Evolution! Did we come from monkeys?

[Steve_Andersen]

buffalo:

Bingo.

1. ID has no predictive capabilities. Any real theory must make predictions.

State some predictions about human evolution.

The basic general prediction for all evolution is that isolated populations will speciate either through genetic drift or through environmental pressures. This has been observed many times both in the wild and in the lab.

Human populations haven’t been separated long enough for speciation to occur but there is ample evidence of genetic drift and environmental adaptations. The most obvious is the variations in skin tones.

Skin color evolved in response to two chemical reactions that are affected by UV exposure. There was an interesting paper in Scientific American a few years ago that made a predictive map of skin color distribution which fit very well to actual natural distribution.

buffalo:

1. You call them leftovers. I call them commonalities. Not uncommon given the building blocks of life are the same.

Concession accepted

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Orogeny:

You’re welcome.

So do we put stickers on science books stating that relativity is only a theory and that there are other theories that some people accept as just as valid?

What is your definition of a scientific law?

Peace
Tim

What does my belief have to do with whether or not ID is science? Science is not a religion.

That’s a non-sequeter.

Your belief impinges on whether or not you can accept any argument based on ‘God’. Atheists do not accept ID indipendent of any “scientific method” argument.

ID does not need to be “scientific method” in order for it to have something valid to say about a particular scientific theory.
Darwanism as a theory must meet all objections (natural) to its domain. ID raises a natural objection, and attributes the natural objection to God. It is the natural objection, not the attribution which must be met by Darwanistic theory.

There may be a modification of the theory which is acceptable, but Darwin is no longer alive to modify his theory so it will need to be renamed.

As I mentioned earlier, I am a geologist not a biologist, so my understanding may be wrong, but it seems to me that the argument of irreducible complexity is based on the assumption that the subject just appeared in it’s present form.

Irreducable complexity merely shows that certain body parts or designs appeared in their present form. It does not suggest that these building blocks are not passed around, inherited, damaged by mutations, etc.

I don’t believe that that is an assumption most biologists would agree with.

We can take a poll if you like. “Science by vote!” but that isn’t very convincing…

My definition of Law?, a partial or complete codification of a theory which is to all experimental knowledge is never violated.

Darwin’s theory, if it is ‘mostly’ correct, could spawn several ‘laws’ which are codifications of the portions of the Darwinistic theory which have never been proven wrong over its entire history.
That is not to say these potential laws are identical to Darwin’s theory, but that they show the portions of Darwins theory which to all knowledge to this day are incontestable.

To give the general notion:

Newtons Laws are plural in describing a singular phenomina – motion.

p.s.
ID does predict one thing, certain structures will not evolve, and hence intermediate steps for these structures will not be found in the fossil record, e.g. they can-not exist.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Vern,

The very title of the thread is the ‘common notion’.
I didn’t write that title! If you look at my posts you will clearly see that I put ‘monkeys’ in quotes.

I enjoyed your post.

The number of non-sequeters in this thread is truly amazing!
(nothing personal), BUT

Have you noticed that ID doesn’t predict stock prices either?
Wow, nor does Darwanism!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Huiou Theou:

That’s a non-sequeter.

Your belief impinges on whether or not you can accept any argument based on ‘God’. Atheists do not accept ID indipendent of any “scientific method” argument.

Contrary to popular opinion, the validity of a belief is not correlated with the strength with which one holds that belief.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Huiou Theou:

ID does not need to be “scientific method” in order for it to have something valid to say about a particular scientific theory.

Actually, it does. You cannot critique science from a non-scientific viewpoint.
Huiou Theou:

Darwanism as a theory must meet all objections (natural) to its domain. ID raises a natural objection, and attributes the natural objection to God. It is the natural objection, not the attribution which must be met by Darwanistic theory.

Actually, ID raises no natural or scientific objections – see why we say, “You cannot critique science from a non-scientific viewpoint?” Until ID raises a valid SCIENTIFIC objection, it has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.
Huiou Theou:

There may be a modification of the theory which is acceptable, but Darwin is no longer alive to modify his theory so it will need to be renamed.

You seem to be laboring under the impression other people follow something called “Darwinism.” We don’t – we follow science, which routinely modifies, rejects, and adopts theories as new evidence is discovered. The particular theory we’re discussing here is called the Theory of Evolution.

 

[vern_humphrey]

First:
Huiou Theou:

The number of non-sequeters in this thread is truly amazing!
(nothing personal), BUT

Then;
Huiou Theou:

Have you noticed that ID doesn’t predict stock prices either?
Wow, nor does Darwanism!

Hmmmm . . .

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

That’s a non-sequeter.

Your belief impinges on whether or not you can accept any argument based on ‘God’. Atheists do not accept ID indipendent of any “scientific method” argument.

So, what do I believe? Do I accept God?

Do you suggest that scientists that outright reject ID reject all arguments based on God and are therefore all athiests?

ID does not need to be “scientific method” in order for it to have something valid to say about a particular scientific theory.

It may be theologically valid, but it is not scientifically valid.

Darwanism as a theory must meet all objections (natural) to its domain. ID raises a natural objection, and attributes the natural objection to God. It is the natural objection, not the attribution which must be met by Darwanistic theory.

Right. ID raises a natural objection based on a supernatural belief. Sounds like a supernatural objection to me.

p.s.
ID does predict one thing, certain structures will not evolve, and hence intermediate steps for these structures will not be found in the fossil record, e.g. they can-not exist.

So what evidence will it take to prove that negative?

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Orogeny:

So, what do I believe? Do I accept God?

Do you suggest that scientists that outright reject ID reject all arguments based on God and are therefore all athiests?

There are two problems with ID (That’s Capital I, Capital D, , patent applied for.)

The first is that it is a grab-bag of religious beliefs which you are expected to accept and defend if you accept ID.

The second is that it isn’t anything else – there’s no science, no theory, nothing behind it beyond that.

In other words, ID is a lot like Free Masonry – a sort of pseudo-religion, based on some twisted interpretations.

As Catholics, we are not obliged to reject science, nor to raise phony arguments against it. There is no conflict between Catholicism and valid science. Therefore there is no reason to get on the ID (Capital I, Capital D, , patent applied for) train.

 

[rossum]

vern humphrey:

You cannot critique science from a non-scientific viewpoint.

Not strictly true. Anyone can critique science from a non-scientific viewpoint, but any such critique will be scientifically valueless and thus have no effect on science.

buffalo:

State some predictions about human evolution.

Certainly:

• no fossil will ever be found that is intermediate between a bird and a hominid.
• humans will continue to evolve and adapt to their environemnt.

rossum

 

[Donald45]

surf(name removed by moderator)ure:

That sounds to me like a perfect argument for a common designer, not a common ancestor.

Why not both? Why must we cast this issue in an “either/or” format? Catholic theology affirms that God often works by means of secondary, rather than primary, causality in order to accomplish his purposes. My daughter was born following a nine-month material process of gestation (a secondary, natural cause), but I would still say that she was “created” (“designed”) by God. So, while life evolved naturally on earth (a scientific explanation), this was accomplished through the providential activity of the Creator (a theological explanation). Seeing the issue in “either/or” terms seems unnecessary.

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

Please everyone, let’s get this all straight. Intelligent Design is the theory that the Universe is so diverse and complex that it is impossible that it could have come into existance through mere coincidence. ID is a direct challenge to ATHEISM not Evolution. Most Atheists claim Evolution as a proof that God does not exist. Intelligent Design detaches Atheism from Evolution, which is why so many are defensive towards ID. The truth is many Atheists use the science of Evolution to (illegally) bring their Atheism into Schools and Colleges.

The Fact is, Science is the explaination of the Natural World. The question of whether or not a God had a hand in our Creation is a Philosophical question. Science can help our inference for design, which is what scientists like Dr. Michael Behe talk about, but it cannot prove or disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. So please Christians, let’s stop all the bickering and accept the Truth: irregardless of how long it took, God Created our Elegant Universe.

 

[vern_humphrey]

rossum:

Not strictly true. Anyone can critique science from a non-scientific viewpoint, but any such critique will be scientifically valueless and thus have no effect on science.

Like Owen Glendower.

“I can call up spirits from the vasty deep.”

"So can I. So can any man. But when you call, do they answer?"http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Do you suggest that scientists that outright reject ID reject all arguments based on God and are therefore all athiests?

No, but I do suggest a permutation of that statement.
Atheists reject God, and therefore ID.
Are you an atheist? (That’s not a suggestion it is an interrogative).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

p.s.
ID does predict one thing, certain structures will not evolve, and hence intermediate steps for these structures will not be found in the fossil record, e.g. they can-not exist.

So what evidence will it take to prove that negative?

You cannot prove a ‘negative’, you can show a counter example.

All the ID group needs to do is show a design which is irreducably complex, and the evoltion group needs to show that the counter example is not irreducably complex. It may take awhile.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Huiou Theou:

No, but I do suggest a permutation of that statement.
Atheists reject God, and therefore ID.

That simply doesn’t follow.
Huiou Theou:

Are you an atheist? (That’s not a suggestion it is an interrogative).

Do you accept Michael Behe as an authoritative source of Catholic doctrine?

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Rejecting ID for the scientific nonsense that it is has no bearing on ones personal faith

On the contrary, why would a serious person of faith insult God by putting Him on the same footing with gravitation or any other measurable, observable, natural phenomenon?

ID, the watchmaker, and irreducible complexity are all really variations on the God of the Gaps problem. It is a losing proposition.

Let’s be smart enough not to go there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Steve Andersen:

Rejecting ID for the scientific nonsense that it is has no bearing on ones personal faith

On the contrary, why would a serious person of faith insult God by putting Him on the same footing with gravitation or any other measurable, observable, natural phenomenon?

ID, the watchmaker, and irreducible complexity are all really variations on the God of the Gaps problem. It is a losing proposition.

Let’s be smart enough not to go there.

And before we go hallooing off after Michael Behe and Company, let us ask ourselves, “Are these people Catholic Bishops? Do they have the Magisterium?”

 

[Orogeny]

Huiou Theou:

Are you an atheist? (That’s not a suggestion it is an interrogative).

What do you think? Based on the position that I have taken on evolution and against ID, that is.

Peace

Tim

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As Catholics, we are not obliged to reject science, nor to raise phony arguments against it. There is no conflict between Catholicism and valid science. Therefore there is no reason to get on the ID (Capital I, Capital D, , patent applied for) train.
Reply With Quote

hmmm…

We are required to reject polygenism which is one scientific theory.
We are not required to believe in evolution, either, as Catholics.
The Catholic position is that one may believe in evolution, not that one must.

Now, I happen to believe that some form of evolution took place (at the moment), because the evidence looks really good.
I might change my mind, however, if I found out that much of the evidence has been misinterpreted or falsified.

I do believe in God, and the Catholic Church as his institution.

The point about Darwanism is this: Even though I used a very specific theory as an example, people tended to defend it arbitrarily. It was my express intent on entering this thread to get people to define what they mean by evolution. There are many theories – and the generalizations make the topic impossible.
What is taught in school is a particular theory – otherwise you are not teaching science, but philosophy.

I have heard only one definition of evolution, and that is an increase in the gene pool for a population. It isn’t a very good definition for there are lots of exceptions.

This is something I agree with.

That’s the way science works. A hypothesis merely has to be supported by the preponderance of the evidence to be accepted as a theory. It isn’t an all or nothing proposition. That is why we have scientists; to do more reasearch and refine our theories.

It points out that a given theory is really a belief in a model, which may have serious defects in it.

One has to have faith in something to be a scientist.

 

[Orogeny]

You cannot prove a ‘negative’, you can show a counter example.

All the ID group needs to do is show a design which is irreducably complex, and the evoltion group needs to show that the counter example is not irreducably complex. It may take awhile.

All the ID group must do is prove that a design is irreducibly complex.

Peace

Tim

 

[vern_humphrey]

Orogeny:

All the ID group must do is prove that a design is irreducibly complex.

Peace

Tim

Which, of course, they cannot do.