. Emphasis Bauer's).

“There is no area in biology in which that theory does not serve as an ordering principle. Yet this very universality of application has created difficulties. Evolution shows so many facets that it looks alike to no two persons. The more different the backgrounds of two biologists, the more different their attempts at causal explanation." (Mayr E., "Populations, Species and Evolution," [1963], Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1974, reprint, p1)

“Sometimes the theory has to crumble first, and a new framework be adopted, before the crucial facts can be seen at all." (Gould S.J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," in "Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History," [1995], Crown: New York NY, 1997, reprint, p.127)

“"Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow." ( Teilhard de Chardin P., "The Phenomenon of Man," [1955], Fontana: London, 1967, Fifth Impression, p.241)

Evolution is both troubled from without by the nagging insistencies of antiscientists and nagged from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery-speciation itself. In looking over recent literature in and around the field of evolutionary theory, I am struck by the necessity to reexamine the simpler foundations of the subject, to distinguish carefully between what we know and what we merely think we know. The first and strongest of our critics to be answered should be ourselves. " (Thomson K.S., "The Meanings of Evolution," American Scientist, Vol. 70, pp.529-531, September-October 1982, p.529).

This must have been a debate… my for such honesty in my own professors I would be indebted:

"Well, Mr. Kristol, evolution (as theory) is indeed `a conglomerate idea consisting of conflicting hypotheses," and I and my colleagues teach it as such.'" (Gould S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January 1987, p.65).

Some of the above quotes come from the following link. I have no shame in posting them, and will gladly bow out until I've done more personal studying and reflection. But then again who is this unreasonable, inuntelligent, unethical man to dare use quotes from evolutionists at all?

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/cequotes.html

So, I’m done with this thread at least until I’ve read the aforementioned book. I care not to debate the scientists since they seem quite content to debate themselves. What I do care passionately about is the philosophy on which the science rests, because it is this philosophy that will bear out a functionality of living dictated to me and my children. That’s my one and only intellectual displeasure.

Peace,

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

Ahh yes, I'm the recipent of three grand posts. Glad my questions are so worth your time.

Well, now I'm baffled. Somehow, the fact that I treat you as a rational human being, and regard your questions as worthy of an answer, is a point against me and a reason to be snide and sarcastic. Why? It reminds me of what Screwtape says about shallow cynics about religion: they behave as though the joke has been made, but they can't actually make it.

I will be happy to stomp up and down on the points you raise in your post, but this will hardly be worthwhile if the only effect this has on you is to cause you to sneer at me for even bothering to answer you.

If you will accept the fact that my ripping your posts to pieces is actually an argument against your posts rather than against me, then I will continue to do so.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh dear me, look, I'm answering you again. This proves that I'm wrong in some way which I can't explain. And, indeed, which you can't explain. I am going to post again about your weird use of the imaginary ad hominem argument.

Who are these people? Sub-reason, sub-intelligent, how long until the Darwin club brands them sub-human?

Now, no-one at all has "branded" you --- or, in ordinary English, "called" you --- "sub-reason" or "sub-intelligent". This is made-up stuff. And yet if you told another creationist that this is what those evil evil-utionists called you, he might believe it. You might even believe it yourself. But can you prove it by one single quotation? Oops, no you can't.

But then you go further then that. From these made-up words which no-one said, you extrapolate, without reasoning, the conclusion, which you don't actually draw, and for which you provide no argument, that if things are allowed to go on like this (where "this" is a made-up fantasy in your head) that you need to worry about "how long" it will be until "the Darwin club brands them sub-human"? That is, you have the nerve, just because I disagree with you, to say, in public, to me, that you're concerned about how long it wil be before I start treating you as the Nazis treated the Jews.

This filthy accusation is built on nothing but thin air. Oh, and wishful thinking. Darn. If only I was as evil as lunatic genocidal Nazi scum, how easy your argument would be then. But I am not that evil. I just disagree with you. I just think that you're wrong. I have said nothing more than that. I have no desire to turn your skin into lampshades. I have just pointed out that your arguments are flawed. Dream on.

 

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick

No what the hard core evolutionists have in common is anti-theism.

Is this your attempt at a no true Scotsman?
Dawkins may have an axe to grind with religion, but every hardcore evolutionist?

So, I’m done with this thread at least until I’ve read the aforementioned book. I care not to debate the scientists since they seem quite content to debate themselves. What I do care passionately about is the philosophy on which the science rests, because it is this philosophy that will bear out a functionality of living dictated to me and my children. That’s my one and only intellectual displeasure.

I haven't asked you to debate scientists on evoultion, I've asked you test your understanding of what you've read. And science need dictate nothing to you and your children. You and they can have a voice in it.

The ideas on science in general that you raise are worthy of a thread in their own right. When does science change a theory?

 

[stamenflicker]

Dr. A.

This filthy accusation is built on nothing but thin air.

It was a question, sorry it appears to offended you. An general accusation would look a bit different. An specific accusation toward you would look entirely different. A question arises from a particular set of observations which may or may not apply.

So if you don't think a person that questions the theory of evolution is automatically less reasonable or less logical than the humanity should be, or indefinately less intelligent than humanity should be, or unarguabely less educated than humanity should be, or inordinately less ethical than humanity should be, then their will never be a danger of them being less human (which is an all too familiar result in the cases of harsh human judgment). So if you don't think in these kinds of terms, the aforementioned "question" I posed does not refer to you and should have been pulled out from under your quote which was:

In my experience, people never just casually mention that there's no such thing as truth: they're always working themselves up to abolish some well-known truth and replace it with a falsehood --- just as no-one rails against "conventional notions of right and wrong" without having some particular unethical action in mind which he'd like to commit.

Which I interpreted to be, creationists (of whom your post is directed) are out to be unethical.

So if indeed you do not hold the idea of a creationists a "less than" to the degree of harsh representation which I have so often seen, then the question really doesn't apply to you.

So why the ire goodly sir?

Flick

 

[Dr Adequate]

Which I interpreted to be, creationists (of whom your post is directed) are out to be unethical.

No, that was an analogy. Someone who rails against conventional medicine wishes to promote a quack nostrum. Someone who rails against conventional morality wishes to do something which lies outside of it. Someone who rails against reason wants to believe something unreasonable. Someone who attacks the whole idea that people can know anything at all wishes --- desperately ---- to avoid one particular piece of knowledge.

And the fact that creationists are driven to this --- to denying, or no, they don't quite do that, perhaps I should say "questioning" whether humans can even know anything at all --- is a dead giveaway that no knowledge supports them or casts doubt on evolution. I don't have to go around denying, I mean "questioning", the existence of knowledge--- because everything that we know about the relevant sciences supports me. What the creationists have come up with is not an interesting contribution to philosophy, but the final retreat from reality of people who have been defeated by it. Their contribution to epistomology resembles that of the ostrich.

Yes, I know ostriches don't really do that.

And their attitude is, of course, intellectually hypocritical, because they do not wish this radical epistomological skepticism to apply to everything. Not, for example, to the periodic table. No, when they suggest that knowledge is impossible, they're only talking about all the knowledge that supports evolution. If you asked one of these people the way to the men's room he wouldn't cast doubt on the ability of people to know anything at all. The same with some scientific fact that he knows about and doesn't object to. But get him talking about evolution and he will produce, ad hoc, this "philosophy" of knowledge which he doesn't believe in at any other time or wish to bring to bear on any other scientific question.

This, Flick, is what intellectual bankruptcy looks like.

So if indeed you do not hold the idea of a creationists a "less than" to the degree of harsh representation which I have so often seen, then the question really doesn't apply to you.

So why the ire goodly sir?

Er, you seem to be asking, if your response to my post did not in the slightest apply to me, why am I cross. I'm cross because it didn't apply to me.

If you have "often seen" the sort of comment, by members of what you call "the Darwin club" which might legitimately lead you to speculate on "how long" it will be (how long, not whether, I note) they will "brand" you as "sub-human" --- then perhaps you could produce one single quotation which led you to think that. Otherwise, it looks like paranoia to me: and it is customary in the best circles for ad hominem arguments to be based on something more than an overactive imagination.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Again, its more about honesty to me and my intellectual displeasure has less to do with evolution and more to do with a failure to address and acknowledge the limitations of the theory. As I indicated before (from Behe, who again I don’t particularly subscribe to), it’s hard enough to justify science with numbers, but to have a science without numbers, but one without numbers?

We've got lots of numbers. Dates of fossils, for example. Measurements of genetic similarity between species. Measurements of morphological similarity between species. Measurements of gene frequencies:

Predictions about laboratory changes in gene frequencies and patterns of differentiation leading to new species is testable and has survived all serious attempts to refute it. --- Dr Niles Eldridge

Why aren’t things like odds or probabilities appropriate things to ask in evolutionary theories?

Odds and probabilities of what? Perhaps you would like to try to calculate the odds of the null hypothesis --- that all the evidence for evolution, fossils, genes, and all, is just a chance artifact? You're going to need a whole lot of zeroes after that decimal point.

Why aren’t those odds placed along side the age of the universe--- in the student’s textbook?

Estimates of the age of the universe do indeed come with error bars. If this information wasn't in your textbook, then I should say that this is evidence of an evil anti-God conspiracy, or something.

Then there is the issue that Hawking raises, and it’s a good one. The time is coming and is nearly upon us that science will be less about what is uncovered and more about what one has the time (or more often money) to bother uncovering? It’s a critical question and I’m not the first one to ask it.

Science has always been limited by considerations of time and money. You might as well say that "the time is coming and is nearly upon us" when the Pope will be Catholic.

However, in order to avoid seeing evidence against evolution --- if there is any --- scientists would have to stop digging up fossils, stop practicing comparitive anatomy, stop sequencing genomes, stop studying embryology --- I see no sign that this is going to happen any time soon.

Nor do your quotations bear this worry out. Oh, and you do know that Teilhard de Chardin was a flaming nutjob, don't you? He invented his own theory of evolution, which he liked better than Darwin's, in which we would all evolve into God or something (his prose style is rather unclear) and which, he announced, defied the second law of thermodynamics, which for some reason he thought of as something to be proud of rather than a masive flaw in his theory.

This of course, is where creationists get their nonsense about evolution defying the second law of thermodynamics --- from an obscure, isolated crackpot whose ideas died with him.

 

[Vagabond]

I'm afraid the facts are against you Vagabond, and your getting huffy about it won't make a lick of difference. The fact is that most astonomers and planetary scientists do accept the existence of extrasolar planets.<<<<<

Yeah, and at one time it was universally accepted the earth was the center of the universe too. 95 percent of what we call "fact" in science is theory and speculation which we have as yet found out is false. This is particularly true in astronomy which is nearly all speculation, except what we have actually experienced in our miniscule space travels. Just something simple like light years and distances to stars is figured on the assumption that the speed of light always moves at the same speed and never varies. We have absolutely no proof of that whatsoever. If it does vary, all astromonical measurements are off including those used to speculate your planets.

I don't doubt there are probably planets, but the assumption that there are billions and billions with life on them is utter BS and not supported by the fact that one planet or even several might exist.