One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[HansTrappist]

Nor has it been proven. Something that has not been proven false doesn’t not mean that it is true.

The problem with these discussions is one point is being proven true/false by one standard, and another point is being proven true/false by another standard.

Neither side has been proven, yet Darwinism is taught in the classroom as fact whilst the other theory is censored from the classroom. Hmmm???

There are not two standards here. Science only has one standard: the evidence. And the best evolutionary data available. - the studies of Malaria, HIV, and E.coli - strongly suggests that the most important mutations in the history of Life were not Random events.

The conclusion of Design is a strictly scientific conclusion based on what we observe in Nature but if it has theological implications, well, that’s too bad.

Genuine Science follows the evidence wherever it leads , no matter how much it offends us.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The conclusion of Design is a strictly scientific conclusion based on what we observe in Nature but if it has theological implications, well, that’s too bad.

It’s one conclusion, and as we know over the course of history, many “correct” conclusions turn out to be flat out wrong. We are only beginning to scratch the surface with our understanding of biology, and we’re filling in a lot of blanks with best guesses. A “conclusion” based on best guesses is anything but a certainty.

Genuine Science follows the evidence wherever it leads , no matter how much it offends us.

True. And guess what? It’s just as reasonable to conclude that in fact it was all a game of chance…unless you believe that God’s hands are tied and is incapable of doing such a thing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

True. And guess what? It’s just as reasonable to conclude that in fact it was all a game of chance…unless you believe that God’s hands are tied and is incapable of doing such a thing.

I am trying to understand how God would use “chance” as a mechanism, unless you mean that it appears to be “chance” but is really something profoundly inscrutable, i.e., planned by God to look like chance. But isn’t that the antithesis of Dawkins saying it has the appearance of design but really it is the result of blind, unguided chance processes.

I think we should say what we mean and mean what we say. If it turns out wrong, well, we’re wrong. We admit that and move forward.

 

[HansTrappist]

I am watching a 2-hour lecture given by Kenneth Miller,
real scientist and ROMAN CATHOLIC, and it turns out
that Michael J. Behe, “Ph.D.,” is wrong:

I went and searched for that part
of lecture for your convenience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

Are you implying that Behe is not a “real scientist and ROMAN CATHOLIC?”

By the way, Behe’s arguments have not been refuted yet and certainly not by Miller:

evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html

youtube.com/watch?v=V_XN8s-zXx4

trueorigin.org/behe03.asp

youtube.com/watch?v=luRGzVrr2Cs

youtube.com/watch?v=f_YYTdTDoA8

And here is Ken Miller giving false testimony in the Dover Trial:

youtube.com/watch?v=x8pgaG-t-0M

 

[StudentMI]

I am trying to understand how God would use “chance” as a mechanism, unless you mean that it appears to be “chance” but is really something profoundly inscrutable, i.e., planned by God to look like chance. But isn’t that the antithesis of Dawkins saying it has the appearance of design but really it is the result of blind, unguided chance processes.

I think we should say what we mean and mean what we say. If it turns out wrong, well, we’re wrong. We admit that and move forward.

I don’t read a lot of science. To be honest, it bores me to tears, so this post is really just my opinon backed up by nothing. I’m not trying to start a debate or anything.

Aren’t all these interpretations of ‘blind chance’ and ‘intelligent design’ kind of extraneous to science? They seem to me more like a subject of philosophy, specifically metaphysics.

 

[RPRPsych]

I am watching a 2-hour lecture given by Kenneth Miller,
real scientist and ROMAN CATHOLIC, and it turns out
that Michael J. Behe, “Ph.D.,” is wrong:

I went and searched for that part
of lecture for your convenience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

I wouldn’t take anything that Dr. Behe says too seriously. You can judge a man by the company he keeps, and I’m judging by this:

bbt.se/publication_others_RD.html

To disagree with evolutionary theory is one’s prerogative. To do so by joining hands with a cult like ISKCON, and publishing one’s work in a book that endorses Hindu cosmology, simply shows how irrational our hatreds can make us.

About the above book:

“The book also contains chapters on the latest in consciousness studies, reincarnation, paraphychology, and paranormal phenomena, and a final chapter proposing a Vedic understanding of how life began.”

As a Roman Catholic, I’d never think of publishing in any book that endorsed heresies like reincarnation, no matter how much I disliked secular science.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I am trying to understand how God would use “chance” as a mechanism, unless you mean that it appears to be “chance” but is really something profoundly inscrutable, i.e., planned by God to look like chance.

Chance may not be what we perceive to be chance. Simply look at thermodynamics. One of the things we discussed in thermodynamics was probability. As a specific example, gas in an enclosed space tends towards equilibrium. However, at any given moment the gas may not be in that state. All of the gas atoms/molecules could be packed in one of the corners at a particular point in time, with the rest of the space in the enclosed are void. Highly improbable, but possible.

It is just a possible that a highly improbable course of events could occur creating life. Support for that high improbability would start with no similar life being found elsewhere, consistent with the high improbability. The only problem with that hypothesis is that the beings created as a result of that highly improbable event might doubt that they are the result of that highly improbable event.

I think we should say what we mean and mean what we say. If it turns out wrong, well, we’re wrong. We admit that and move forward.

I’m the epitome of that, FWIW. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong and move on. Defense of a matter that is proven wrong is an utter waste of energy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t read a lot of science. To be honest, it bores me to tears, so this post is really just my opinon backed up by nothing. I’m not trying to start a debate or anything.

Aren’t all these interpretations of ‘blind chance’ and ‘intelligent design’ kind of extraneous to science? They seem to me more like a subject of philosophy, specifically metaphysics.

I would suggest to you that fields of knowledge are not separate and distinct from each other. Knowledge has reality as its object. As humans, we try to “know” the meaning or significance of what is, why it is and our place in reality.

Science is a formal approach to knowing. It uses specific tools and methods to make sense of physical reality. The meaning taken from physical reality has implications for how we view all of reality. On the other hand, the manner in which we understand all of reality has implications for how we see physical reality. In a real sense, we find what we seek - what is caught in the beam of the flashlight we point at physical reality.

Metaphysics and philosophy keep us open to where to look and science does the formal looking. It should be a working symbiotic relationship. Philosophy and metaphysics also are tasked with keeping science “honest” by comparing the specifics of what science tells us with our overall “sense” about the world - the “big picture.” Do the details fit with the big picture and does the big picture make sense of the details? Both are malleable, but not without good reason, i.e., a level of certainty.

The problems can come from the side of science - being too concerned with the details that the overall picture is distorted - or from the side of metaphysics - being too concerned with the “big picture” that we get disconnected from the ground of physical reality. Philosophy and logic is/are the “go between(s)” in this trinity. These specify the formal rules that serve to discipline both science and metaphysics.

It is only in modern times that science has become “uppity” and “know it all” like a rebellious teen that has lost respect for his older and wiser parents. He thinks he knows better and doesn’t need them any longer. It’s an adolescent stage we’re at.

 

[StudentMI]

I would suggest to you that fields of knowledge are not separate and distinct from each other. Knowledge has reality as its object. As humans, we try to “know” the meaning or significance of what is, why it is and our place in reality.

Science is a formal approach to knowing. It uses specific tools and methods to make sense of physical reality. The meaning taken from physical reality has implications for how we view all of reality. On the other hand, the manner in which we understand all of reality has implications for how we see physical reality. In a real sense, we find what we seek - what is caught in the beam of the flashlight we point at physical reality.

Metaphysics and philosophy keep us open to where to look and science does the formal looking. It should be a working symbiotic relationship. Philosophy and metaphysics also are tasked with keeping science “honest” by comparing the specifics of what science tells us with our overall “sense” about the world - the “big picture.” Do the details fit with the big picture and does the big picture make sense of the details? Both are malleable, but not without good reason, i.e., a level of certainty.

The problems can come from the side of science - being too concerned with the details that the overall picture is distorted - or from the side of metaphysics - being too concerned with the “big picture” that we get disconnected from the ground of physical reality. Philosophy and logic is/are the “go between(s)” in this trinity. These specify the formal rules that serve to discipline both science and metaphysics.

It is only in modern times that science has become “uppity” and “know it all” like a rebellious teen that has lost respect for his older and wiser parents. He thinks he knows better and doesn’t need them any longer. It’s an adolescent stage we’re at.

That makes sense. Thanks.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Chance may not be what we perceive to be chance. Simply look at thermodynamics. One of the things we discussed in thermodynamics was probability. As a specific example, gas in an enclosed space tends towards equilibrium. However, at any given moment the gas may not be in that state. All of the gas atoms/molecules could be packed in one of the corners at a particular point in time, with the rest of the space in the enclosed are void. Highly improbable, but possible.

It is just a possible that a highly improbable course of events could occur creating life. Support for that high improbability would start with no similar life being found elsewhere, consistent with the high improbability. The only problem with that hypothesis is that the beings created as a result of that highly improbable event might doubt that they are the result of that highly improbable event.

I’m the epitome of that, FWIW. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong and move on. Defense of a matter that is proven wrong is an utter waste of energy.

I agree, generally, with what you say. Except for one thing…

“Probability” seems to function as a placeholder for “we don’t know why.” Precisely because we don’t know the reason why, we invoke probability to “cover” for our ignorance.

Even making statements like “gas tends…” really means “we don’t actually get it, but we notice that …”

It may be that there are very clear, very demonstrable reasons or explanations for everything, including those highly improbable events that could be highly defined and predictable if we had a better grasp of the “workings.”

This is why the idea of “random mutations” rubs me the wrong way. It simply means we don’t know why the change happens, but there could be, and very likely are, definite reasons for it. It is incomplete science being passed off as “knowledge” when really it is ignorance. To use that ignorance as a lever against the idea of design is unjustified.

The field should be wide open to science, including ID science to figure out precisely why those changes happen. A pox on “random!”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

This is why the idea of “random mutations” rubs me the wrong way. It simply means we don’t know why the change happens, but there could be, and very likely are, definite reasons for it. It is incomplete science being passed off as “knowledge” when really it is ignorance. To use that ignorance as a lever against the idea of design is unjustified.

“…rubs me the wrong way…”
Logical Fallacy Yet Again:
** Argument From Personal Incredulity?**
In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not personally find
a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless of
evidence. The fallacy lies in presenting one’s beliefs about a propo-
sition as evidence.

Anyway, you want science to answer WHY, when WHY is not a scientific question. We can ask
HOW, HOW is a perfectly valid question for science to explore, but WHY is answered by God in
his Word, which no Creationist should try to put under a microscope and call it science.

Science will always be incomplete as long as there are yet many things to discover and learn.
Intelligent Design is by no means the answer, but is rather a pleasant story for people who do
not want to accept evolution, and need some sort of mental fortification against a science that
refuses to say “God.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

“…rubs me the wrong way…”
Logical Fallacy Yet Again:
** Argument From Personal Incredulity?**
In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not personally find
a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless of
evidence. The fallacy lies in presenting one’s beliefs about a propo-
sition as evidence.

Excellent. Personal incredulity is a fallacy

Except that it doesn’t apply here.

What possible evidence is there for thinking genetic changes are mostly random events?

I am not saying that I personally find random mutations to be unbelievable. I am saying that the evidence does not logically demonstrate that genetic changes are mostly random or due to random events.

What rubs me the wrong way is that genetic change is portrayed as the result of mostly random factors or that the genetic change itself is “random” when that has not been demonstrated. If it truly were, the results, in terms of body morphology or behaviour would be irregular and largely unsuccessful - not conducive to survival in the least.

 

[Farsight001]

The human population is made up of individuals. So, if society as a whole doesn’t evolve how can you say that individuals did? How are humans any different morally now than in the time of Genesis?

Again, evolution is basically adaptation to the environment. Hence not entire species, but populations living in the same environment evolve.

Honestly, humanity is bad to look at when you’re trying to understand this stuff. Our ability to travel anywhere in the world really blurs the lines of where individual populations are.

 

[meltzerboy]

I would suggest to you that fields of knowledge are not separate and distinct from each other. Knowledge has reality as its object. As humans, we try to “know” the meaning or significance of what is, why it is and our place in reality.

Science is a formal approach to knowing. It uses specific tools and methods to make sense of physical reality. The meaning taken from physical reality has implications for how we view all of reality. On the other hand, the manner in which we understand all of reality has implications for how we see physical reality. In a real sense, we find what we seek - what is caught in the beam of the flashlight we point at physical reality.

Metaphysics and philosophy keep us open to where to look and science does the formal looking. It should be a working symbiotic relationship. Philosophy and metaphysics also are tasked with keeping science “honest” by comparing the specifics of what science tells us with our overall “sense” about the world - the “big picture.” Do the details fit with the big picture and does the big picture make sense of the details? Both are malleable, but not without good reason, i.e., a level of certainty.

The problems can come from the side of science - being too concerned with the details that the overall picture is distorted - or from the side of metaphysics - being too concerned with the “big picture” that we get disconnected from the ground of physical reality. Philosophy and logic is/are the “go between(s)” in this trinity. These specify the formal rules that serve to discipline both science and metaphysics.

It is only in modern times that science has become “uppity” and “know it all” like a rebellious teen that has lost respect for his older and wiser parents. He thinks he knows better and doesn’t need them any longer. It’s an adolescent stage we’re at.

Hence we have the discipline known as the philosophy of science and also the type of psychology called philosophical psychology (or philosophy of psychology), as well as philosophy of mathematics. But there is also what is called pseudoscience (Karl Popper).

 

[Farsight001]

Nice bit of spontaneous “mythologizing.”

Yes, of course, Paley’s idea that nature appears and therefore is designed, is vastly different from the modern ID claim that nature appears designed and therefore we should look into whether it actually is. I see now that they are not even “remotely similar.”

Thanks for pointing that out.

His was essentially philosophical musings. Modern day ID, as I already pointed it, is literally creationism by another name. Paley’s idea actually didn’t necessarily contradict evolution, but merely suggested that it was all part of a grand design. ID does reject evolution. They are not the same.

Actually, the complaint is that they don’t receive a “fair” hearing because many who are in positions to determine what gets peer reviewed will not even consider the science behind ID for exactly the same reasons you don’t: “It’s not science.” They are testing their “pet idea,” but the testing is not allowed to be considered for peer review.

I’ve seen ID papers before. They don’t get considered because they’re usually basically lengthy essays, not actual research. half the time, they don’t even use the proper format. If I was in charge of a journal and an article came to me without an abstract in it, I wouldn’t even read it. I’d just throw it out. It’d be like failing to place the school you graduated from on a resume. No employer with standards would take such a thing seriously. And yet these pro-ID papers often lack such important things.

What’s more, as I already said earlier in this thread,only some 1 in 50 submissions make it into a scholarly journal. How many attempts at submissions have ID advocates made? It might have changed in recent years, but 5 years ago, it was just 12, and they had actually succeeded with one. So they had a much larger success rate than the scientific community at large, but then they were still complaining in exactly the same way - the other scientists won’t let them. And what an unjustified complaint. It seems not to have changed in that regard, either. Does it really never occur to you or them that they can’t get their papers published because they’re actually just horrible?

It can’t be tested because it’s not science and it’s not science because there is no testing.

No one said that. Its not science because there is no testing. No one suggested that it can’t be tested because its not science. It can’t be tested because its not falsifiable. And since it can’t be tested, it is therefor not science.

Heads I win, tails you lose.
Nice arrangement.

Well evolution has been proven true thousands of times over. We’re kind of working with a double headed coin, here because the game is over.

 

[Farsight001]

You asked for the snap judgement.
You got it.

Now you believe I am not being honest because my answer does not follow what you believe.

I asked for a simple answer minus silly, pointless, and time-wasting nitpicking. And no, I do not believe you are being honest, frankly. No one in their right mind would actually believe for one second that half a bullet proof vest is not better than no bullet proof vest when getting shot at. And since I am quite sure you are in your right mind, I don’t believe you actually think that.

 

[Farsight001]

Survival of the fittest obviously entails that what “fittest” means cannot be predetermined beforehand, so evolution theory cannot make predictions. Also, we cannot know with any great certainty whether the traits that actually survived were THE fittest to survive. There may have been unforeseen events that spoiled their chances. So really, we can’t remonstrate too much about the lack of connection between fitness and survival, but we do know that some living things did survive.

Fortunately, they are still on hand for us to make stuff up about. Fun ain’t it!

Oh, yea… …and we have this great theory.

Sure it can make predictions. Just not the kind you’re thinking of. Predictions can be made about something other than future events. I can “predict” what my parents got me for Christmas before I open the present, but after they bought it. Take Tiktaalik for example. Scientists saw a gap in the fossil record between fish and land animals. So what did they do? They predicted what it would look like and in what strata they would find it in and then went and looked for it and found fossils of exactly what they thought it would look like exactly where they thought it would be. Prediction made and confirmed.

 

[Farsight001]

We now see that the DNA code can be read forward and backward and has layers. If we randomly mutate it we may get a new meaning but destroy the others.

Really? Who is “we” that now sees this and why don’t the scientists know?

 

[Farsight001]

Common descent and natural selection are really quite trivial aspects of "Evolution " - no one denies these concepts, certainly not Mr. Behe.

Trivial? no. They are the engines that make evolution go. And Mr. Behe has, in fact, denied these concepts under oath. That he tells you he doesn’t deny them just makes him a liar, not a man who doesn’t deny them.

What is contested is the notion that random processes are solely responsible for the irreducible complexity and fine tuning we observe in Nature.

Once again, it is random mutation AND natural selection and many many times over has “irreducible complexity” been proven patently false.

Also, your continual caricature of ID as being not scientific is damaging your credibility. You might want to try some other tactic out of the playbook.

Your continual claim that it IS scientific, especially when it produces no experimentation or really anything else that would actually make it scientific, ruined your credibility long ago.

 

[Farsight001]

Posts 1167, 1181 and 1182 provide some clues.

If genetic decoding can arrive at something like an “interpretation” of the coding and layering of the coding, it might be possible to, say, find the pre-coding for later species embedded in the DNA of earlier species or perhaps it might be possible to make predictions that unlock future species. The issue is whether to treat DNA and RNA like a Rosetta Stone that contains a hidden and intelligent language or treat the coding as essentially an accidental genetic stew with no inherent “design” to it. Clearly the “random” proponents have one view of that option.

It seems clear, to me at least, that ignoring the possibility of design is a gross error. It may, in fact, be quite providential that we have vast computing power available today which might open just such a possibility of multilayer decoding and determining whether design is more than the “appearance” of it.

The problem, and it is with all such knowledge, is whether human beings are morally capable of handling that kind of access to the keys of life and what we will do with them. Kind of scary, actually, since our ability to understand ethical matters lags far behind our technical abilities, which makes me hope all the more that an Intelligent Designer be there to keep us from making disastrous errors.

I’m sorry, but none of that even remotely explained how ID might be falsifiable. To help, what I was always taught is that if you can’t incorporate the question into the answer, then its probably not actually an answer. Try “ID would be falsified if…”