News and Politics Forum

glfredrick wrote:

Why make it so easy...  Let's do dark matter instead. :>)

WHat does Al sharpton have to due with God?

dubfan wrote:

The Higgs boson, postulated by the Standard Model of physics to be the particle mostly responsible for the property of mass, has never been directly observed.

Therefore, it must be true that the universe was created by an intelligent designer, specifically, the deity God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and furthermore, quantum physics should be discarded & replaced by (or at best, only taught along side of) intelligent design in science class.

Defend your answer.

Extra credit: devise an experiment to validate your conclusion.

I'm sorry Dub, but there is a flaw in your Thought Experiment.

Your statement; "Therefore, it must be true that..." assumes that whatever comes after the word "that" is the only possible explanation.

While it is true that, as the fictional character "Sherlock Holmes" once said; "After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."; he also said: “There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.”

As long as there is the possibility that there is ANY other explanation; you cannot use the "default" answer of: "Therefore, it must be true that {_____}".

Praise to dubfan.

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:

Dubfan, please show us where someone on here suggested this course of action.

http://www.npboards.com/thread/13371/is … of-science

axe wrote:

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:

Dubfan, please show us where someone on here suggested this course of action.

http://www.npboards.com/thread/13371/is … of-science

I did not make the assumption with which I am charged...  In fact, axe, you did.

All I asked there was simply, "is evolution needed as a framework for science?"  I didn't even invoke the concept of god.

You guys gotta stop reading stuff into what others write and take the words at their face value.  Words have meanings, all that post-modernist crap aside.

As for the Higgs boson -- it is "speculated" or "inferred" that it exists based on what is actually known (somewhat, in a fashion, as alluded to above) about the rest of the nuclear structure.  We have not seen it, seemingly cannot measure it, etc., and therefor it remains in the category of "belief" rather than "fact."  We may or may not be able to actually discern the Higgs boson.  Time will tell.

My quip about dark matter above is in a similar light...  Dark matter is needed to make the Big Bang theory work, but we've never seen it, measured it, or even know for certain that it exists.  In a sense, it is simply a place marker in a mathematical formula that is needed to explain what little we do know.

Notice how, with the exception of the perpetual devil's advocate who doesn't believe half the shit he defends; the assorted "Jesus Freaks" are actively engaging in blatant dishonesty?

"Uhhh, you didn't see me do it officer; so I must not have done it!"




You know, speaking as a person of faith; this is you bible-thumpers tend to be so fucking annoying.

So many of you are so blatantly dishonest about their faith and what they believe.


It's at the point where I find the honest bloodlust of the muslims kind of refreshing. Their holybook SAYS that nonbelievers must be converted, subservient or dead; and so they set about making that happen; while NEVER denying that their book tells them to.

zukiphile wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

Notice how, with the exception of the perpetual devil's advocate who doesn't believe half the shit he defends...

I do not believe you have correctly identified what I believe or what I am defending.

I'm talking about overall.

You love to play devils advocate and whether or not you believe in a certain position doesn't stop you.

But in my prior post I wasn't criticizing you for that, I was cutting you OUT of a criticism I was making of others.

MC Escher wrote:

You love to play devils advocate and whether or not you believe in a certain position doesn't stop you.

Just to clarify, I've used no arguments on this that I do not believe.

zukiphile wrote:

MC Escher wrote:

You love to play devils advocate and whether or not you believe in a certain position doesn't stop you.

Just to clarify, I've used no arguments on this that I do not believe.

You're doing something far worse.


GLF has the excuse of not being very bright. YOU ARE. And you're playing semantic games to obfuscate and to avoid discussing anything that leads in a difficult direction.

Not being able to prove one theory, in no way validates another theory.  Is that really the simple crux of the question?

Since we are talking about creation theory specifically, arguments for evolution and ID have equal validity if we are looking for the truth.  We can't prove either one; equally. (IMHO).

Observable evolution (as in a series of mutations to better adapt to a particular environment, not necessarily an improvement) leads to developing and supporting evolution as a creation theory.  Important distinction here: the theory followed the observations.  Problem with the theory: There are literally tons of holes and missing links that must be assumed in order to maintain linear relationships.  Bottom line: its a viable theory, given credence by observation and methods of empirical testing, but the 'origin' and 'beginning' has not been observed, and therefore, should not be taught as 'truth'.  Instead, evolution as creation theory should be taught as "our best guess". 

Intelligent design is something I actually lean more towards believing, but its not something I can back up with any kind of scientific method.  This existence (our planet and all life in general) just seems too complex, orderly, and balanced to be the result of random events and chemical combinations.  This isn't to say I believe God had anything to do with it.  We could just as likely be sea monkeys in some giant alien child's mason jar as far as I'm concerned.  But I do acknowledge the likelihood of a higher power's involvement.

The problem with applying ID theory as an alternative to evolution, is that it requires belief as a pre-requisite, as opposed to a theory that was formed as a result of related observations.  How is ID observed objectively and universally in spite of the viewer and their personal beliefs?  How can ID be applied to a system to advance research and explain change without first having an unsubstantiated belief?  What in the hell do these school lesson plans for the teaching of ID look like?  I'm genuinely curious.

Qwinn made a proposition some time ago that resonates with me.  Basically stating that ID creation theory serves only as a critique and opposition to evolution creation theory.  Ironically, ID can't use the scientific method, even though science may one day lead us to substantiate ID.

GLF, I'm sincere in my desire to learn more about this.  I'm genuinely curious as to what you have on this.

Nak, I'm in agreement that 99.9% of ID advocates are evangelicals, looking for a gateway to push religious doctrine.  I see no other reason for this particular group of people to push for something with such zeal.  But perhaps I'm being unfair....

Last edited by Crash6 (07-05-2008 05:48 AM)

Crash6 wrote:

Since we are talking about creation theory specifically, arguments for evolution and ID have equal validity if we are looking for the truth.  We can't prove either one; equally. (IMHO).

You're still using "Theory" as a layman, not an evolutionary biologist.



Years ago, when I began to seriously research The Law in order, well... keep my driver's license; I ran into a problem.

Language.

For instance, a Judge might ask himself if a plaintiff has Standing to argue an issue or if his Court has Original Jurisdiction.


Those words mean VERY specific things to a Lawyer, but most laymen won't be able to tell you what they mean at all, or they'll tell you the wrong thing.

What they mean isn't really important at this point, I'm simply trying to illustrate that various disciplines have different "Term of Art", which is basically just a fancy way of saying "Industry Term".



Now, I'm going to directly clip a few lines from THIS Wiki entry; so that it's clear that this is coming from a source that's external to me and has existed prior to this thread. Or in plain English, so that it's clear that I'm not making this shit up as I go.

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.

Evolutionary biology documents the fact that evolution occurs, and also develops and tests theories that explain why it occurs. Studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms had convinced most scientists by the mid-nineteenth century that species changed over time. However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, detailing the theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin's work soon led to overwhelming acceptance of evolution within the scientific community.In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis, in which the connection between the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection) was made. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory directs research by constantly raising new questions, and it has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

Realizing that most of you are going to skip right over that, what it's basically saying is that "Evolution" is a Process and "Evolutionary Biology" is the observation of that process.

However, in much the same way that we turn a BRAND into just another word (Think: Aspirin), we have turned the word "Evolution" into nothing more than a catch phrase for a field of science that practically nobody pays attention to until some yahoo gets the idea that their local school is teaching Johnny that God doesn't exist and is forcing that Darwin nonsense down his throat.



In fact, for those who bother to read even that small clip, you'll see that "Evolution", in the modern (Post 1930's) sense isn't even Darwinian. Darwin is simply the first guy to document the PROCESS of evolutionary change; who got his book paid attention to.


Which brings me to the issue of what Schools are teaching:


The IAP, (InterAcademy Panel) developed the framework for what is SUPPOSED to be taught in science classes in regards to Evolution:

IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION
We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world,
within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of
photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation
of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the
release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the
structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin.

We also subscribe to the following statement regarding the nature of science in relation to the teaching of evolution and, more generally, of any field of scientific knowledge :
Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence.

Science focuses on:
(i) observing the natural world. and;
(ii) formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still unobserved phenomena.

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully
aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.

While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

The most important part of that Policy Statement is this:

"Science focuses on:
(i) observing the natural world. and;
(ii) formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still unobserved phenomena."




The problem with injecting CS/ID into that is that the proponents of CS/ID want to do to science what Mexicans are doing to the Southern US Border: Jump over the gate and be fully accepted the moment their feet touch down.

The conversation goes kind of like this:



CS/ID: "Hey! Evolution can't explain X, Y & Z!"


Science: "Uh, yeah... We know. We'd like to, but we're still trying to figure that out."


CS/ID: "We've got your answer! Since this stuff looks like it was designed, there must be a designer! So let's start teaching that RIGHT AWAY!"


Science: "ummm...  So so who or what is this designer you mentioned?"


CS/ID: "Hey, don't worry about that right now. Let's just admit that there was a designer and then we can worry about adding in WHO that designer is <cough>God<cough> Later!"


Science: "Uhhh, OK...  Well then, can we see the evidence you have that a Designer is the only possible explanation? Because if we're wasting our time here looking for one we'd sure like to stop.


CS/ID: "Evidence? Why it's right there in front of you! Look how complex that stuff it! It could only possibly have come from a designer."


Science: "Ummm... That's not actually Evi...den... What about Experimental Data? You must have formed some testable hypothesis and done the experiments to confirm them, right? So break 'em out and then we can all go fishing!


CS/ID: "Don't worry about that right now! This Designer thing MUST be the answer, and we must start teaching it right away!"


Science: "Uh, yeah.... Look, what we do here is to observe things, form hypothesis and make predictions based on them; and then test them to either confirm or discard our hypothesis." You say that you have an answer for us, but you don't have any evidence, you don't have a hypothesis that you're willing to talk about and you don't have any experimental data or even a proposal for a machine we need to build to TEST your hypothesis.


CS/ID: "So what? Look at that complexity!"


Science: "Yes, we see... It's complex. "


CS/ID: "Well there you go!"


Science: "Well look,  that's an interesting idea that you have and I'm sure that it would be a lot of fun to talk about, but without evidence, test results or even so much as a proposal for HOW we could test it, your hypothesis sounds a little like, well... Religion."


CS/ID: "Liberal! Commie! What have you got against Christians!?!"


Science: "Huh?"


CS/ID: "We'll see you in court!"

And, what happens when major components of the theory are falsified?

For instance, a purely naturalistic evolutionary scheme must ALSO include some means for life to have arisen from non-organic matter, some means for the basic molecules that formed organic matter to further assemble, become more complex (rather than less), and eventually form what we actually DO observe -- highly complex, tightly regulated life systems, with operating cellular machines that are seemingly irreducible, one needing the other in a synthesis package (often called symbiotic by naturalists in order to explain what they cannot currently explain) that works together to ever increase in complexity until we have thinking beings that can rationally reason all this information.

Additionally, IF there is a purely naturalistic evolutionary scheme that explains how life began, arose, and formed species, then it must also retreat backward even further to explain how the cosmos that provided the chemical basis for inorganic material came to be.

It can do NONE of the above.  So, is the theory "falsified"?  No.  Why not?  Because to falsify the naturalistic theory of evolution is to open a door to some intelligent creator/first cause/god that on purely ideological reasons is disqualified from the discussion.

Get over those huge first hurdles and I'll be happy to talk about the rest.