Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on June 11, 2007, 09:12:12 AM
-
Smithsonian: Religious Scientists Prohibited
by Lawrence Ford
“Are you a religious person?”
This question is not allowed on job applications and it is prohibited during job interviews. And regardless of the truth, the religious affiliation of an individual cannot be used to deny employment, except perhaps in church work.
However, the Smithsonian Institution, an agency of the United States government, has been using this question to penalize one of its most gifted scientists, Dr. Richard Sternberg.
A Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, Dr. Sternberg is an evolutionary scientist with two doctorates in biology, one in molecular evolution and the other in theoretical biology. In addition to his research work at the Smithsonian, he served as managing editor of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
During his oversight of this journal, Dr. Sternberg accepted for publication an article titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 (http://(http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177))by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge-educated scientist. Publication was accepted only after passing the required peer-review process by other scientists. Dr. Meyer’s article, though highly academic in nature, suggested that Intelligent Design could better solve the biological problems currently under scrutiny.
Publication of Meyer’s article, however, sparked a firestorm of internal controversy that resulted in discriminatory harassment of Dr. Sternberg by senior Smithsonian scientists and administrators. So defaming were these actions that a congressional oversight committee investigated the claims and publicly released its findings in December 2006 titled "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian's Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harrassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution." (http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf (http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf))
Included in the investigation report are emails between Smithsonian officials regarding Dr. Sternberg’s situation and how to terminate his relationship with the museum. The Smithsonian even enlisted the help of Eugenia Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, to “monitor Sternberg’s outside activities.”
In the report summary, congressional investigators concluded:
The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.
The Sternberg case is actually a couple of years old, though the congressional oversight committee just completed its investigation. And Dr. Sternberg is not a creationist by any means. He simply allowed a non-Darwinian to publish a scientific paper in an academic journal. For that sin, his career is under attack. Read Dr. Sternberg’s own defense of his actions at rsternberg.net (http://rsternberg.net).
In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “The Branding of a Heretic,” (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220))the article that originally brought widespread attention to this case, David Klinghoffer comments on the Smithsonian’s handling of the Sternberg matter with these revealing words:
Darwinism…is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches—like the National Museum of Natural History.
It’s clear from his article that Mr. Klinghoffer is not a creationist. But his description of Darwinian evolution as a “quasi-religious faith without a deity” reveals an important reality of the debate between evolution and creation: both viewpoints, while working with science, are ultimately matters of faith.
Creationists admit this. Evolutionists will not.
-
Smithsonian: Religious Scientists Prohibited
by Lawrence Ford
“Are you a religious person?”
This question is not allowed on job applications and it is prohibited during job interviews. And regardless of the truth, the religious affiliation of an individual cannot be used to deny employment, except perhaps in church work.
However, the Smithsonian Institution, an agency of the United States government, has been using this question to penalize one of its most gifted scientists, Dr. Richard Sternberg.
A Research Associate at the National Museum of Natural History, Dr. Sternberg is an evolutionary scientist with two doctorates in biology, one in molecular evolution and the other in theoretical biology. In addition to his research work at the Smithsonian, he served as managing editor of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
During his oversight of this journal, Dr. Sternberg accepted for publication an article titled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 (http://(http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177))by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge-educated scientist. Publication was accepted only after passing the required peer-review process by other scientists. Dr. Meyer’s article, though highly academic in nature, suggested that Intelligent Design could better solve the biological problems currently under scrutiny.
Publication of Meyer’s article, however, sparked a firestorm of internal controversy that resulted in discriminatory harassment of Dr. Sternberg by senior Smithsonian scientists and administrators. So defaming were these actions that a congressional oversight committee investigated the claims and publicly released its findings in December 2006 titled "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian's Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harrassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution." (http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf (http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf))
Included in the investigation report are emails between Smithsonian officials regarding Dr. Sternberg’s situation and how to terminate his relationship with the museum. The Smithsonian even enlisted the help of Eugenia Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, to “monitor Sternberg’s outside activities.”
In the report summary, congressional investigators concluded:
The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.
The Sternberg case is actually a couple of years old, though the congressional oversight committee just completed its investigation. And Dr. Sternberg is not a creationist by any means. He simply allowed a non-Darwinian to publish a scientific paper in an academic journal. For that sin, his career is under attack. Read Dr. Sternberg’s own defense of his actions at rsternberg.net (http://rsternberg.net).
In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece titled “The Branding of a Heretic,” (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220))the article that originally brought widespread attention to this case, David Klinghoffer comments on the Smithsonian’s handling of the Sternberg matter with these revealing words:
Darwinism…is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches—like the National Museum of Natural History.
It’s clear from his article that Mr. Klinghoffer is not a creationist. But his description of Darwinian evolution as a “quasi-religious faith without a deity” reveals an important reality of the debate between evolution and creation: both viewpoints, while working with science, are ultimately matters of faith.
Creationists admit this. Evolutionists will not.
That's outrageous. Talk about paranoia. Common characteristic of these anti-religious zealots.
-
That's outrageous. Talk about paranoia. Common characteristic of these anti-religious zealots.
I know. Yet, we're the zealots in their minds. ::)
-
I don't see zealotry. I see a scientist who was employed by the Smithsonian and made a decent living but permitted his personal beliefs to corrupt his professional work.
The reason that Intelligent Design is condemned by scientists is b/c it is just the "god of gaps" rearing its head again.
Here is a rather vulgar explanation: We can't explain x easily or adequately with the scientific method so God must be the cause/organizer of x.
That's not science. That's not even an attempt at science. That is surrender.
I still would like to see one supernatural act occuring in modern times. It doesn't happen b/c the supernatural exists in imagination.
-
I don't see zealotry. I see a scientist who was employed by the Smithsonian and made a decent living but permitted his personal beliefs to corrupt his professional work.
The reason that Intelligent Design is condemned by scientists is b/c it is just the "god of gaps" rearing its head again.
Here is a rather vulgar explanation: We can't explain x easily or adequately with the scientific method so God must be the cause/organizer of x.
That's not science. That's not even an attempt at science. That is surrender.
I still would like to see one supernatural act occuring in modern times. It doesn't happen b/c the supernatural exists in imagination.
The man accepted a peer reviewed article in a journal he oversees. Hardly sounds like personal beliefs corrupting professional work. It is nothing more than paranoid anti-religious extremists harassing the guy, just like Congress said.
-
The man accepted a peer reviewed article in a journal he oversees. Hardly sounds like personal beliefs corrupting professional work. It is nothing more than paranoid anti-religious extremists harassing the guy, just like Congress said.
Are you referring to the gasbag republican majority Congress/US office of special counsel that ran the investigation?
Sternberg did NOT follow the proper procedure for peer review of Meyer's article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#The_peer_review_process
"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
This is just another opportunity for christians to play the victim card again by pointing out that, gosh darn it, it's been 2000 years and we are still being persecuted for the most minor things re our beliefs...
Sorry, but the article was unpublishable crapola and Intelligent Design is still not science. It is still the god of gaps.
-
Are you referring to the gasbag republican majority Congress/US office of special counsel that ran the investigation?
Sternberg did NOT follow the proper procedure for peer review of Meyer's article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#The_peer_review_process
"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
This is just another opportunity for christians to play the victim card again by pointing out that, gosh darn it, it's been 2000 years and we are still being persecuted for the most minor things re our beliefs...
Sorry, but the article was unpublishable crapola and Intelligent Design is still not science. It is still the god of gaps.
::)
Evolution has no gaps?
Also, how would you explain the increase in the numbers of scientists flocking toward Intelligent Design, even quantum physicists if it's "condemned"?
Another question I have that you might know the answer to, Decker. If education is all about building a well-rounded individual who can think objectively, why are school boards so adamant not to allow the teaching of an alternative thought such as intelligent design? Are you familiar with the case in Pennsylvania where the school board (with the help of good ol' ACLU) fought to keep just a single paragragh at the beginning of a science book which spoke about intelligent design? What's up with that? If ever there was a best description of zealotry, I would think this fight would fit perfectly.
-
Are you referring to the gasbag republican majority Congress/US office of special counsel that ran the investigation?
Sternberg did NOT follow the proper procedure for peer review of Meyer's article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy#The_peer_review_process
"Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
This is just another opportunity for christians to play the victim card again by pointing out that, gosh darn it, it's been 2000 years and we are still being persecuted for the most minor things re our beliefs...
Sorry, but the article was unpublishable crapola and Intelligent Design is still not science. It is still the god of gaps.
I see. So the oversight committee investigation is "gasbag," but wikipedia is not. Did you read the report? http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
-
I think this is out and out discrimination. If this involved a minority group they would be screaming...
-
::)
Evolution has no gaps?
Also, how would you explain the increase in the numbers of scientists flocking toward Intelligent Design, even quantum physicists if it's "condemned"?
Another question I have that you might know the answer to, Decker. If education is all about building a well-rounded individual who can think objectively, why are school boards so adamant not to allow the teaching of an alternative thought such as intelligent design? Are you familiar with the case in Pennsylvania where the school board (with the help of good ol' ACLU) fought to keep just a single paragragh at the beginning of a science book which spoke about intelligent design? What's up with that? If ever there was a best description of zealotry, I would think this fight would fit perfectly.
Scientists are flocking to Intelligent Design? Prove it.
It is not the place of publicly funded schools to proselytize to students about religion. Intelligent Design is not an alternative to science b/c it is not science. It is a religious conclusion not arrived at from the scientific method. It does not belong in a science text.
Tenuous or difficult explanations of phenomena should not be reduced to: "God must have done it."
That is not science.
-
I see. So the oversight committee investigation is "gasbag," but wikipedia is not. Did you read the report? http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
I read the first few pages.
And then I read that the case was dismissed b/c of lack of jurisdiction.
Did you read the part about Meyer's paper not going through the proper peer review process, thus rendering the debate moot?
-
Scientists are flocking to Intelligent Design? Prove it.
Actually, I think it would be more difficult for you to prove that encouragement to pursue the thought of ID/Creation vs. Evolution is moot. You can start here though: www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/links.htm (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/links.htm), but alas, I am certain you will discredit the site. ::) Question: how do you explain the increase in debate betwee ID and Evolution? Do yourself a favor and google Intelligent Design, bro. There's plenty of information out there. I would also respectfully ask you to admit that you're really not all that willing or interested to check into it. :-\
It is not the place of publicly funded schools to proselytize to students about religion. Intelligent Design is not an alternative to science b/c it is not science. It is a religious conclusion not arrived at from the scientific method. It does not belong in a science text.
Intelligent Design does not proselytize in any way, shape, or form. However, it does threaten the theory of Evolution, even more so, the funding of research towards Evolution. You start messing with people's money and they get upset. That's not even touching the surface of why there's so much intelorance towards the mindset of Intelligent Design.
Tenuous or difficult explanations of phenomena should not be reduced to: "God must have done it."
That is not science.
This statement alone speaks volumes of what level of objectivity that I feel is available in discussing this with you, bro. Science is but the art of discovery. I'm sorry, Decker, but to think that I exist due to a glob (where did the glob come from anyway) vs. how ID explains it just makes more sense to me. I guess I'm just ignorant like the rest of the "sheep". ;)
What is science to you? It's interesting that you have such a harsh view towards Intelligent Design, and what appears to be an even deeper dissent against the existance of God.
-
Intelligent Design does not proselytize in any way, shape, or form. However, it does threaten the theory of Evolution, even more so, the funding of research towards Evolution. You start messing with people's money and they get upset. That's not even touching the surface of why there's so much intelorance towards the mindset of Intelligent Design.
This statement alone speaks volumes of what level of objectivity that I feel is available in discussing this with you, bro. Science is but the art of discovery. I'm sorry, Decker, but to think that I exist due to a glob (where did the glob come from anyway) vs. how ID explains it just makes more sense to me. I guess I'm just ignorant like the rest of the "sheep". ;)
What is science to you? It's interesting that you have such a harsh view towards Intelligent Design, and what appears to be an even deeper dissent against the existance of God.
Science to me is an epistemological practice--It's a way of validating hypotheses through a methodology called the scientific method. If empirical evidence is not available then a claim that an analysis is science is hardpressed. String theory suffers b/c it is not verifable under empirical analysis. It is based on mathematical models.
I don't buy your 'ulterior motive' argument that scientists are on the take to insulate their research grants. That is precisely why there are mechanisms, like peer review, in place to guard against arbitrary nonsense passed off as 'scientific inquiry', much like Intelligent Design Theory.
If you read one book this Summer, read The Mind of God by physicist Paul Davies. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God
In short, by the very makeup of our logical reasoning, we are unable to comprehend a rational understanding of Ultimate Reality. He concedes that `something fishy is going on' when looking at the conditions necessary for conscious life to arise in the context of random occurrence. That's as close to Intelligent Design as I will get.
To me, any argument that goes beyond the above guidelines is religious proselytizing from true believers with a religious ax to grind.
-
Science to me is an epistemological practice--It's a way of validating hypotheses through a methodology called the scientific method. If empirical evidence is not available then a claim that an analysis is science is hardpressed. String theory suffers b/c it is not verifable under empirical analysis. It is based on mathematical models.
You used some might fancy words just to say that science is but the art of discovery, as I stated earlier. :P Any experiment must include some sort of tangible (dirt, light, etc.) for measurement. I ask you, where do the tangibles come from? You say goo, I say God. Who's right? Only time will tell.
I don't buy your 'ulterior motive' argument that scientists are on the take to insulate their research grants. That is precisely why there are mechanisms, like peer review, in place to guard against arbitrary nonsense passed off as 'scientific inquiry', much like Intelligent Design Theory.
So you don't buy it. Does that make your opinion fact over mine? Again, only time will tell. :-\
If you read one book this Summer, read The Mind of God by physicist Paul Davies. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God
I've got about 5 books to read through this summer, so I may not get to it until this fall (I have heard of Davies). But, in return, I would ask you to read some of Alister McGrath's work (The Dawkins Delusion). Read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alister_McGrath)
In short, by the very makeup of our logical reasoning, we are unable to comprehend a rational understanding of Ultimate Reality. He concedes that `something fishy is going on' when looking at the conditions necessary for conscious life to arise in the context of random occurrence. That's as close to Intelligent Design as I will get.
To me, any argument that goes beyond the above guidelines is religious proselytizing from true believers with a religious ax to grind.
While you're at it, you should check out some of Paul Copan's writings, specifically "True For You, But Not For Me". Or better yet, check out some of Ravi Zacharias' work on his site (www.rzim.org (http://www.rzim.org)). Copan has written some articles on that site too http://rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=3 (http://rzim.org/resources/essay_arttext.php?id=3)
I also noticed you totally skipped the first part of my last post. Was that on purpose (unwilling to admit truth in what I said), or inadvertent?
-
I’m not trying to use ten dollar words to impress you. “Epistemology” is the study of the validity of knowledge. How do we determine if knowledge is valid in the realm of science? We have the scientific method. Your “art of discovery” claim isn’t adequate to describe what science is really about. Pre-teens discover their “special purpose” all the time, that’s not science.
Show me the ‘tangibles’ for proof of God. Since, by the very structure of logic itself, we cannot grasp what God is in any mathematical or quantifiable sense, we cannot include God as a scientific assumption or conclusion. To do otherwise would be error. So I disagree with you that “time will tell”. Time will never change that.
I didn’t think I skipped the first part of your prior post:
“Intelligent Design does not proselytize in any way, shape, or form. However, it does threaten the theory of Evolution, even more so, the funding of research towards Evolution. You start messing with people's money and they get upset. That's not even touching the surface of why there's so much intelorance towards the mindset of Intelligent Design.”
I responded with this:
I don't buy your 'ulterior motive' argument that scientists are on the take to insulate their research grants. That is precisely why there are mechanisms, like peer review, in place to guard against arbitrary nonsense passed off as 'scientific inquiry', much like Intelligent Design Theory.
If an inherently unscientific concept like “God” is introduced into scientific calculus then we have proselytizing.
Thanks for the links to those books.
-
No sweat, bro.
I heard a great speech given by Frank Peretti this morning on Focus on the Family Radio. He had a great line that I think I'm going to start using for the evolutionists.
Definition of Evolution: from goo to you, compliments of the zoo! lol :P
Here's the link if anyone's interested: www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=2007-6-18 (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=2007-6-18)
-
I’m not trying to use ten dollar words to impress you. “Epistemology” is the study of the validity of knowledge. How do we determine if knowledge is valid in the realm of science? We have the scientific method. Your “art of discovery” claim isn’t adequate to describe what science is really about. Pre-teens discover their “special purpose” all the time, that’s not science.
Show me the ‘tangibles’ for proof of God. Since, by the very structure of logic itself, we cannot grasp what God is in any mathematical or quantifiable sense, we cannot include God as a scientific assumption or conclusion. To do otherwise would be error. So I disagree with you that “time will tell”. Time will never change that.
I didn’t think I skipped the first part of your prior post:
“Intelligent Design does not proselytize in any way, shape, or form. However, it does threaten the theory of Evolution, even more so, the funding of research towards Evolution. You start messing with people's money and they get upset. That's not even touching the surface of why there's so much intelorance towards the mindset of Intelligent Design.”
I responded with this:
I don't buy your 'ulterior motive' argument that scientists are on the take to insulate their research grants. That is precisely why there are mechanisms, like peer review, in place to guard against arbitrary nonsense passed off as 'scientific inquiry', much like Intelligent Design Theory.
If an inherently unscientific concept like “God” is introduced into scientific calculus then we have proselytizing.
Thanks for the links to those books.
I was actually referring to this question:
Question: how do you explain the increase in debate betwee ID and Evolution?
-
I was actually referring to this question:
Question: how do you explain the increase in debate betwee ID and Evolution?
I think it's part of the vicissitudes of a grass roots society. For the last seven years, republicans have had considerable clout in our government. These republicans are aligned with fundamentalist groups that want a certain religious perspective to flourish in the US.
These religious groups have new muscle to work with. Look at the topic of this thread and how Congress tried to run with the ID ball until it gave up b/c the Office of Special Counsel overreached its jurisdiction to make/score political points on behalf of ID arguments and the alleged persecution.
The topic of this thread still comes down to the fact that the ID article was not submitted for peer review through accepted channels and as such, Dr. Sternberg let his personal religious feelings interfere with his duty and he presented Meyer's ID article as peer reviewed and ready for publication.
That just was not the case and striking down the article had nothing to do with its religious content of ID.
Anyways, the religious folk in the US are simply trying to make non-believers, different-believers and ultimately science admit a nonscientific fact/conclusion by admitting the validity of ID.
As we have seen, ID implies an intelligent god/designer etc and that, by virtue of logic itself, we cannot comprehend our ultimate reality in terms of rational discourse/formula. Therefore, the very concept of ID is not subject to the scientific method and cannot be classified as science.
-
No sweat, bro.
I heard a great speech given by Frank Peretti this morning on Focus on the Family Radio. He had a great line that I think I'm going to start using for the evolutionists.
Definition of Evolution: from goo to you, compliments of the zoo! lol :P
Here's the link if anyone's interested: www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=2007-6-18 (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=2007-6-18)
"goo"...that's a good one.
-
"goo"...that's a good one.
when you have time, give that link a listen.
-
I think it's part of the vicissitudes of a grass roots society. For the last seven years, republicans have had considerable clout in our government. These republicans are aligned with fundamentalist groups that want a certain religious perspective to flourish in the US.
These religious groups have new muscle to work with. Look at the topic of this thread and how Congress tried to run with the ID ball until it gave up b/c the Office of Special Counsel overreached its jurisdiction to make/score political points on behalf of ID arguments and the alleged persecution.
The topic of this thread still comes down to the fact that the ID article was not submitted for peer review through accepted channels and as such, Dr. Sternberg let his personal religious feelings interfere with his duty and he presented Meyer's ID article as peer reviewed and ready for publication.
That just was not the case and striking down the article had nothing to do with its religious content of ID.
Anyways, the religious folk in the US are simply trying to make non-believers, different-believers and ultimately science admit a nonscientific fact/conclusion by admitting the validity of ID.
As we have seen, ID implies an intelligent god/designer etc and that, by virtue of logic itself, we cannot comprehend our ultimate reality in terms of rational discourse/formula. Therefore, the very concept of ID is not subject to the scientific method and cannot be classified as science.
This isn't a Republic thing. How would you explain this?
"Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from."
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
Or this?
Poll: Majority Reject Evolution
51 Percent Believe God Created Humans
(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.
These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.
This question on the origin of human beings, asked both this month and in November 2004, offered the public three alternatives: 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.
The results were not much different between the answers to that question and those given when a specific timeline was included in the final alternative: God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.
. . . .
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml
-
I think it's part of the vicissitudes of a grass roots society. For the last seven years, republicans have had considerable clout in our government. These republicans are aligned with fundamentalist groups that want a certain religious perspective to flourish in the US.
These religious groups have new muscle to work with. Look at the topic of this thread and how Congress tried to run with the ID ball until it gave up b/c the Office of Special Counsel overreached its jurisdiction to make/score political points on behalf of ID arguments and the alleged persecution.
I would argue that there is a new innovation or alternative view that is a much bigger monster than the grass roots you speak of.
Look at the path television has gone down:
Old School Family Shows
Father Knows Best
Leave It to Beaver
My Three Sons
Brady Bunch
To what we've progressed (regressed imo) to
The Ozbournes
Gene Simmons
Anna Nicole Smith reality tv
Real World (how real is living in a phat pad for 6 months when you're in your early 20's?)
and let's not forget the Simpsons, or King the Hill
....this is what the so-called progressives believe to be better for America :-\
The topic of this thread still comes down to the fact that the ID article was not submitted for peer review through accepted channels and as such, Dr. Sternberg let his personal religious feelings interfere with his duty and he presented Meyer's ID article as peer reviewed and ready for publication.
That just was not the case and striking down the article had nothing to do with its religious content of ID.
And you know for a fact that Dr. Sternberg's personal religious feelings interfered with his duties to follow procedure? Did he tell you this? Also, do we know if this is the first time that procedure had not been followed with respect to peer review?
Anyways, the religious folk in the US are simply trying to make non-believers, different-believers and ultimately science admit a nonscientific fact/conclusion by admitting the validity of ID.
As we have seen, ID implies an intelligent god/designer etc and that, by virtue of logic itself, we cannot comprehend our ultimate reality in terms of rational discourse/formula. Therefore, the very concept of ID is not subject to the scientific method and cannot be classified as science.
Since you brought politics to the table, I say give this Congress & Senate good time, they'll stomp the throats of the grass roots and muffle any noise that it might attempt. I'm sure that would suite you just fine, yes?
-
.....
....this is what the so-called progressives believe to be better for America :-\
And you know for a fact that Dr. Sternberg's personal religious feelings interfered with his duties to follow procedure? Did he tell you this? Also, do we know if this is the first time that procedure had not been followed with respect to peer review?
Since you brought politics to the table, I say give this Congress & Senate good time, they'll stomp the throats of the grass roots and muffle any noise that it might attempt. I'm sure that would suite you just fine, yes?
I'm not sure what popular tastes in television have to do with ID, but I do like King of the Hill.
Re Dr. Sternberg, the fact of the matter is that he subverted the normal procedure for peer review for publication.
Here are the facts:
*Sternberg handled the entire review of the Meyer article
*Sternberg had the article published
Since the article was not submitted to the normal channels for peer review, I would say it is reasonable to conclude that, by his own acts, Dr. Sternberg was subverting peer review to publish an otherwise unpublishable article. From that I conclude that his method was motivated not by science but by something else--religious enthusiasm, one might say.
Here's how the board of the journal in question assessed the problem:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. ...
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
It doesn't matter to me whether this case is the first or not for following the requirement of peer review. The peer review methodology was not followed in the Sternberg case and that's enough. As a matter of course though, peer review is stringent in the sciences and always adhered to in order to keep non-scientific stuff like ID out of scientific discussion.
The government represents our will. I don't like abusive governments any more than you do. But ID creationism is nothing more than religious belief. That is all.
It's a free country, you can believe what you wish. Just don't force your beliefs on me or try to corrupt science with something that is entirely unscientific.
-
I'm not sure what popular tastes in television have to do with ID, but I do like King of the Hill.
Re Dr. Sternberg, the fact of the matter is that he subverted the normal procedure for peer review for publication.
Here are the facts:
*Sternberg handled the entire review of the Meyer article
*Sternberg had the article published
Since the article was not submitted to the normal channels for peer review, I would say it is reasonable to conclude that, by his own acts, Dr. Sternberg was subverting peer review to publish an otherwise unpublishable article. From that I conclude that his method was motivated not by science but by something else--religious enthusiasm, one might say.
Here's how the board of the journal in question assessed the problem:
The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. ...
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
It doesn't matter to me whether this case is the first or not for following the requirement of peer review. The peer review methodology was not followed in the Sternberg case and that's enough. As a matter of course though, peer review is stringent in the sciences and always adhered to in order to keep non-scientific stuff like ID out of scientific discussion.
Nowhere in these facts do did I see where Sternberg's religious belief interceeded in his review. Did I miss that somethere? I didn't see it explicitly stated. So, I believe my question of Sternberg's religious belief playing into the review remains unanswered.
The government represents our will. I don't like abusive governments any more than you do. But ID creationism is nothing more than religious belief. That is all.
Evolution itself can be considered a religious belief, do you not agree?
It's a free country, you can believe what you wish. Just don't force your beliefs on me or try to corrupt science with something that is entirely unscientific.
Therein lies the whole issue of how you and I see religion......Creation = God to me, however God/Creation DOES NOT EQUAL religion, which is how I believe you see it, correct?
-
Nowhere in these facts do did I see where Sternberg's religious belief interceeded in his review. Did I miss that somethere? I didn't see it explicitly stated. So, I believe my question of Sternberg's religious belief playing into the review remains unanswered.
If Sternberg published the article only by subverting peer review, applicable to all science articles, then he isn't publishing the article in the interests of science is he?
He must be publishing it for another reason. Since the topic of the article in question refers to ID, I would conclude that he is pushing his religious ideas as hard as he can in contravention of the safeguards of peer review and science itself.
Evolution itself can be considered a religious belief, do you not agree?
No. Please explain why Evolution is a religious belief.
Therein lies the whole issue of how you and I see religion......Creation = God to me, however God/Creation DOES NOT EQUAL religion, which is how I believe you see it, correct?
God is god and He always will be irrespective of my views. I don't know what He is. But I am grateful for living. I don't know what all this is or what I am, but I am here and I love living.
He doesn't depend on anything from me except bad entertainment.
-
If Sternberg published the article only by subverting peer review, applicable to all science articles, then he isn't publishing the article in the interests of science is he?
He must be publishing it for another reason. Since the topic of the article in question refers to ID, I would conclude that he is pushing his religious ideas as hard as he can in contravention of the safeguards of peer review and science itself.
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, now we're getting somewhere! :D YOU made that conclusion about Sternberg's personal belief jumping into the equation. Also, if you didn't care whether or not this was a first with regard to not following standard peer review procedure, then why should you care now...other than to express you're own personal belief that Sternberg was biased?? Something not proved, but only concluded by you. I appreciate your honesty though, bro. :)
No. Please explain why Evolution is a religious belief. God is god and He always will be irrespective of my views. I don't know what He is. But I am grateful for living. I don't know what all this is or what I am, but I am here and I love living.
He doesn't depend on anything from me except bad entertainment.
Have you checked out that icr.org (http://icr.org) site yet? There's plenty of explanation to back my opinion that evolution is religion.
You are happy you exist, yet you know not why you exist. There's no purpose for your existence. You're born, you live, you die...that's it. Hmmm, I'll have to think about that.... ::)
-
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, now we're getting somewhere! :D YOU made that conclusion about Sternberg's personal belief jumping into the equation. Also, if you didn't care whether or not this was a first with regard to not following standard peer review procedure, then why should you care now...other than to express you're own personal belief that Sternberg was biased?? Something not proved, but only concluded by you. I appreciate your honesty though, bro. :)
Have you checked out that icr.org (http://icr.org) site yet? There's plenty of explanation to back my opinion that evolution is religion.
You are happy you exist, yet you know not why you exist. There's no purpose for your existence. You're born, you live, you die...that's it. Hmmm, I'll have to think about that.... ::)
My original contention was:
"I don't see zealotry. I see a scientist who was employed by the Smithsonian and made a decent living but permitted his personal beliefs to corrupt his professional work."
I stand by that conclusion b/c it follows from the premises. It doesn't change the fact that Sternberger resorted to evasion and lying to get the ID article published in a science journal.
You are engaging in sophistry re my stance on peer review--I care about peer review, but your questioning whether PR happens all the time is not relevant to this test of the methodology on the topic at hand. PR happens all the time. You can't get an article of higher learning published in this country without peer review.
Unless of course you are an ID propagandist like Sternberger and you avoid the peer review process and publish the article as a tested work of science as if it had been peer reviewed.
Yes I did check out that web page, but I would like to hear it from you.
Here's my fundamental grasp of it: God is supernatural and evolution deals with the natural world.
-
My original contention was:
"I don't see zealotry. I see a scientist who was employed by the Smithsonian and made a decent living but permitted his personal beliefs to corrupt his professional work."
I stand by that conclusion b/c it follows from the premises. It doesn't change the fact that Sternberger resorted to evasion and lying to get the ID article published in a science journal.
You are engaging in sophistry re my stance on peer review--I care about peer review, but your questioning whether PR happens all the time is not relevant to this test of the methodology on the topic at hand. PR happens all the time. You can't get an article of higher learning published in this country without peer review.
Unless of course you are an ID propagandist like Sternberger and you avoid the peer review process and publish the article as a tested work of science as if it had been peer reviewed.
Yes I did check out that web page, but I would like to hear it from you.
Here's my fundamental grasp of it: God is supernatural and evolution deals with the natural world.
Do you belief that the earth began it's existance from nothing?
Do you belief in Darwinism?
Do you base your particular models of philosophy, science or history on the theory of Evolution?
If yes, the your argument is not scientific, but more a creed or dogma, is it not?
-
Do you belief that the earth began it's existance from nothing?
Do you belief in Darwinism?
Do you base your particular models of philosophy, science or history on the theory of Evolution?
If yes, the your argument is not scientific, but more a creed or dogma, is it not?
I believe that the universe oscillates between big bangs and big crunches and in the interim nothing exists. I also believe that the instant of creation is beyond our understanding scientifically. There are mathematical theories that show something coming from nothing, but I doubt I could understand them.
Darwinism as a social evaluation is an undeniable fact. Darwinism as natural selection has been shown to be true also.
Any perceived gaps in evolutionary theory just means more work has to be done....not that god exists in those gaps.
Science tells us about natural processes. ID injects the supernatural into the natural.
ID is not science at all but a religious conclusion.
-
I believe that the universe oscillates between big bangs and big crunches and in the interim nothing exists. I also believe that the instant of creation is beyond our understanding scientifically. There are mathematical theories that show something coming from nothing, but I doubt I could understand them.
Darwinism as a social evaluation is an undeniable fact. Darwinism as natural selection has been shown to be true also.
Any perceived gaps in evolutionary theory just means more work has to be done....not that god exists in those gaps.
Science tells us about natural processes. ID injects the supernatural into the natural.
ID is not science at all but a religious conclusion.
Your statment highlighted in red is a religious conclusion.
-
:P
-
Your statment highlighted in red is a religious conclusion.
Why? Do I have faith that science will answer all questions? No. I'm not that sort of a materialist.
Science uses natural/material explanations of natural/material phenomena. Those explanations can be good, they can be attenuated, they can be provisional and they can be wrong.
ID is wrong from the outset b/c it is nothing more than a religious conclusion about the actions of a supreme creator of whom we cannot conceive let alone integrate into a scientific hypothesis.
-
Why? Do I have faith that science will answer all questions? No. I'm not that sort of a materialist.
Science uses natural/material explanations of natural/material phenomena. Those explanations can be good, they can be attenuated, they can be provisional and they can be wrong.
ID is wrong from the outset b/c it is nothing more than a religious conclusion about the actions of a supreme creator of whom we cannot conceive let alone integrate into a scientific hypothesis.
where do the materials come from that are measured for explanation?
if you're dogmatic about science, then science = religion (evolution = religion)
-
where do the materials come from that are measured for explanation?
if you're dogmatic about science, then science = religion (evolution = religion)
As I've said before, religion and science may be compatible in one's world view, but they are not and cannot be the same thing.
Science uses rational analysis--the scientific method, models, etc on which conclusions are drawn and predictions are made.
Religion uses irrational analysis--faith is the stuff one hopes for and that is what informs one's understanding and then there's the bible for predictions/prophecy.
Where does the material of existence come from? Hawking has a quantum mathematical theory that shows something can come from nothing. A more relatable idea is that the material world is on the back of a giant tortoise which is on the back of another giant tortoise.
We don't know.
Positing God as the cause does nothing to change the mystery. It is inherently unscientific.
-
As I've said before, religion and science may be compatible in one's world view, but they are not and cannot be the same thing.
Science uses rational analysis--the scientific method, models, etc on which conclusions are drawn and predictions are made.
Religion uses irrational analysis--faith is the stuff one hopes for and that is what informs one's understanding and then there's the bible for predictions/prophecy.
Where does the material of existence come from? Hawking has a quantum mathematical theory that shows something can come from nothing. A more relatable idea is that the material world is on the back of a giant tortoise which is on the back of another giant tortoise.
We don't know.
Positing God as the cause does nothing to change the mystery. It is inherently unscientific.
Then why are there not other life forms like ourselves elsewhere in existence? Why has man no longer evolved? I read somewhere (can't remember at the moment) about the 3 mistakes Darwin made:
(1) he dismissed mass extinction as artifacts of an imperfect geologic record;
(2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially with time; and (again, why haven't we "evolved" more, why did we stop?)
(3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause of species extinction.
-
Where does the material of existence come from? Hawking has a quantum mathematical theory that shows something can come from nothing. A more relatable idea is that the material world is on the back of a giant tortoise which is on the back of another giant tortoise.
Again, you are saying that materialism is the only ultimate reality, meaning the cosmos and our individual lives can be chalked up to interrelated matter. Where does the matter come from???
-
Again, you are saying that materialism is the only ultimate reality, meaning the cosmos and our individual lives can be chalked up to interrelated matter. Where does the matter come from???
I'm saying I don't know. Mathematically it can be shown to come from quantum fluctuations in nothingness. But that's another turtle.
Darwin was a prescient scientist. But he wasn't a perfect scientist. Like with all other earthly endeavors, it is an ongoing journey.
Now look what you've done. Discussing Metaphysics gives me gas. I have to stand tall until 4 pm central till I can get out of the office.
This is what I get for thinking too much.
-
I'm saying I don't know. Mathematically it can be shown to come from quantum fluctuations in nothingness. But that's another turtle.
Darwin was a prescient scientist. But he wasn't a perfect scientist. Like with all other earthly endeavors, it is an ongoing journey.
Now look what you've done. Discussing Metaphysics gives me gas. I have to stand tall until 4 pm central till I can get out of the office.
This is what I get for thinking too much.
LOL sorry, bro. ;D Let's take a break for today. This was great!
-
Then why are there not other life forms like ourselves elsewhere in existence? Why has man no longer evolved? I read somewhere (can't remember at the moment) about the 3 mistakes Darwin made:
(1) he dismissed mass extinction as artifacts of an imperfect geologic record;
(2) he assumed that species diversity, like individuals of a given species, tends to increase exponentially with time; and (again, why haven't we "evolved" more, why did we stop?)
(3) he considered biotic interactions the major cause of species extinction.
Whether Darwin got it all right or not is really irrelevant - it simply means that his theories were incomplete it does not mean that evolution is all wrong.
-
It's not just that Darwin's theories have "gaps." It's that there are such gaping holes in his theories that a great deal of faith, or willful suspension of disbelief, is required to embrace his theory.
There is a common argument that evolution is based on science. This is not entirely true. Part of evolution is based on science and part is based on faith. For instance, the origin of life has not been scientifically proved. Those who embrace the evolution theory ignore this fact.
-
It's not just that Darwin's theories have "gaps." It's that there are such gaping holes in his theories that a great deal of faith, or willful suspension of disbelief, is required to embrace his theory.
There is a common argument that evolution is based on science. This is not entirely true. Part of evolution is based on science and part is based on faith. For instance, the origin of life has not been scientifically proved. Those who embrace the evolution theory ignore this fact.
Theories have provisional aspects. The one binding tie amongst all scientific theories is fidelity to nature--natural phenomena. Introducing the supernatural supposition of God to a scientific theory is akin to blaming the crash of thunder on gnomes bowling in the mountains. The concept of god cannot and never will be subject to the scientific method or mathematical model analysis b/c by the nature of logic itself, rational inquiry cannot grasp ultimate reality let alone reflect it in mathematical formulae and subject it to scientific scrutiny.
God is beyond rational thought and empirical analysis and therefore impossible to integrate into scientific analysis in a meaningful way.
-
Theories have provisional aspects. The one binding tie amongst all scientific theories is fidelity to nature--natural phenomena. Introducing the supernatural supposition of God to a scientific theory is akin to blaming the crash of thunder on gnomes bowling in the mountains. The concept of god cannot and never will be subject to the scientific method or mathematical model analysis b/c by the nature of logic itself, rational inquiry cannot grasp ultimate reality let alone reflect it in mathematical formulae and subject it to scientific scrutiny.
God is beyond rational thought and empirical analysis and therefore impossible to integrate into scientific analysis in a meaningful way.
Thus the very reason that I believe you and others who do not believe in the deity cannot conceptualize His presence. You are looking for ways to measure his presence. I say that you can measure God's existence in some ways, whereas you would say that it's not possible, simply because God does not exist in you mind.
-
Thus the very reason that I believe you and others who do not believe in the deity cannot conceptualize His presence. You are looking for ways to measure his presence. I say that you can measure God's existence in some ways, whereas you would say that it's not possible, simply because God does not exist in you mind.
Now we are getting somewhere.
I am not saying that I don't believe in God. I am not passing judgment on God's existence. I'm just saying that God does not and cannot fit into the scientific paradigm.
Science measures things in the natural world. God cannot be measured or quantified therefore God is not subject to or part of science--ever.
In no way does that attack God's existence. It is more of an indictment of humanity's ability to understand existence.
-
Now we are getting somewhere.
I am not saying that I don't believe in God. I am not passing judgment on God's existence. I'm just saying that God does not and cannot fit into the scientific paradigm.
Science measures things in the natural world. God cannot be measured or quantified therefore God is not subject to or part of science--ever.
In no way does that attack God's existence. It is more of an indictment of humanity's ability to understand existence.
My argument is that you cannot separate God from science, because He is the originator of the natural world.
-
My argument is that you cannot separate God from science, because He is the originator of the natural world.
That's quite possibly true. But your conclusion is not science and it never will be subject to scientific validation.
-
That's quite possibly true. But your conclusion is not science and it never will be subject to scientific validation.
If you are willing to possibly acknowledge that God is nature's originator, how then can He not be subject to scientific validation?
-
Theories have provisional aspects. The one binding tie amongst all scientific theories is fidelity to nature--natural phenomena. Introducing the supernatural supposition of God to a scientific theory is akin to blaming the crash of thunder on gnomes bowling in the mountains. The concept of god cannot and never will be subject to the scientific method or mathematical model analysis b/c by the nature of logic itself, rational inquiry cannot grasp ultimate reality let alone reflect it in mathematical formulae and subject it to scientific scrutiny.
God is beyond rational thought and empirical analysis and therefore impossible to integrate into scientific analysis in a meaningful way.
But Decker, "science" has no explanation for the origins of life. I'm talking about our planet and the organism that supposedly started life on earth.
-
If you are willing to possibly acknowledge that God is nature's originator, how then can He not be subject to scientific validation?
As soon as you prove the existence of God, then science can incorporate that proof into a methodological analysis.
This is the problem with ID, God is a complete mystery. Science deals with measuring stuff in the real world. How can god be subjected to the scientific method if He's an unquantifiable mystery?
He can't.
Therefore, god cannot be a premise or conclusion in scientific analysis.
-
It's not just that Darwin's theories have "gaps." It's that there are such gaping holes in his theories that a great deal of faith, or willful suspension of disbelief, is required to embrace his theory.
There is a common argument that evolution is based on science. This is not entirely true. Part of evolution is based on science and part is based on faith. For instance, the origin of life has not been scientifically proved. Those who embrace the evolution theory ignore this fact.
How so?
I've told you why God, (inherently unquantifiable and anti-empirical), is not permitted in the scientific method as either a premise or a conclusion.
What's the matter with evolution exactly?
-
As soon as you prove the existence of God, then science can incorporate that proof into a methodological analysis.
This is the problem with ID, God is a complete mystery. Science deals with measuring stuff in the real world. How can god be subjected to the scientific method if He's an unquantifiable mystery?
He can't.
Therefore, god cannot be a premise or conclusion in scientific analysis.
But here again, you are basing your argument from a naturalist point of view, which I don't believe is proven any more than the existence of God (actually, I believe the proof of God is more credible)
Check this out, it's the definition of science per author Babu G. Ranganathan:
"First, it is important to understand that science itself can deal only with how the universe works or operates, because this is what we can actually observe or test. Human observation, either directly through the senses or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of all scientific knowledge. The subject of the origin of life and the universe is outside the scope of human observation and, therefore, does not technically come under the definition of science per se. Since no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by chance or evolution, and no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by design or creation, both evolution and creation are ultimately remain positions of faith and not science. However, it is possible to evaluate which faith, evolution or creation, is better supported by the actual evidence from science.
If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.
The creationists believe that the scientific evidence from genetics, biogenesis, thermodynamics, paleontology, information theory, laws of probability, and other areas of science better support faith in creation (the belief that an intelligent power was behind the origin of life, natural species, and the universe) than chance or evolution.
One problem with the evolutionary theory is that it attempts to explain the origin of the universe by laws which describe its operation. It's much like attempting to explain the origin of a TV set by the various laws which govern the operation of the TV. Such laws are adequate in explaining how the orderly system in a TV set operates and functions, but those same laws of physics, if left to themselves, would not be adequate or sufficient in explaining the origin of the T.V. Similarly, the laws of physics and chemistry are adequate in explaining how the order in life and the universe functions and operates, but, those same laws of physics and chemistry, if undirected and left to themselves, can never be adequate in fully explaining the origin of life and the universe. As we shall examine later in this essay, some properties of life (i.e. amino acids) have been shown to be able to come into existence by the chance, but other properties of life (such as the sequential arrangement of amino acids into proteins and the sequential arrangement of nucleic acids into DNA) have never been shown to be able to occur by chance. Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and the biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The problem for evolutionary theory is how did the cell come into existence when there was no directing mechanism. In fact, if the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait for millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate, especially without the protection of a complete and fully-functioning cell membrane. It's a classic Catch-22 situation for the evolutionary theory. More will be said on this matter later."
Whoa!!! I sure wish I could articulate things the way Ranganathan does so. I linked the entire article if you are interested. If you do read it, let me know what you think?
http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html (http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html)
-
But here again, you are basing your argument from a naturalist point of view, which I don't believe is proven any more than the existence of God (actually, I believe the proof of God is more credible)
Check this out, it's the definition of science per author Babu G. Ranganathan:
....Whoa!!! I sure wish I could articulate things the way Ranganathan does so. I linked the entire article if you are interested. If you do read it, let me know what you think?
http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html (http://www.geocities.com/athens/oracle/5862/creation.html)
Science deals with naturalism and not supernaturalism. We could discuss how many angels could stand on the tip of a needle, but like ID, that is just speculation on the supernatural...you know, imagination.
God can never be conceptualized by the human mind. God can never be quantified. How on earth does that jibe with the methodology of science? It doesn't.
You could posit Odin or Zeus as the god you refer to and be just as correct in your statement.
We are at an impasse to thoroughly explain this phenomenon, so it must have been God's work/will.
That is not science. That is Theodoric of York.
Ranganathan is not very eloquent in my view. He is just misstating or misunderstanding what science is and what evolution is.
Here is a link for you. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Here are some excerpts from that link:
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
-
How so?
I've told you why God, (inherently unquantifiable and anti-empirical), is not permitted in the scientific method as either a premise or a conclusion.
What's the matter with evolution exactly?
Evolution cannot explain the origins of life. What is the provable scientific explanation for the origin of planet earth and the organism that started human life? I haven't heard an explanation that isn't "inherently unquantifiable and anti-empirical." The "science" portion of evolution essentially skips this part.
What's the matter with evolution? I have a several problems:
1. See my first paragraph.
2. From a pure common sense standpoint, macroevolution doesn't make any sense.
3. The enormous gaps in the evolutionary chain.
4. The theory of irreducible complexity makes macroevolution literally impossible.
-
Evolution cannot explain the origins of life. What is the provable scientific explanation for the origin of planet earth and the organism that started human life? I haven't heard an explanation that isn't "inherently unquantifiable and anti-empirical." The "science" portion of evolution essentially skips this part.
What's the matter with evolution? I have a several problems:
1. See my first paragraph.
2. From a pure common sense standpoint, macroevolution doesn't make any sense.
3. The enormous gaps in the evolutionary chain.
4. The theory of irreducible complexity makes macroevolution literally impossible.
Here's a link to a Scientific American article that addresses your concerns. I will post the responses anyways:
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.
________________________ ____________
The end of the article presents a scathing indictment of creationists and ID proponents relative to science.
The creationist's answer to any of your 4 questions is not science. Stating that God must have done it in reference to the aetiology of anything is a provisional fairy tale with zero foundation in science.
I don't relish saying that.
But I'm not going to pretend that ID is thoughtful science when it isn't just to placate some group of people that want it to be science.
-
Science deals with naturalism and not supernaturalism. We could discuss how many angels could stand on the tip of a needle, but like ID, that is just speculation on the supernatural...you know, imagination.
God can never be conceptualized by the human mind. God can never be quantified. How on earth does that jibe with the methodology of science? It doesn't.
You could posit Odin or Zeus as the god you refer to and be just as correct in your statement.
We are at an impasse to thoroughly explain this phenomenon, so it must have been God's work/will.
That is not science. That is Theodoric of York.
Ranganathan is not very eloquent in my view. He is just misstating or misunderstanding what science is and what evolution is.
Here is a link for you. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2
Here are some excerpts from that link:
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
::)
"If you're looking for truth, don't search within yourself....you're the one who's confused." - unknown
In my opinion, evolutionists are looking for truth within themselves.
-
::)
"If you're looking for truth, don't search within yourself....you're the one who's confused." - unknown
In my opinion, evolutionists are looking for truth within themselves.
I know what you mean....man's ego, in interpreting things, always plays a warping role. 10 people can look at a tree and see it 10 different ways. It's still a tree, but there are 10 opinions of its look, smell, feel etc.
Science deals with facts. And then there is Truth. Is there such a thing or are all truths provisional?
That is the topic of another thread.
Did you know that the truth is within you is not a good translation of the Bible? It should be, "the truth is amongst you..."
-
I don't understand how people who are hostile towards Christianity stand by their statements like, "it's wrong for you Christians to impose your morals on others!" ::) or "you can't go around saying truth is absolute! that's wrong!"
both of these statements are self-contradicting, are they not? ???
-
Here's a link to a Scientific American article that addresses your concerns. I will post the responses anyways:
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.
________________________ ____________
The end of the article presents a scathing indictment of creationists and ID proponents relative to science.
The creationist's answer to any of your 4 questions is not science. Stating that God must have done it in reference to the aetiology of anything is a provisional fairy tale with zero foundation in science.
I don't relish saying that.
But I'm not going to pretend that ID is thoughtful science when it isn't just to placate some group of people that want it to be science.
I read it and it only addresses one aspect: Behe's discussion of bacterial flagellum. Behe talks about a lot more than flagellum.
There isn't a whole lot of provable science in that link regarding the origins of life.
-
Science deals with facts.
Not always. Science deals with facts and has theories when the facts aren't present, like the theory about the origin of life. There are no provable scientific facts when it comes to origin of life.
-
Not always. Science deals with facts and has theories when the facts aren't present, like the theory about the origin of life. There are no provable scientific facts when it comes to origin of life.
There are zero provable facts re ID...just imaginative storytelling with no foundation in science at all.
Science has posited theories for the creation of the universe based on mathematical analysis.
ID could never do that.
ID doesn't explain the origins of life...not in any meaningful scientific way.
ID is just mythmaking.
-
I read it and it only addresses one aspect: Behe's discussion of bacterial flagellum. Behe talks about a lot more than flagellum.
There isn't a whole lot of provable science in that link regarding the origins of life.
Here's a link to a review of Behe's book. It points out the standard ID errors the author makes.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/22794;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0&e=14905&ei=NF47RYixJq7wRYeYnTE&sig=__sQOsonV8d2fDl6Q0_5dKmKcxMxg=?fulltext=true
-
There are zero provable facts re ID...just imaginative storytelling with no foundation in science at all.
Science has posited theories for the creation of the universe based on mathematical analysis.
ID could never do that.
ID doesn't explain the origins of life...not in any meaningful scientific way.
ID is just mythmaking.
I was talking about science and evolution. You said science deals with facts. That's simply not true when it comes to evolution. Evolution does not rely on science or facts when it comes to explaining the origins of life.
-
I was talking about science and evolution. You said science deals with facts. That's simply not true when it comes to evolution. Evolution does not rely on science or facts when it comes to explaining the origins of life.
By the way Beach Bum, I enjoy this talking immensely.
Science and Evolution and Facts:
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
________________________ __________
So you see that science does utilize facts etc and inferences rationally related to those facts. So your contention that evolution does not rely on facts is partially true but only to the extent that from existing facts, reasonable inferences can be drawn. Which part of evolution do you find factually challenged?
________________________ ___________
"The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."
"All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain."
-
By the way Beach Bum, I enjoy this talking immensely.
________________________ __________
So you see that science does utilize facts etc and inferences rationally related to those facts. So your contention that evolution does not rely on facts is partially true but only to the extent that from existing facts, reasonable inferences can be drawn. Which part of evolution do you find factually challenged?
________________________ ___________
Thanks Decker. I always enjoy our discussions. I really appreciate what you bring to the table.
Among other things, the origins of life are factually challenged. People can sit in a room and talk about mathematical formulas, theories, etc., but when it comes down to it there is no provable science that shows where the original organism (or planet earth) came from. There is a "trust me" factor when accepting that some organism just appeared out of nowhere and spontaneously started to evolve. It sounds remarkably like religion. :)
-
Thanks Decker. I always enjoy our discussions. I really appreciate what you bring to the table.
Among other things, the origins of life are factually challenged. People can sit in a room and talk about mathematical formulas, theories, etc., but when it comes down to it there is no provable science that shows where the original organism (or planet earth) came from. There is a "trust me" factor when accepting that some organism just appeared out of nowhere and spontaneously started to evolve. It sounds remarkably like religion. :)
I have no idea how old the earth is. Don't have an opinion. ::)
Bum, why do you keep bringing up the origin/age of the earth when you don't have an opinion about it?
-
Bum, why do you keep bringing up the origin/age of the earth when you don't have an opinion about it?
I have no idea how old the earth is and that isn't the subject of this discussion. If you were following the discussion, you'd see we are talking about provable scientific facts supporting the origin of life.
-
I have no idea how old the earth is and that isn't the subject of this discussion. If you were following the discussion, you'd see we are talking about provable scientific facts supporting the origin of life.
Fair enough - perhaps my recall is off regarding comments about the age of the earth but you have repeatedly (in other conversations) mentioned the origin of the earth as you did again in this thread:
but when it comes down to it there is no provable science that shows where the original organism (or planet earth) came from.
What point are you trying to make by stating that there's "no provable science that shows where the original planet earth came from? That's all I"m trying to understand.
I assume you're not suggesting that since we cannot, at present, definitively explain the origin that it must have been created by God (Christian God goes without saying) or you would have said that already.
I'm merely asking you to unpack and expand the statement and explain what point you're trying to make by bringing it up.
Thanks
-
Fair enough - perhaps my recall is off regarding comments about the age of the earth but you have repeatedly (in other conversations) mentioned the origin of the earth as you did again in this thread:
What point are you trying to make by stating that there's "no provable science that shows where the original planet earth came from? That's all I"m trying to understand.
I assume you're not suggesting that since we cannot, at present, definitively explain the origin that it must have been created by God (Christian God goes without saying) or you would have said that already.
I'm merely asking you to unpack and expand the statement and explain what point you're trying to make by bringing it up.
Thanks
Straw I was addressing Decker's comment that evolution is based on science and science is based on fact. This is partly true. One instance where it is not true is when looking at the origin of life. Science has no provable explanation for this.
I have previously raised the lack of scientific proof for the origin of life to highlight that this is a glaring problem with the evolution theory. It actually requires faith to believe that our planet and organism suddenly appeared. Does this lack of science prove the existence of God or that our planet was designed by something or someone? No.
-
Straw I was addressing Decker's comment that evolution is based on science and science is based on fact. This is partly true. One instance where it is not true is when looking at the origin of life. Science has no provable explanation for this.
I have previously raised the lack of scientific proof for the origin of life to highlight that this is a glaring problem with the evolution theory. It actually requires faith to believe that our planet and organism suddenly appeared. Does this lack of science prove the existence of God or that our planet was designed by something or someone? No.
Who says that our planet and "organism"(?) SUDDENLY appeared?
Is that what you believe the theory of evolution suggests?
-
Who says that our planet and "organism"(?) SUDDENLY appeared?
Is that what you believe the theory of evolution suggests?
Sudden, gradual, fast, slow, whatever. Regardless, the perfectly shaped planet and climate came from somewhere or something, along with the single celled organism that supposedly started life as we know it. As I said, science doesn't prove where the planet or the organism came from.
-
Sudden, gradual, fast, slow, whatever. Regardless, the perfectly shaped planet and climate came from somewhere or something, along with the single celled organism that supposedly started life as we know it. As I said, science doesn't prove where the planet or the organism came from.
::)
okay, I can see you're going off the rails quicker than usual today.
Just to be clear (since you didn't respond to my question) - the theory of evolution does not suggest that the earth and "organism"(?) just suddenly appeared in it's present form.
I don't really have the patience today to bang my head up against Beach Bum brand logic so I'll leave you with a bit of levity: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/135713/family_guy_the_big_bang/
you might also want to spend some time checking out this site: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/
-
::)
okay, I can see you're going off the rails quicker than usual today.
Just to be clear (since you didn't respond to my question) - the theory of evolution does not suggest that the earth and "organism"(?) just suddenly appeared in it's present form.
I don't really have the patience today to bang my head up against Beach Bum brand logic so I'll leave you with a bit of levity: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/135713/family_guy_the_big_bang/
you might also want to spend some time checking out this site: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire_collection/
::) Thanks for sharing Cuzin' Earl.