Evolution or Intelligent Design?

[Cornish Steve]

At risk of boring everyone even more, let me return to Hayles' request: "Can someone provide reasons to believe in evolution or to believe in ID." One of the most powerful arguments for ID and against evolution is the phenomenon of irreducible complexity. In a nutshell, this means that some components of living organisms (such as the human eye) only have meaning when thousands of individual components work together in concert. In itself, each component performs no useful function. In other words, the complex item cannot be reduced to a collection of meaningful elemental items. How on earth could such complex items ever evolve randomly? Let me quote a passage from a relevant website:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than one millionth of a microgram, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

I challenge any evolutionist to provide a credible answer to the problem of irreducible complexity.

 

[mumper]

No, I'm not happy with just accepting the statement that the earth is billions of years old, and the sheer volume of writing in support of that view leaves me unconvinced

Steve, as you are confident enough in yourself to dispute what has long been accepted by most as the truth about the earth's age(and I do mean confident not arrogant) I have a question that has bugged me for a long time and I would value an opinion from you, and it is a serious question not a joke.

People usually refer to the wind 'blowing' - but how do we know it's not being 'sucked' out somewhere?

 

[cjd]

No, I'm not happy with just accepting the statement that the earth is billions of years old, and the sheer volume of writing in support of that view leaves me unconvinced (which just goes to show how arrogant I can be ). I admit that the earth might be a little older than 5,000 years, but I'm reserving judgment beyond that. If the existentialist assumption is valid, which is very questionable, there is some evidence that the earth is very old; however, it's largely speculation. Who was there? Who really knows? There is no incontrovertible proof. It's a matter of faith on your part if you believe it. I prefer to sit on the fence at this point.

If we can't get beyond agreeing that the earth is no older than 5000 years old we might as well abandon the chase. I can't let you sit on the fence on such an indisputable scientific position. If you can't agree that the earth is older than it is possible to be for the bible stories to be literally true your arguments are just argumentative and not evidence based science.

[note - I am not asking you to accept that the earth is 5 billion years old (yet) - just that it is old enough to prove the bible wrong and I'm not calling scientists who believe in creationism 'whacky' (yet) and the fact that some of them might believe it is irrelevant to the argument]

 

[DotNetWebs]

One scientist about a century ago - I think his name was Eddington - suggested that the universal constants may not be constants. Instead, he suggested that they are now on the tail of an asymptote. This is a fascinating idea. Just imagine the implications if every constant (speed of light, gravitational constant, electric constant, magnetic constant, Planck's constant, etc.) was 10x or even a 100x greater a few thousand years ago. What would this do to our thinking about ages of species? Suddenly, the creationist's view that marine creatures preceded man by just a few days becomes believable. And since we were never there, who's to say this guy's idea isn't right?

You don't need scientific constants to work out the relative age of species. Any amateur geologist can work this out by looking at sedimentary formations.

 

[Cornish Steve]

You don't need scientific constants to work out the relative age of species. Any amateur geologist can work this out by looking at sedimentary formations.

The point is that, if the constants are increased 10x, then time is increased by 10x. If the constants changed in different ratios, time from earth's perspective could change many times faster than relative time. (In a sense, this is similar to Einstein's view on time.) Do you see the point? While it doesn't change the proposed order of species, it most definitely changes the time frames.

In the end, all of our arguments rest on certain assumptions. I'm just pointing out that we must have faith in those assumptions for current thinking to hold true. It's fair for others to build hypotheses on different assumptions.

 

[Cornish Steve]

If we can't get beyond agreeing that the earth is no older than 5000 years old we might as well abandon the chase. I can't let you sit on the fence on such an indisputable scientific position. If you can't agree that the earth is older than it is possible to be for the bible stories to be literally true your arguments are just argumentative and not evidence based science.

I really don't mean to sound argumentative. I'm just trying to point out that scientists must have faith in something. The mainstream assumption is that everything has always been the way it is today. This means that the universal constants are unchanged, that the composition of the earth's atmosphere is unchanged, that the temperature is largely unchanged, that chemicals react the same way, and that no external force acts on the earth's changes. Science has to assume something but, in the end, it's a matter of faith.

The point I am making is that it's reasonable to build hypotheses on a different set of starting assumptions. The ID proponents change just one assumptions from the list: They are willing to consider that an external force acted.

In many ways, I'm a mainstream thinker; however, as a scientist, I was trained to challenge everything. I'm not claiming that the earth is 5,000 years old. I'm just pointing out that no one can claim it is billions of years old without having as much faith in existentialism as others have in a creator.

 

[Cornish Steve]

No, I'm not happy with just accepting the statement that the earth is billions of years old, and the sheer volume of writing in support of that view leaves me unconvinced

Steve, as you are confident enough in yourself to dispute what has long been accepted by most as the truth about the earth's age(and I do mean confident not arrogant) I have a question that has bugged me for a long time and I would value an opinion from you, and it is a serious question not a joke.

People usually refer to the wind 'blowing' - but how do we know it's not being 'sucked' out somewhere?

This is an excellent point. Some of the terms we use in daily life have connotations that we often don't think about. Others include sunrise and sunset, which take us back to a long-gone era.

As you rightly point out, the wind is simply the movement of air from a point of high pressure to a point of low pressure. Depending on your perceptive, it is blown (from high pressure) or sucked (from low pressure).

 

[cjd]

I'm just pointing out that no one can claim it is billions of years old without having as much faith in existentialism as others have in a creator.

I've said about 3 or 4 times now that I'm not asking you to agree that the earth is billions of years old - that is another issue entirely.

I'm asking you to agree that it is provably older than the bible says it is.

And you've dogded it again.

The point is that you'd be hard pushed to find any scientist 'whacky' or otherwise claiming that the earth is only 5,000 years old - it's as demonstably wrong as saying it's flat or at the centre of the universe - it's plain anti-science.

It seems you have an extraordinarily high standard of proof requirement for obvious and known facts whilst having an extreemly low standard of proof requirement for any theory that may throw doubt on a standard scientific theory. Now why might that be ;-)

 

[Cornish Steve]

It seems you have an extraordinarily high standard of proof requirement for obvious and known facts whilst having an extreemly low standard of proof requirement for any theory that may throw doubt on a standard scientific theory. Now why might that be ;-)

I'm sorry if I come across that way; I try to be fair and objective. It's just that there's such an overwhelming majority of people who are just willing to go with the flow that I naturally react against it. Even in your message you refer to 'obvious and known facts'; it's almost natural to say these things. The truth is, however, that no one knows the age of the earth for sure because no one was there.

Back to the real issue in hand: Is ID a credible alternative to evolution? I'd like to repeat questions that went previously unanswered:

1) What is evolution's answer to the problem of irreducible complexity?

2) Why does the fossil record not back up evolutionary claims that one species evolved into another?

3) Where in the natural world is there an example of the law of entropy failing so that order can evolve from chaos, and complex life forms from elemental life forms?

4) Why has evolution become as much a holy grail as the flat earth society was to previous generations?

5) Do evolutionists have as much faith in existentialism as creationists do in a creator?

No avoiding the questions, please. ...and since it's almost upon us, Merry Christmas!

 

[cjd]

I try to be fair and objective. It's just that there's such an overwhelming majority of people who are just willing to go with the flow that I naturally react against it. Even in your message you refer to 'obvious and known facts'; it's almost natural to say these things. The truth is, however, that no one knows the age of the earth for sure because no one was there.

Um no. I am saying that you are absolutely not being fair and objective. You have now avoided answering a basic and critical question with fundamental relevance to evolution several times so what are we to assume? I'm now forced to think that you somehow can't accept some scientific facts that are non-controversial for religious reasons.

You simply can not skirt round this issue:

Even in your message you refer to 'obvious and known facts'; it's almost natural to say these things. The truth is, however, that no one knows the age of the earth for sure because no one was there.

It quite simply is not in dispute that the earth is more than 5000 years old except by literal believers in creationism. There is no science, at all, anywhere, that says different. Prove me wrong.

I'd love nothing more than to discuss the work done on irreducable complexity - it's a great and intereseting argument but I feel that all I'd be doing is making PR for the creationists.

Time to come out of your closet I think.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Thanks for your patience with me. I've looked back through this message thread to find the question that you believe I am avoiding. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'll phrase it this way: Is the earth provably older than 5,000 years?

As a scientist, I repeat my answer - no, it is not! We can prove that the earth is not at the centre of the universe; there are several ways to do that. We can prove that the earth is not flat; I've circled the globe many times already. We cannot, however, prove that the earth is more than 5,000 years old. Tell me what experiment could ever prove it with certainty? We can't go back in time, so we have to infer based on certain assumptions. Inferring is not proving.

Is it reasonable that conditions today (as defined earlier) have existed for, say, 10,000 years? Yes, it is. If this assumption is true, we can infer that the earth is at least 10,000 years old. Have conditions remained the same for one million years? Who knows, but let's say that it's 99% likely. Have conditions remained the same for 100 million years? Again, who knows? Let's say it's 90% likely. Have they remained the same for a few billion years? Frankly, no one has a clue. To believe it, you must have faith in your assumptions.

From the perspective of ID, do we know for sure that no external force has acted on the earth for a billion years? No, we don't - and many speculate that a meteorite acted and caused the downfall of dinosaurs. Do we know that an intelligent force created conditions suitable for life? No, we don't. However, there's considerable evidence to support the assumption, the universal constants and irreducible complexity being just two of them. Can a supporter of ID prove that the hypothesis is true? No way... but neither can the evolutionist. We have to stick with our hypotheses and further develop them to fit the facts. The answer is not for governments, the popular press, or even for mainstream science to step in and declare that only one hypothesis is allowed. That's going back to the Dark Ages.

You have now avoided answering a basic and critical question with fundamental relevance to evolution several times so what are we to assume?

I hope I've answered the question this time.

I'm now forced to think that you somehow can't accept some scientific facts that are non-controversial for religious reasons.

Not at all. I'm coming at this as a scientist who insists on remaining true to the scientific method. I would point out that we are not arguing over facts; we're arguing whether prevailing majority opinion should be allowed to dictate that a working hypothesis is fact.

There have been some excellent articles in scientific journals about the scientific method and how too many of the profession start with a conclusion and then try to fit facts to it. (I don't mean to imply that you are one of them, because you're not; however, some individuals look for public acclaim - as in the case of the inventor of the brontosaurus.)

It quite simply is not in dispute that the earth is more than 5000 years old except by literal believers in creationism. There is no science, at all, anywhere, that says different. Prove me wrong.

I hope I made my case. Maybe we are differing on a point of terminology. My point is that no one can prove with certainty that the earth is old. The best we can do is have faith in our assumptions and infer that it is.

I'd love nothing more than to discuss the work done on irreducable complexity - it's a great and interesting argument but I feel that all I'd be doing is making PR for the creationists.

Now you're becoming fixated with creationists and their 5,000 years! I really am not promoting any one view over another, just trying to give alternatives to evolution the right to make their case. Today's society is vitriolic in its attack against anyone who so much as questions that evolution is not "a fact". (I'm not inventing this; this is what judges have been saying in the US.) By the way, you have been polite and gracious in all your responses, for which I'm grateful.

Time to come out of your closet I think.

I'm not hiding in one. The truth is that I am a Newtonian on this. Sir Isaac Newton once wrote that there will always be things that we do not know; I fully agree with him. Based on the evidence, I am tempted to support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design as equally valid to the hypothesis of evolution.

 

[Jayne]

lol Steve, they're getting longer :lol:

Jayne

 

[Cornish Steve]

Thank goodness the system counts number of posts and not number of words.

 

[multilingual]

Far be it fo me to stick a humble spanner in the the works, but aren't geologists also men of science?

I say that because the Natural History Museum is full of rocks and fossils that date back millions of years.

There are some basic accepted rules to rock formation, and certain sedimentary rocks take thousands, or even millions of years to form.

I fail to see where this argument stacks up, unless you are saying that some other force formed the rock and tried to make it look like it was old.

I doubt if anyone in their right mind belives that the world is less than 5000 years old.

 

[DotNetWebs]

Exactly the point I was trying to make

 

[Cornish Steve]

I say that because the Natural History Museum is full of rocks and fossils that date back millions of years.

Aaaarghhh! What right does a museum have to state, as if a fact, that a rock is millions of years old? Did they pick it up on a time machine? No! They inferred it based on dating methods that rely on a number of key assumptions. By trusting in those assumptions, they make the claim. By trusting in different assumptions, I could make a different claim. How many times have we heard scientists arguing publicly about the age of certain rocks?

I would remind you of a famous incident when the size of the universe doubled overnight because someone realised that an assumption was wrong in his hypothesis. It made the news headlines.

By the way, I always felt a little sorry for the 18th century mathematician who spent years calculating pi to many thousands of decimal places, only for someone to point out that he made an error quite early on.

Maybe we should end this thread now. The last thing I want to do is to upset anyone, especially on Christmas Day. Many thanks to everyone - and especially to cjd - for being so good-natured as we discussed this topic. I have enjoyed the banter; I hope others enjoyed it too. I respect your views, and I hope mine don't seem so extreme after all. In closing, all I ask is that we question everything we hear and not simply accept things because they're the prevailing view. Most great discoveries were the result of challenging the status quo.

 

[DotNetWebs]

I take you point that we cannot prove (with 100% certainty) that the Earth is not older than 5000 years) But nothing can be proved 100%. All we can say it that things are beyond reasonable doubt. How do you know that you have circled the Earth many times? How do you know it was not a clever illusion setup by the intelligent people that designed us? Any one see Space Cadets this month?

I believe, as most Earth Scientists believe, that the Earth is greater than 5000 years old. We make these assumptions based on observations of processes that are shaping the face of the Earth TODAY. One year ago today a section of sea floor measuring several hundred miles across was raised some 40 feet. This resulted in the terrible Tsunami that claimed so many lives. This occurred due to plate tectonics. Plate movements have been measured for the last few decades, we know the rate the plates move, we also know (without reasonable doubt) that the plates where once in other positions, we know (without reasonable doubt) how long it would take for the plates to move to the positions they are today.

We know from observing processes that are occurring TODAY how long sedimentary rocks take to form. We know that we find less primitive species in the older rock formations and we know we find the more advanced species in the newer rock formations. You do not need any scientific constants or clever mathematics to work this out. You could describe the time that is required in terms or human lifetimes. If you do this you will find that you would need many more generations for the Earth to form than have elapsed since the act of 'creation' in the bible.

I am sure you will argue that the Earth could of been 'designed' to look like it is that old, but if you do you have to accept that you cannot 'prove' that you have circled the Earth. If you follow this to its logical conclusion you will end up with no faith in science at all. And If you had no faith in science at all you would not climb on to an aeroplane in the first place!

 

[Cornish Steve]

Since you asked me questions, I am taking the liberty to extend the thread. I hope others don't mind.

I take you point that we cannot prove (with 100% certainty) that the Earth is not older than 5000 years

Thank you for your honesty. As we discuss these issues, it's all too easy to simply dig in our heels.

But nothing can be proved 100%.

The laws of thermodynamics, Maxwell's laws, Newton's Laws (ignoring Einstein's modifications for the moment), and others can be assumed to be true laws. They explain all the facts, and they can be used to predict behaviour. I don't dispute these at all.

How do you know that you have circled the Earth many times? How do you know it was not a clever illusion setup by the intelligent people that designed us?

Because flights are predictable and, as you point out later, we risk our lives (e.g., by flying on planes) when testing theories all the time.

I believe, as most Earth Scientists believe, that the Earth is greater than 5000 years old.

I do too - but that doesn't make it a 'fact'.

One year ago today a section of sea floor measuring several hundred miles across was raised some 40 feet. This resulted in the terrible Tsunami that claimed so many lives. This occurred due to plate tectonics. Plate movements have been measured for the last few decades, we know the rate the plates move, we also know (without reasonable doubt) that the plates where once in other positions, we know (without reasonable doubt) how long it would take for the plates to move to the positions they are today.

Yes, and by assuming that conditions have not really changed throughout the earth's history, we can infer a great age. I don't dispute this at all.

You could describe the time that is required in terms or human lifetimes. If you do this you will find that you would need many more generations for the Earth to form than have elapsed since the act of 'creation' in the bible.

If you have faith in your starting assumptions, I still agree with you. You put your argument very well.

I am sure you will argue that the Earth could of been 'designed' to look like it is that old

No, I won't argue for this.

If you follow this to its logical conclusion you will end up with no faith in science at all.

Not at all. Fundamentally, I am a scientist at heart, and I have great respect for the body of science that has developed through the centuries. The credibility of a law (or theory or hypothesis) depends, however, on its ability to explain the facts and to predict behaviour. Evolution still fails on both counts.

Let's put it another way. I'm willing to risk my life by riding on a plane. I am testing the laws of aerodynamics. The plane's guidance system relies on radio transmissions, so I'm testing Maxwell's laws. The plane is powered by jet engines, so I'm testing the laws of thermodynamics. As a 6-million miler, I've tested these laws many times.

If it could be done, would anyone be willing to risk their life on the hypothesis of evolution? If not, why does the 'establishment' insist on calling it a 'fact' and to disallow alternatives?

 

[Jayne]

Oh Steve, you love getting your teeth into a good debate, don't you...I feel like you are really enjoying yourself :lol: :lol: :lol:

Glad you are happy

Jayne

 

[Cornish Steve]

Oh Steve, you love getting your teeth into a good debate, don't you...I feel like you are really enjoying yourself :lol: :lol: :lol:

Glad you are happy

Jayne

Yes, I do - sorry. Although I do try, but sometimes fail, to restrict myself to topics about which I have something useful to contribute - although you have every right to question that.

 

[Jayne]

Carry on Steve, was only pulling your leg :lol:

Because pulling your leg is what makes me happy :lol:


Jayne

 

[DotNetWebs]

I would be interested to know what the laws of aerodynamics are?

Before I became a software developer I was (and still am) a Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer. I understand how aeroplanes work. I risked my job and my conscience every time I certified an aircraft fit to fly but I have yet to read conclusive proof how EXACTLY an aeroplane flies.Nobody has yet proved 100% conclusively how a wing derives lift. The argument comes down to Bernoulli Vs Newton. Most people who teach theory of flight fall into one of these camps. There are example of this all over the internet. Here are two examples for starters:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/fluids/airfoil.html

http://www.f1-country.com/f1-engineer/aeorodynamics/bernoulli.html

You fly in aeroplanes, I certify them, can either of us say with 100% certainty how EXACTLY the aeroplane is held in the air. How do you know that all the laws that you quoted will not be proved wrong some day. As you point out Einstein proved that Newton's law's do not hold true for ALL circumstances.

I don't disagree with any of the facts you state. I do not consider myself able to argue with you scientifically as you are academically far more qualified than I am. As a physicist you have chosen a discipline where you are able to produce experiments that can attempt to prove theories. Earth scientists, because of the huge time frames involved, and because you physicists have not yet invented a time machine, do not have that luxury. It all comes down to common sense really. This debate has come about because some schools in the US tried to stop the teaching of Darwin's THEORY (i.e it does not pretend to be a law). If there was a referendum on which theory should be taught, (to your children), on the Nation Curriculum, Creationist or Evolutionary, which would you choose?

 

[Cornish Steve]

This debate has come about because some schools in the US tried to stop the teaching of Darwin's THEORY (i.e it does not pretend to be a law). If there was a referendum on which theory should be taught, (to your children), on the Nation Curriculum, Creationist or Evolutionary, which would you choose?

I'm sure the popular press presented it this way, but allow me to explain what really happened.

Our local school board, supported by the state superintendent of schools, voted to add stickers inside the front cover of textbooks on evolution. The purpose was to inform students that, contrary to popular belief, evolution is not a fact. The stickers read as follows:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Personally, I find this statement reasonable, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone could object to it. Nonetheless, the PC brigade jumped all over it. CNN brought it to national attention, civil liberties groups brought a legal case against it, and the school board was ridiculed. The issue was brought before a judge who ruled that the stickers were unconstitutional - deciding that they violated the principle of separation of church and state.

A school board in Pennsylvania tried to go a little further by adding ID to the curriculum. It's interesting that the judge's written opinion uses arguments we have read in this thread:

"The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view and not a scientific theory. It is an extension of the Fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution."

As I've written several times (yawn from other forum members ), ID is not creationism; ID assumes that an outside intelligence influenced conditions such that life could exist on earth. Unfortunately, the 'establishment' is fixated on Christian fundamentalists and seems to have drawn a Maginot Line around evolution. It's become a holy grail, and no one is allowed to question its credibility.

Yes, I am arrogant in the extreme. Yes, I am a born contrarian. Yes, I am in the minority (based on the poll, about 20%). Nonetheless, I am a scientist who remains true to the scientific method. To repeat an earlier quote, "evolution is a theory in crisis", and we should have the guts to accept it.

So, to answer your question, evolution remains a valuable tool and should be taught in schools. In addition, however, we should allow alternative hypotheses to be taught to students. Intelligent Design has increasing support and can explain many of the facts that evolution cannot. Why is everyone so scared of it?

 

[DotNetWebs]

The incident I was reffering to was this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/417996.stm

The statement that was on the stickers you refer to I believe is reasonable as is the assumption that "an outside intelligence MAY have influenced conditions such that life could exist on earth". My worry would be, if I had children in one of these schools, is that this could be a back door into teaching creationism and religious fundamentalism.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Isn't this news article interesting? It just goes to show how much influence the media have when reporting a story. Based on the article, it seems that a school board in Kansas decided to promote micro-evolution instead of traditional evolution. Micro-evolution recognises that the fossil record shows no evidence of evolution between species, so it proposes evolution within species.

Even though only one school district did this, out of many thousands of districts in the state, what is the headline? "Kansas rejects theory of evolution." This is a nice piece of hyperbole for starters!

Then the article cleverly establishes the inevitable link to creationists to scare everyone: "The decision is being seen as a victory for the supporters of creationism who believe the world came into being more or less as described in the Bible and who refuse to accept Darwin's teaching as scientific fact." Notice the subtle inference that evolution is really a fact.

Now read the reaction of a die-hard evolutionist: "We're going back to the 1880s. It does make us look to the people in the rest of the country that we're a bunch of hicks." Now that's going to shame parents into rejecting the proposal, so pressure builds to reject it.

Can you see why, as a scientist, I become so frustrated? This is nothing more than manipulation of the news to besmear anyone who claims that evolution is not a fact.

The statement that was on the stickers you refer to I believe is reasonable as is the assumption that "an outside intelligence MAY have influenced conditions such that life could exist on earth".

I think so too, but the national press, the civil liberties union, and several big guns in the establishment launched a vitriolic and quite personal attack against members of our local school board. It took guts for them to propose the sticker in the first place; they're now facing pressure to resign. Doesn't such character assassination just smack of Galileo's time?

My worry would be, if I had children in one of these schools, is that this could be a back door into teaching creationism and religious fundamentalism.

This is the real issue! The press makes a giant fuss every time a school board has the courage to question evolution; in response, the PC brigade scares parents into thinking that their children are about to be forcibly turned into miniature fundamentalists who believe the earth is flat. Rather than look at the facts, what do most parents do? They believe what they hear on the news!

If public schools started to teach religion in the science classroom, they would be sued before anyone could say "Jack Robinson". It's not going to happen. By cultivating the perception that anyone who promotes an alternative to evolution must be a 19th century bigot, however, die-hard evolutionists are well on their way to shaming everyone into accepting evolution is fact.

Farewell to the scientific method!

 

[cjd]

Our local school board, supported by the state superintendent of schools, voted to add stickers inside the front cover of textbooks on evolution. The purpose was to inform students that, contrary to popular belief, evolution is not a fact. The stickers read as follows:

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Personally, I find this statement reasonable

It is not reasonable and has been shown in your courts not to be so. The school governers who tried to inflict this fake science on the kids were eventually fired by the kids families.

It's disingenous in the extreem to suggest that 'it's reasonable' when evoultion is the only subject targeted by the creationists - they could just as easily said it about quantum theory, the history of ancient Egypt and statistics but they haven't because they only feel threatened by evolution. Just like their relatives were threatened by Galileo and Copernicus.

It was done for religious, not scientific, reasons.

 

[Cornish Steve]

It is not reasonable and has been shown in your courts not to be so.

What's unreasonable about the statement? It's perfectly logical and true in every respect. There's nothing deceptive about it.

The school governers who tried to inflict this fake science on the kids were eventually fired by the kids families.

Well, it's my local school board, and it's my local state superintendent. I can assure you that they are still there. We'll see, when the next elections come up (because they are elected officials), whether they remain in place.

It's disingenous in the extreem to suggest that 'it's reasonable' when evoultion is the only subject targeted by the creationists - they could just as easily said it about quantum theory, the history of ancient Egypt and statistics but they haven't because they only feel threatened by evolution. Just like their relatives were threatened by Galileo and Copernicus.

Quantum theory is actually a good comparison. My PhD was in magnetism. At the time, quantum theory was used to explain magnetic behaviour. In addition, something called the RKKY model was taught in parallel. Neither model explained true behaviour exactly, but they were both useful. There's no reason why alternative theories should not be taught alongside evolution. Unlike quantum theory, the history of Egypt, and statistics, evolution is under attack because, as someone else put it, it's a "theory in crisis". More and more facts are found to contradict it.

It was done for religious, not scientific, reasons.

Just what the popular press would like you to believe! Where is religion in the sticker statement? Religion was brought into the legal case by the prosecution in order to protect its holy grail.

 

[Rob Holmes]

Heres an interesting fact...

On the first ever lunar landing the spacecraft was kitted out with extra wide feet and other gadgets, why?

Because the scientists assumed evolution and made the following calculations based on evolution..

Dust travels through space and settles on the moon at a certain constant rate. This they said was a proven scientific fact. So, because they assumed evolution was true and this dust had been settling on the moon at a constant rate for the last x million years they cleverley calculated that the dust on the moon would be 64 feet thick.

In fact when the space craft landed they found it to be under 1 inch thick.

Rob

 

[Top Hat]

Heres an interesting fact...

On the first ever lunar landing the spacecraft was kitted out with extra wide feet and other gadgets, why?

Because the scientists assumed evolution and made the following calculations based on evolution..

Dust travels through space and settles on the moon at a certain constant rate. This they said was a proven scientific fact. So, because they assumed evolution was true and this dust had been settling on the moon at a constant rate for the last x million years they cleverley calculated that the dust on the moon would be 64 feet thick.

In fact when the space craft landed they found it to be under 1 inch thick.

Rob

Whats evolution got to do with space dust?

 

[Top Hat]

Having read it all I firmly believe that evolution is the only reasonable explanation.

If a designer, came along and fiddled with life on Earth, then they themselves evolved on some distant planet, so ultimately evolution would still be responsible for life on earth.

It would make a great TV program 'Evolution on Trial'

Traditional court room style program with experts for and against.

I think the outcome would be a majority verdict in favour of evolution.

 

[cjd]

In the end it's a political issue. ID was developed by people working for the creationist foundation. It's the first rule of journalism 'consider the source'; with the corollory 'whose paying them to tell me this?.

ID had some decent arguments and if they were from unbiased sources they would have been written up, subjected to peer review and published. There would then have been 10 to 20 years of batting about by the experts in the the area until it was either assimilated into the knowledge base or dismissed as wrong.

And no-one outside the expert area would have know anything about it. Just as they don't know anything about the literally millions of other issues in the development of scientific knowledge.

The ONLY reason this is in the public sphere is because this branch of science contradicts Christian fundamental belief and the creationalists need to get their beliefs into American schools - not into science - but into schools.

It's as simple as that.

And, by-the-way; who said and how is 'evolution in a crisis'?

 

[Cornish Steve]

In the end it's a political issue. ID was developed by people working for the creationist foundation. It's the first rule of journalism 'consider the source'; with the corollory 'whose paying them to tell me this?.

We're not looking into journalism here; we're looking into science. The fact that a number of creationists have jumped onto the ID bandwagon is irrelevant. As you encouraged me earlier, let's keep to the facts.

A number of respected academics support the ID hypothesis. As I mentioned previously, one interesting website belongs to the Discovery Institute ( http://www.discovery.org ), to which many university fellows and researchers belong. The organisation states up-front that it is not religious, and the material at its site proves the point.

The ONLY reason this is in the public sphere is because this branch of science contradicts Christian fundamental belief and the creationalists need to get their beliefs into American schools - not into science - but into schools.

Now you are straying from the facts and pursuing the tactics of the popular media: "Let's just link ID to Christian fundamentalists who believe the earth is flat. That'll scare 'em all away!" That's not going to work here.

You accused me earlier of avoiding your questions. I made a point to go back and answer them in detail. Now I'm going to accuse you of avoiding my questions. Let's focus on just two of them:

1) What is evolution's answer to the problem of irreducible complexity?

The mousetrap is a very simple example of this phenomenon. Imagine that each element of the mousetrap - the base board, the spring, the latch, etc. - evolved independently. In order to create a mousetrap, evolution must somehow put the pieces together with the specific purpose of catching a mouse. Examples of irreducible complexity in nature (such as the human eye) contain many thousands of elements; the absence of just one of them would mean the complex item could not perform its function. How can evolution explain this phenomenon?

2) Why does the fossil record not back up evolutionary claims that one species evolved into another?

For over a century, many thousands of scientists from almost every country on earth have searched for evidence to back up the claims of evolution - and they're still searching. Where is the creature with jaw bones in transition from a reptile to a mammal? Where is the evidence to prove that one species really did evolve into another?

And, by-the-way; who said and how is 'evolution in a crisis'?

I quoted the phrase in a previous message. It's also the title of a book by Michael Denton: "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis".

 

[Rob Holmes]

Whats evolution got to do with space dust?

It shows the age of the moon which could possibly have consequences on whether evolution between species has enough time (if say the moon had only been around for 5-10,000 years)

Rob

 

[Rob Holmes]

Having read it all I firmly believe that evolution is the only reasonable explanation.

If a designer, came along and fiddled with life on Earth, then they themselves evolved on some distant planet, so ultimately evolution would still be responsible for life on earth.

It would make a great TV program 'Evolution on Trial'

Traditional court room style program with experts for and against.

I think the outcome would be a majority verdict in favour of evolution.

So that makes it true does it?

Truth by majority vote?

If a designer, came along and fiddled with life on Earth, then they themselves evolved on some distant planet, so ultimately evolution would still be responsible for life on earth.

So how would the distant planet have been created? By a big bang? Ok then what banged in big bang and who made the atmosphere they banged in?

Just keep working back and working back and working back...

I guess the creationalist goes back to 'In the beginning God created...'

and the evolutionalist goes back to... everything was created from absolutely nothing - the worlds, moon, sun, millions of stars appeared from nowhere, nothing caused them to appear - they just appeared from nowhere and because of nothing. This includes whole universes and galaxies coming out of nothing and appearing in a space that wasn't there before.

Both take faith - debatable which takes a bigger faith.

Rob

 

[fastfences]

This has been an interesting and informative post, but it has not changed my view that I am a product of 'Intelligent Design.' :wink:

Cheers, Nigel

 

[Top Hat]

I know its not evolution, but for those who find evolution hard to stomach.

Think for a moment about the miracle that is making babies, you start with a egg and sperm, cells divide and 9 months later bingo it’s a baby

So that something going from simple beginnings (a couple of cells) to a fully formed complex human being

And yes I know its not evolution

 

[Top Hat]

Whats evolution got to do with space dust?

It shows the age of the moon which could possibly have consequences on whether evolution between species has enough time (if say the moon had only been around for 5-10,000 years)

Rob

I suspect it shows the NASA engineers had not a clue how deep the dust was so were extremely cautions and made big feet

 

[Top Hat]

Having read it all I firmly believe that evolution is the only reasonable explanation.

If a designer, came along and fiddled with life on Earth, then they themselves evolved on some distant planet, so ultimately evolution would still be responsible for life on earth.

It would make a great TV program 'Evolution on Trial'

Traditional court room style program with experts for and against.

I think the outcome would be a majority verdict in favour of evolution.

So that makes it true does it?

Truth by majority vote?

I only thought it would make good TV, Not that it would end a debate (that will never end!!)

 

[Hayles]

Anyone else see 'Digging for Jesus' last night? There's no archaeological sites at Bethlehem. Nothing, no sign of a town or any buildings dating back to Jesus's time. However, there were plenty of other finds in areas a few miles from Bethlehem that did date to the right time showing that those places were inhabited, but not Bethlehem... :?:

 

[Asteeleleith]

Does intelligent design not simply state that evolution is a fact?

If this is the case, then i have to argue against it. I stronly believe in evolution myself. I feel it explains a lot. Also goes to show that as the climate and consitions have changed on the earth, so creatures have evolved to survive.
It is however pure conjecture. we have no proof that is this what it is. The theory of Evolution is based upon observations. There is no scientific experimental data to back it. Hence it is a hypothesis.

As for trapping space dust. We scientsts do this because it is virgin matter. unchanged since the creation of the solar system. It is therefore of interest to scientists as its analysis could tell us something about how solar system was created, and from what

Al