Sorry to have gotten you salivating then taken away the cookie. I’m surprised how often this happens to me on these boards, given the general high level of discourse. But the minute I bring up creator, higher order, etc,. people begin to pounce as if I’m evoking the Christian God, which I wouldn’t mind if that what I was talking about. Thanks for paying attention the words I actually write.
I like it. But I doubt any religion gets it completely right.
I disagree. Even if the moment you describe existed, no energy also menas no movement, right?..a state of perfect stasis. Well, obviously something changed that. For me the term “uncaused event” is a self contradiction. One not explained away by quantum mechanics or the notion of time itself starting with a big bang type event.
Yes. But who created them? etc, etc, etc.
This is an interesting point. Is it possible that this Deity said POOF! and that he has no interest in us after that? I’d say it is possible, but I think the fact they he imbued us with free will and the faculties to use it indicates otherwise. As you probably can tell, I subscribe to natural law theory.
I see that you’re from Deep Space and have an interest in the CA election. Tell me, how long have you lived in Berkeley?
The only point I was trying to make, and which you are working mightily to not comprehend, is that within Darwinism, natural selection and random variation are two necessary yet completely seperate phenomena. If you agree, we are done with that subject. If not, speak to a science professor at your school.
Good. We agree that a claim of finding the “ultimate answer” in a specific instance (as you describe) does not equal “all the answers” of life and creation.
So, you would not advocate teaching the Big Bang, or the notion that the red shift from stars shows that our universe is expanding and excelerating, or brane theory in science class because they are not science, but philosophy. I admire your consistency. It goes a little far for me, but I so admire the consistency, I think I could join you.
I never said you said the word “Creationist”. But you’ve been describing the actions of the Creationist wing of ID theory. And for the umpteenth time (although I don’t think to you) someone’s motives have nothing to do with the validity of a theory.
Yes, the concept of an intelligent designer has been around for a long time. It is not the same thing as the Intelligent Design movement.
2.) I understand you. I’m not sure, but I think scientists in the ID movement would say that it is testable. You point out that they failed with flagellum, which implies a test. Maybe the next time they’ll be right. Keep in mind, they only have to be right once.
3.) If you wish to call the Grand Architect, Supreme Being, Prime Mover, a God, you may. I know it serves your purpose, as you are intent in conflating the idea of an intelligent designer with that of religion, so it easier for you to crucify. Enjoy.
I think "scientifically unproven’ would be more accurate. Specific claims have been disproven. God forbid the kids learn about the concept of Irreducible Complexity and be exposed to the concept of First Cause as accepted by many scientists. But good luck on your crusade to keep the science classroom pure as you see it.
There is no theory.
There is a series of weak and poorly argued hypotheses (Johnson that materialism is bad, Dembski that he does not like the results so he invents bad probability math to disprove the origin, Behe that he cannot imagine a particular event so he invents a god to fill the gap in his imagination). Can you name a (purportedly) scientific proponent of ID who actuially has a “theory” and can you show how he is not a creationist?
I can think of no proponent of Intelligent Design who is not a Creationist (althouigh Behe makes an attempt to distance himself from the notion).
No human religion. But my minimum requirement for believing in any god is that the god know more about the universe than the culture it came out of. It could happen.
I have read (though I don’t understand) that the unexplained expansion of the universe can be explained by some sort of negative energy - so while there is energy locally, the sum total of energy in the universe is 0. I almost understand the concept of dark matter, this concept I don’t get at all, though I haven’t had a chance to read any of the recent books on cosmology yet.
Uncaused events are only contradictions to the axiom that all events have a cause. This axiom comes from common sense, so is highly suspicious in the world of quantum physics! There is no apparent cause for the decay of a single radioactive atom at a particular time, though statistically everything gets very neat.
Did he imbue us with anything, or did he set up initial conditions such that intelligent creatures would evolve. Is free will (if there is such a thing) a certain byproduct of intelligence?
No, Fremont. My daughter went half time to Berkeley her senior year of high school and didn’t like it, and went to an expensive university instead.
Just want to jump in on this. Big Bang theory made a prediction - there should be cosmic background radiation at a certain temperature. The confirmation of this is what my friend Arno won his Nobel Prize for. Not finding it would have falsified the theory.
The red shift is similar. You can check the predictions of distance vs. time in several ways, and they have been confirmed.
Brane theory is another matter. It is not far enough along to be teaching in school as a theory - perhaps a speculation for an extra credit paper. I doubt even its strongest proponents would suggest giving it equal weight as the Big Bang and the red shift.
We can tell the difference, you know.
Oh, and testability is not quite enough - you need falsifiability also. If ID claimed that all features were designed, that every was irreducibly complex, then it would be falsifiable. The claim that some are, and we haven’t quite come across them yet, is not. As you said, while flagellum are not designed, maybe something else is. No problem with Behe and anyone else looking for this structure, but let’s keep it out of the classroom until they find it.
I know I said I wasn’t going to respond, but this is too ludicruous for me to ignore.
Can you please explain to me how giving you three different references to answer your question hints that I’m the one who needs to go ask for clarification?
Let’s go back to the original quote.
Can you please quote me where I state that random variation is not a part of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?
I have not been confusing natural selection with Evolutionary theory. I have been equating The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection with the philosophy of Material Evolution. (Material Evolution is the philosophy that states that all life has physical (material) explanation. It may or may not be right, but it is the only thing that we can actually test.) I have never once denied that random variation is a part of the theory. I have explained that even those random variations are still subject to the physical laws of the universe. They are happening in a non-linear environment and are chaotic - that is, you can’t predict them. That does not mean that there is no random variation.
Then, in response to your statement “there has yet to be found an example of random variation that proves the entire theory is correct.” I attempt to show you that a.) science has no such thing as a “proof.” That is one of its limitations. Proof requires zero uncertainty; science will never have zero uncertainty. and b.) there are examples of random variation. I have mentioned them and linked to them.
1.) Then differentiate the two, please. Show me how your concept of ID is different than Aquinas’s other than you don’t give your god a name or claim morals from him/her/it.
2.) I ask you again, how do you test the supernatural using only natural means?
3.) What else is it? You admit that CA only supports deism. THAT’S A GOD. Maybe you prefer the phrase “supernatural entity”. Fine, great, wonderful; call it “Bob” for all I care. You still have not answered the fundamental question here: How do you test for a supernatural entity using only natural means? And this is not just “serving my purpose,” I am showing you the limitations of a philosophy that incorporates a supernatural being, and why introducing a supernatural element automatically takes an idea out of the realm of science. You have not been able to refute that (…other than questioning my motives.)
And for the umpteenth time, I have been showing why the people who believe in this set of untestable philosophies & disproven hypotheses continue to try to force it into mainstream science, without altering it in such a way as to make it testable. They do not have a scientific theory. They do not have evidence behind them to back up their assertions. They are trying to force into the “popular mind” a set of ideas that have not gone through the rigorous process of science. I would think that the motives of people trying to force such a “theory” upon the scientific community are emminently important.
You have not been able to refute any of the refutations of the hypotheses. All you can do is argue that “it might still be right” without showing me HOW. You have not been able to answer my questions about the fundamental issues that exist with this theory; you can only complain that I’m confusing ID proponents with Christians, which, I have not. One more time: I have shown how ID requires the same sort of untestable assumptions that CA requires; I have said that all ID proponents believe that the IDer is their god (of choice), which is one reason (with possibly ignorance of the state of the philosophy as the other) why they continue to back a dead horse.
The red shift is experimentally testable. The theory of the Big Bang makes the (also testable) prediction that stars that are further away from us would show a stronger red shift. String theory has some pretty math behind it; this math does make predictions, like, for instance, the existance of super heavy sparticles. Every String (or Brane) theorist that I have heard will admit that there is currently a darth of evidence supporting the theory. The fate of the theory is thus in a state of limbo while evidence is being compiled. String theory has yet to be accepted into the scientific community. (However, it has not made predictions that were tested and falsified.) But, instead of trying to force this theory into all physics curricula, string theorists allow dissenting physicist their own curricula.
And I ask you again, what criteria do you then use to evaluate a scientific theory?
I don’t teach french in my science class. I don’t teach shakespeare. I don’t teach Neitzche. I don’t teach about angels, demons, or deities. I don’t teach about the subatomic aether. I don’t care how many scientists accept the prime mover; none of them can test it; if they teach it, they are no longer teaching science. This includes some of my all time heroes, like Stephen Hawking.
That’s right. I’m a big mean ol’ scientist-elite trying to keep ideas out of the classroom, for no reason other than I just don’t like them. COULD YOU PLEASE ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS. Once you’ve done that, go look up the words you don’t understand. Then come back and try to answer my questions.
There are criteria for what counts as science. You seem to be mistaken on what those creteria are. I have even gone on to say that those ideas that do not fit the criteria of science may still be right! But if they cannot be tested as science, they have no business being in the science classroom.
No. I am aware of only the top-level players in the field. I accept your characterization of the people you mentioned. Whether others, like Jonathan Wells and Duane Gish (who I have only passing familiarity with) ascribe to Creationism I do not know. Nor do I care. I do not ascribe to it, and as I’ve mentioned, their motives are of no importance. I am willing to accept their arguments on the main issue sand leave Creationism out of it. The big question is: is the concept of an intelligent designer valid. Everything else is incidental. The concept of an intelligent designer is of interest to me as a personal matter, stemming mainly from the idea of First Cause. I do find the idea of irreducible complexity an interesting one that has merit. From a purely probabilistic viewpoint I think that Darwinism might actually be able to account for systems like flagellum or the eye or the ear or human sexual reproduction or many others. But not all of them.
I would add: let’s say Darwinism can account for everything and the ID is all hot air. I can see no better way to reveal that than to discuss it in science class, where it will be scrutinized. Let’s say a kid finds irreducible complexity interesting and thinks it is correct. Wouldn’t it be great if the teacher asked him to look into the matter and do a report on flagellum or probability. How possible do you think it is that you will win the lottery? Not very, but absolutely possible. But how about winning two lotteries—consecutively. Or three or ten or twenty? I say consecutively because the eye would have to have evolved around the same time as legs and a mouth. Otherwise we must believe that hundreds of systems as complex as the eye did, in fact, form, but were parts of organisms that didn’t make it.
I have no desire to convince of others of what I believe. I speak out only because I think that kids should get a more complete picture of the theoretical landscape concerning our origins. I see in some the same zeal and close-mindedness that I see in rabid Evangelicals, and I have the same reaction: a combination of simultaneously wanting to run away and to shove their bibles idown their throats—whether it’s King James or Darwin. (Both of which I think have high value.)
The point I was making was that the both the Big Bang and the red shift that indicates an expanding, accerlating universe are now being questioned. So these were theories that were accepted by science and are now thought to possibly be incorrect, yet they were, and are, taught in science classes (often as fact, I would add). And I think that any class on the origins of the universe would today discuss brane theory. And rightly so.
Tell me, what would be the problem with telling kids in science class something like this:
a lot about how we came to be here can be explained through science, but maybe not everything
the things we are not sure about today science may very well be able to explain tomorrow. A view of history makes this very likely. (Examples)
there might also be things that science may never be able to explain
for those things we cannot explain, some have offered non-traditional explanations
one has to do with an interesting concept called irreducible complexity (explanation)
another has to do with something called the First Cause (explanation)
these theories fall outside the realm of traditional science, but they have not been proven and may not be provable, yet they may be correct
remember, a scientist must have the discipline to scrutinze ideas with intellectual vigor anfd honesty, yet he should keep an open mind
your homework assignment is to explain the role that hydrogen played in the formation of our cosmos
Do you think that something like that would contort the idea of scientific inquiry and theory? I don’t. In fact, I’d say it would give kids a more accurate and fuller picture of both those concepts, as well as a more complete understanding of the possible explanations regarding how we got here. What do you think?
Duane Gish is a YEC liar. I say that with absolute sincerity. He is not a scientist. He has been caught making outrageous claims in debates and has been forced to retract them, then has repeated the same false claims in later debates and publications.
I do not know much about Wells. I do know that his recent book on the subject of Evolution is misleading and wrong, but whether he is deceptive (like Gish and Hovind) or whether he is simply sincerely mistaken I do not know.
As to the treaching of Intelligent Design in science classes: do you also support the teaching of Holocaust denial in History classes? I would be willing to see each taught the same way: “Here is an example of nonsense that some people, for whatever motive, are willing to claim, but there is no basis to their claims.” Following which the teacher supplies a list of the errors in fact and logic used to support them, then closes the topic. Total class time devoted to them, no more than ten minutes out of a year.
I just want to second this. The whole business about “teach both theories and let the students decide” is just a weaselly way to get ID into the classroom w/o going thru the rigorous process of having a hypthesis stand up to scrutiny. Why not teach about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster? The answer is very simple-- they are not established scientific theories. The world has no lack of hypotheses that have not been verified.
Let the IDers do some science (if that’s even possible) and validate their hypothesis and then we’ll teach it in our schools.
Are you trying to say that the claims about a Holocaust are true?!!
Seriously, this is the level of discourse that I have no desire to engage in. I’m surprised, truly, that you would stoop to it. Equating the denial of Holocaust with ID? Do you really think they’re equivalent? I guess you do. I cannot fathom being so protective of some supposed purity of the science classroom that you feel the need to throw out such hyperbole to skew the argument. Why didn’t you just default to the usual tooth fairy, pink unicorn nonsense?
Are you saying that the claims of the ID proponents are true?
We have, so far:
Johnson, a lawyer who has no scientific background whining philosophical objections to science he does not understand;
Dembski, a sort-of-scientist who uses bad math to attack strawman positions;
Behe, who claims to have found a problem with neo-Darwinian Natural Selection, but whose every concrete example has been refuted;
Gish, a YEC liar;
and
Wells, a critic who has published an attack on textbooks while getting the actual science of the examples he cites wrong.
Where is the science (or the scientist who has a genuine theory) regarding Intelligent Design? With no actual science to teach, just what do you want the biology teachers to say in class?
I cannot believe that you are so devoted to putting error into classrooms as to get so upset about my comparison. I cannot fathom being so protective of pseudoscience that you would feel the need to to pretend that a very fair comparison is hyperbolic.
If you think that there is any point in throwing pseudoscience into biology classrooms, I would really like to see why you feel that way. So far, we have not seen one single example of science associated with Intelligent Design. I have not seen any reference to a genuine scientist* who has actually promoted the pseudoscience of ID.
Behe comes close, but every single claim he has made has been refuted and he has demonstrated a remarkable disingenuity throughout his career, which pretty much destroys any reason to include his errors in science classes.
(I left out #9 on purpose; I think any number of questions would fit in there.)
Magellan, I don’t have any problem with teaching this at all. I think that’s actually an excellent way to look at the debate. If this is what was trying to be placed in the curricula, I don’t think I would have an issue with it, so long as…
a.) it was included in a unit on issues in science, critical thinking, or some such
b.) intelligent design was not being presented as a theory on par with the the ToEbNS &
c.) its current level of experimental validity were also presented, along with the current level of experimental validity of the ToEbNS.
That being said, logistically, that’s a lot to add to any curriculum. Personally, when I return to teaching (currently on a leave of absence to finish my grad work), I am going to try to push for an entire class (upper level elective) to tackle such issues.
I think that your wording here has changed the debate greatly.
The proponents pushing for ID introduction into the curricula (the ones involved with the legal cases, that I’ve seen), are trying to introduce it as an equally valid theory. Under the guidelines of science, it has not been shown to have the same validity. If the above quote represents what you would like to see added to the curricula, I don’t believe you are saying the same thing as the ID proponents involved in the legal battle.
I fully agree with Kenneth Miller’s version of the infamous sticker. It should read “Everything in science should be approached with critical thinking and an open mind.”
The Holocaust example shows that in each field there are things espoused by a tiny, tiny minority - and those things have no place in a classroom teaching what is generally accepted. If you don’t like that, how do you feel about teaching homeopathy in biology as a possible alternative to germ theory?
What do you think the purpose of science class is? I think it is:
to teach facts, such as the names of the organs.
to teach the widely accepted and important theories, and the math that goes with them, where appropriate. This includes evolution, gravity and the Big Bang.
to teach the scientific method. This should include the concept that science evolves, that it gets things wrong. When I was a kid I learned about plogiston and spontaneous generation as part of this.
If I ruled the world, I’d teach ID as an example of how politics can impact science, and as an example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis. But that would raise an incredible stink.
There are thousands of hypotheses out there as well or better supported than ID. Why teach it, except for the fact that some religious people are bent out of shape, still, by evolution? The reason that the motivation of IDers is relevant, despite your objections, is that these are the only things that explain why they want to get an unverified and unsupported hypothesis treated as almost the equal to a theory with a century and a half of support. I’d suspect that if these guys had a sudden conversion to atheism (or Buddhism) they’d drop ID like a hot fossil. Don’t you?
I wasn’t going to respond to this claims of this stripe, because I honestly think they demean the debate. But since you two, and Voyager to a lesser degree, have both brought it up, I think discussion might be healthy.
I think there is a world of difference in whether there is an intelligent designer and whether the Holocaust happened or Big Foot or Nessie actually exist. Here’s why: take a hundred of the top scientists in the world (historians in the case of the Holocaust) and ask them if they’d prefer to stake their reputations either on the theory that an intelligent designer played a role in our beginnings or if he didn’t. Then ask those hundred scientists if they’d prefer to stake those same reputations either on the theory that Nessie actually exists or not. Ditto for Big Foot, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, etc. For the historians, have them have to bet their reputations on whether or not the Holocaust actually took place.
Go through the results in your head. See the difference. I would wager that a majority of the top scientists would say that an intelligent designer did play a role. I doubt that (hope that) any of the other numbers would be over two.
So, we’re talking about an issue in science class that science admits it does not have the answer to. A good/great number of the most respected people in the field believe the theory probably has some degree of validity and can answer the questions science can’t. And you conclude that the best thiing to do is to withhold that information. I cannot fathom this opinion. I understand that you hang your argument on testability and falsifiability. I also think those are good rules of thumb. But to follow these guidelines so slavishly that you withhold informaton that many experts give credence seems irresponsible and unfair to the kids. Taking such a dogmatic approach seems anathema to science in some respects: It closes the mind, it withholds information. it judges what it cannot explain, it indoctrinates kids into the same myopic, prejudiced viewpoint. In short, it, ironically, adopts the same tactics of a religious cult.
Now, I mentioned in a previous post how I think this notion of an intelligent deigner (and irreducible complexity) could be woven into the curriculum. Let me expand on that. They should only be brought up when the concepts of the big bang or macro evolution is discussed. The concept of natural selection alone needn’t spark a mention of IC, but when positing that Darwinism can account for the complete evolution from single-celled organism to man, the possible problems with that theory should be brought up and the alternate explanation as accepted by many leading scientists. When Big Bang theory is brought up, kids should be taught that there is basically no agreed upon theory until T=.000whatever seconds, and that one of the theories that might explain it more fully or offer completely different theories might take into account the idea of Prime Mover as an answer to the First Cause.
I’d be interested in hearing what you both might think of this and the post where I had number 1-9.
I’m glad that we’re communicating. The concrete does have some benefits over the theoretical.
Regarding your a, b, and c: I actually would not want to make it a special deal. I wouldn’t want kids to think they had to choose bewteen two outlooks or that there was this full-fledged alternative to hard-core science. As I mentioned in my post just prior to this one. I wold bring it up only when the subjects it touches on are raised. And I would do this in a very minor way. I certainly wouldn’t harp on it. I just don’t think it should be shut out entirely. I agree with B & C completely, as long as you were honest about the questions behind Darwinism, as well.
Small nit: we still, I don’t think, don’t see eye-to-eye on what Darwinism is. When you say ToEbNS, I take that to be half of the full theory of evolution, the micro part that explains how species are hones and shaped by environmental factors. I hesitaste to gert into this again, but Darwinism requires that AND another completely independent phenomenon, the macro half: random variation. I must not be explaining this well, but I don’t know how else to put it. There are two forces at work, antural slectiuon that shapes and hones. And random variation, the type caused by radioactivity or lightining or something else that would allow larger leaps in evolution than naturaal selection. True, once these leaps happen, natural selection can then hone them, but they are truly separate. If they are not, then the variation is not truly random, and you are moving away from Darwinism toward intentional ends, as with an intelligent designer.
I think you’d find more scientist in the Bigfoot/Nessie camp than in the Tooth Fairy/Easter Bunny camp.
But let’s be clear. Do you mean a designer as in 1) “started the Big Bang” or 2) “ignited the first spark of life”? Or do you mean a designer as in 3) “tinkered with life during the course of evolution (ie, fiddled with DNA iteslf)”?
It’s the last bit that most people object to teaching in science class, but given that there still is ZERO scientific evidence for the first two meanings, they don’t have any place in a science class either. I also don’t think you’d get any more scientists agreeing with 3) than you would agreeing that Bigfoot or Nessie should be taught in science class.
Further, though, it’s not about which idea is more far fetched. Just because an Intelligent Designer is more likely than the Tooth Fairy still has no bearing on whether or not you teach ID in school (and we’re talking public school science class here). If all a theory has to be is more likely than the Tooth Fairy, that’s setting the bar way, way, too low.
Maybe I’m wrong and we are on the same page. If so, I was thrown by ToEbNS. In my mind it shold be ToEbNSaRV. If you were just you shorthand (which I guess you actually were) we understand each other.
