Darwin's Influence

[cdowis]

Let's get back on track. I don't have a bunch of letters after my name, but I do have common-sense, and understand logic.

With a flourish, Arc declares:

Since the application of the scientific method requires generation of testable hypotheses, and to be testable a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and any possible hypothesis based on ID is not falsifiable (by definition), ID is not science, by definition.

I think you must have read this somewhere, without giving it much thought. On the surface it sounds deep and profound, but as one looks more deeply, it's actually rather silly.

Basically you are declaring that evolution is science, and ID is not. So, let's test your assertion with logic and common sense.

Now, to start our friendly discussion, please give us one basic example where this has been applied to evolution. Now, we would appreciate a simple explanation that someone without a bunch of letters would understand. Let's keep this simple.

I'm not in the results, but in the hypothesis behind the test -- the logic behind the hypothesis.

The hypothesis must basically state: if we get the "wrong results", then evolution has been proven false. And it must be predictive.

The next step is the methodology itself, how the test was conducted. What were the assumptions behind the test. Was it strictly mechanical, or were choices made in how the test was conducted.

Let's see what you got.

Thanks.

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion

The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.

VII. References

1. Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research (McGraw-Hill, 1952).

2. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962).

3. Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).

[cdowis]

Please give us an answer, and quit insulting our intelligence. I am sure we are all quite familiar with the scientific method, thankyouverymuch.

Now get back to the question.

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

Where did that come from?

Science by its very design and nature must be falsifiable. The belief in some force or entity known as ID is not falsifiable. It can neither to proven or disproven.

Now personally I have no problem with anyone believing in that force. I believe in God. But I as a scientist can not prove or disprove that belief.

Here is a solution for you, devise an experiment to falsify ID. I don't know where to even begin.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

Where did that come from?

Science by its very design and nature must be falsifiable. The belief in some force or entity known as ID is not falsifiable. It can neither to proven or disproven.

Now personally I have no problem with anyone believing in that force. I believe in God. But I as a scientist can not prove or disprove that belief.

Here is a solution for you, devise an experiment to falsify ID. I don't know where to even begin.

Are you going to continue to blow hot air, or answer my question. Are you going to demonstrate that evolution is a science, and give us one basic experiment on that basis of falsifying evolution.

I am not particularly interested in the result at this point. I want the hypothesis in easily understood English so that we can actually agree that it is a test to falsify evolution.

Once we can agree on such a test, we can then see if it applies to ID.

Or, do you agree that evolution is also not science?

(BTW, if you read any of my posts, I have never asserted that ID was science. But let's see what you got)

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7.

Response:

1. There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

* a static fossil record;

* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;

* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

* observations of organisms being created.

2. This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.

Further Reading:

Bowler, Peter J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian evolution theories in the decades around 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

[cdowis]

Let me make a proposal:

If you find a direct ancestrial link between a wild animal and a human being, you can claim to have disproved ID.

I think proponents of ID would universally disclaim any direct relationship between, for example, chimp and man. They do not have a common ancestor.

Therefore, ID is now a science.

Now it's your turn. Let's hear a falsafiable test for evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Cdowis:

To find several fully modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens skeletal remains in several different Precambrian strata sites.

[cdowis]

Cdowis:

To find several fully modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens skeletal remains in several different Precambrian strata sites.

OK, very nice, and that would falsify ID as well -- two sides of the same coin, so to speak.

So we agree on at least two test for ID, so it is science.

[littlechild]

cdowis:

Where did that come from?

Science by its very design and nature must be falsifiable. The belief in some force or entity known as ID is not falsifiable. It can neither to proven or disproven.

Now personally I have no problem with anyone believing in that force. I believe in God. But I as a scientist can not prove or disprove that belief.

Here is a solution for you, devise an experiment to falsify ID. I don't know where to even begin.

Explain how the doctrine of common descent is falsifiable. You also cannot prove evolution is true, so does that make it as irrelevant as your religion ? Are evolution AND belief in God unscientific?

[thesometimesaint]

littlechild:

God can take care of himself. But as a scientist I can not prove he does.

[Mordecai]

Science by its very design and nature must be falsifiable.

I don't think so. I've looked at a few definitions of science. Much of the time, science is simply using the best explanation based on evidence and logic to describe the universe. In fact, ID's central hypothesis, some things in nature are best explained by intelligent design, is disprovable. It simply competes with Darwinism all the way, and if Darwin's theory is a poor explanation and there is sufficient complexity and specificity, ID is the best explanation. I've already listed many predictions made by ID (three times now). Each of them are testable. So what's the problem?

The belief in some force or entity known as ID is not falsifiable. It can neither to proven or disproven.

A force or entity known as ID? LOL What in the WORLD??? You really have to actually know what ID is, before you start debating against it. Is intelligence a force or entity? Is design? You could use intelligent design to determine whether this post was the result of random letters or someone typing, in fact. While I could purposely make a jumble of letters that looks like random letters, you can still use objective evidence to deem this post intelligently designed (although the level of intelligence is debatable).

Here is a solution for you, devise an experiment to falsify ID. I don't know where to even begin.

Intelligent design, by it's very nature can't necessarily be 100% falsified without direct observation (for macroevolution, this would require the ability to observe the past directly). That doesn't mean that forensic sciences, for example, must be termed a pseudo-science. It is possible to eliminate random chance or nature, though. For example, if you find a note written, you don't assume that some ink spilled and made fancy designs, do you? So in that case, ID is 100% objectively shown to be the best explanation (which is all science is supposed to do... it doesn't necessarily have to be falsifiable, because in the real world, some things just aren't possible, especially with historical sciences).

Darwinism seems impossible to disprove, considering how many of the core predictions turned out to be hogwash, but it still stands as the central dogma of biology.

[littlechild]

littlechild:

God can take care of himself. But as a scientist I can not prove he does.

As a scientist you also cannot answer direct questions as you have proven over and over.

It is not the point that you can't prove the existence of God. Nowhere have you been asked to. You are responding to a self-generated argument.

You can however, prove the existence of an intelligent designer. You can prove it mathematically to a degree that should lay to rest any scientific objections to the claim. It is mathematically much more probable that a designer exists than that inert materials self organized into living entities.

I have quoted from William Dembski's work before (No Free Lunch) but reasonable people can all be led to the same conclusions by exercising good logic and with a background of sufficient facts. Many scientists from centuries past felt they were working in the realm of God's creation. When did "science" decide to oust the Creator from his handiwork? I think was a fairly recent invention from folks with an agenda based upon faulty philosophical reasoning, not one based on science per se.

From creationwiki.org:

Clearly, defining ideas as falsifiable when they could "conceivably" be falsified is not a useful definition, for two reasons:

First, scientists conceive of new experiments that were once inconceivable on a daily basis, thus making unfalsifiable ideas falsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are in fact the lifeblood of science, because they are the fuel that drives the experiments of tomorrow.

Second, the definition is not useful because it leaves the criteria for "science vs. non-science" entirely in the imagination of the scientist. For while many experiments may be conceived, they are not useful unless they can be conducted.

This leads us to a second point: Unfalsifiable ideas are not necessarily false. We simply can't test them. If we adopt the first definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to "conceive" of an experiment to test the idea, then unfalsifiable ideas are useless, because they can never be tested and thus never become science.

But if we adopt the second definition of falsifiability, that we must be able to perform the experiment to test the idea, then we acknowledge that things which are not testable today may become testable tomorrow, and the goal of science becomes to expand the range of human knowledge by finding ways to test what is not yet testable. Under this definition, unfalsifiable ideas become the lifeblood of science, because it is from them that new experiments are tested, new discoveries made, and new science developed.

http://www.creationwiki.org/Falsifiability

[littlechild]

A force or entity known as ID? LOL What in the WORLD??? You really have to actually know what ID is, before you start debating against it. Is intelligence a force or entity? Is design? You could use intelligent design to determine whether this post was the result of random letters or someone typing, in fact. While I could purposely make a jumble of letters that looks like random letters, you can still use objective evidence to deem this post intelligently designed (although the level of intelligence is debatable).

Intelligent design, by it's very nature can't necessarily be 100% falsified without direct observation (for macroevolution, this would require the ability to observe the past directly). That doesn't mean that forensic sciences, for example, must be termed a pseudo-science. It is possible to eliminate random chance or nature, though. For example, if you find a note written, you don't assume that some ink spilled and made fancy designs, do you? So in that case, ID is 100% objectively shown to be the best explanation (which is all science is supposed to do... it doesn't necessarily have to be falsifiable, because in the real world, some things just aren't possible, especially with historical sciences).

Darwinism seems impossible to disprove, considering how many of the core predictions turned out to be hogwash, but it still stands as the central dogma of biology.

The science of cryptoanalysis is based upon a similar principle. If a pattern can be decoded to produce useful information it comes from an intelligent source. The same way with the SETI program. We search for patterns in signals in an effort to detect whether they stem from an intelligent origin. These are scientific endeavors, and so is intelligent design.

[cdowis]

Let us consider string theory.

There is no way at the present to test it, but scientists are very much involved with the theory because it provides explanations on the quantum level. Fortunately Deity is not part of string theory, so scientists do not hesitate to work with it.

[thesometimesaint]

littlechild:

Present your "proof" to the world.

Here is mine.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024#toc

[littlechild]

littlechild:

Present your "proof" to the world.

Here is mine.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024#toc

You call that a proof?

[Mordecai]

You call that a proof?

I think he's talking about the downloadable PDF. I actually downloaded and plan on reading it. Since the NAS has strawmanned ID repeatedly, I expect them to do it again. Easily dismantled.

[littlechild]

littlechild:

Present your "proof" to the world.

Here is mine.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024#toc

I've read your little 48 page diatribe against creationism, with its predictable unsubstantiated and controversial claims. There is nothing new here. It reflects a commitment to materialism, and to asserting various "truths" without so much as a single objective method to prove any of it. You really should be ashamed of yourself for thinking this "proves" anything, if you style yourself as a thinking person, let alone a scientist.

At any rate, I have told you before about William Dembski's excellent book, "No Free Lunch", Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. If you read it, which I highly recommend, you will learn why the story of evolution is utterly impossible. ( I know this raises hackles, but there's just no softball way of telling you )

For starters, there's this quote from Richard Lewontin, Harvard biologist:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism [i.e., naturalism]. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, The New York Review of Books (9 January 1997): 31

In other words, there is no scientific basis for science to confine itself to materialistic explanation, as I have heretofore explained in my post about falsifiability. You don't appear to have read that post for you have not addressed the points it raises.

Another quote from Dembski's wonderful coup d'etat against Darwinism:

Implicit in a universal probability bound such as 10^-150 is that the universe is too small a place to generate the specified complexity by sheer exhaustion of possibilities. Stuart Kauffman develops this theme at length in his book Investigations. In one of his examples (and there are many like it throughout the book), he considers the number of possible proteins of length 200 (i.e., 20²⁰⁰or approximately 10²⁶⁰) and the maximum number of pairwise collisions of particles throughout the history of the universe (he estimates 10¹⁹³ total collisions supposing the reaction rate for collisions can be measured in femtoseconds). Kauffman concludes: "The known universe has not had time since the big bang to create all possible proteins of length 200 [even] once." To emphasize this point, he notes: "It would take at least 10 to the 67th times the current lifetime of the universe for the universe to manage to make all possible proteins of length 200 at least once."

[Rob Osborn]

littlechild:

Present your "proof" to the world.

Here is mine.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024#toc

A few points from the downloadable book I found interesting-

For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells....Of course, even if a living cell were to be made in the laboratory, it would not prove that nature followed the same pathway billions of years ago. But it is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed. The history of science shows that seemingly intractable problems like this one may become amenable to solution later, as a result of advances in theory, instrumentation, or the discovery of new facts.

On one hand they admit that they have no confirmation that life can even come from nonbiologic sources and then on the other they say that this process is no longer a question! And this is supposed to be the best "scientific" evidence we have of lifes origins?

Here is a sentence that sums up their obvious bias and political agenda (dogma)

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.

Under this definition not even murder investigations cannot be scientific because it would involve the "supernatural". ID claims no "supernatural" source. By supernatural we are speaking of processes that are outside of laws in physics and nature.

These claims made in the book is why we have the dogma of evolution in our schools. These publishers should be shot in the name of true scientific inquiry. What a dis-service to science- they don't realize science is supposed to be objective to all possibilities. The NAS has pretty much said- "our way or nothing". And the dogmatism continues...

They mis-anaylize creationist claims on the flood stating things like not enough water on the earth could cover the highest mountains. Creationists do not even claim this! Creationists have always claimed that the mountains we have today arose after the flood. They can't even get the right claims put forth! They twist the truth, they lie out-rightly, and above all, they misinform all in the name of their sacred science. They should all be shot!

[littlechild]

I'm very disappointed to hear an educator say this. This is about Biology, not all the sciences. Our children need to learn dependable scientific theories and principles in science class not be confused and distracted by alternative, non scientific information and debating something that really isn't debatable. It isn't the school's function to teach our children religion. That is our function as parents and as a church. We are doing our children a great disservice if we don't teach them that God and science are perfectly compatible.

I'm very disappointed to hear you repeat the dogma that ID is not science when you can't even proffer a definition of science. And what is dependable about common descent and natural selection when you can't even prove the existence of such phenomena unless you resort to pure faith and circular thinking?

Common descent is not falsifiable and an unproven conjecture. Natural selection has no force or effect outside the imagination of those who believe it.

[littlechild]

A few points from the downloadable book I found interesting-

On one hand they admit that they have no confirmation that life can even come from nonbiologic sources and then on the other they say that this process is no longer a question! And this is supposed to be the best "scientific" evidence we have of lifes origins?

Here is a sentence that sums up their obvious bias and political agenda (dogma)

Under this definition not even murder investigations cannot be scientific because it would involve the "supernatural". ID claims no "supernatural" source. By supernatural we are speaking of processes that are outside of laws in physics and nature.

These claims made in the book is why we have the dogma of evolution in our schools. These publishers should be shot in the name of true scientific inquiry. What a dis-service to science- they don't realize science is supposed to be objective to all possibilities. The NAS has pretty much said- "our way or nothing". And the dogmatism continues...

They mis-anaylize creationist claims on the flood stating things like not enough water on the earth could cover the highest mountains. Creationists do not even claim this! Creationists have always claimed that the mountains we have today arose after the flood. They can't even get the right claims put forth! They twist the truth, they lie out-rightly, and above all, they misinform all in the name of their sacred science. They should all be shot!

I understand the passion, but disagree with the execution!

[3ToedSloth]

At any rate, I have told you before about William Dembski's excellent book, "No Free Lunch", Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. If you read it, which I highly recommend, you will learn why the story of evolution is utterly impossible. ( I know this raises hackles, but there's just no softball way of telling you )

Evolution "only becomes impossible" because he mistakenly concludes there have been mutation events in the history of evolution with a random increase in information content greater than 500 bits. As of right now, there is no research or data, comming out of Dembski to support that that claim that can be evaluated and tested. You'll also see that Dembski fully agrees that increases in information of less than 500 bits can and often do arise by chance.

There is a reason why his Law of Conservation of Information will never find acceptance in academic circles and it has nothing to do with "Materialist" bias. If you'll flip to pages 162-63, you'll see his explanation comes up something like this...

I(Y&X) <= I(Y)+500

Thats not even a conservation is any sense of the word, much less a mathematical law. Thats just limit with a rather arbitrary number added in.

If you wish ID to be taken seriously, I suggest you find other sources.

[MannyPaquio]

I did not vote because I believe a simple "yes" or "no" would not do justice to my views on the subject. The subject of evolution is a hot-button topic among many groups. Some see it as a theory spawned by Satan, the goal of which is to make people stop believing in God. Some people believe evolution is completely bogus, while others see it as practically gospel. I think there are a few things most people would agree with, namely:

(1) There is very compelling evidence that evolution, at least on a micro-organism level, occurs as a matter of fact;

(2) There is evidence that evolution of species also occurs, but there are sufficient gaps in the fossil record to prevent us from proving beyond doubt that human beings evolved from apes, who in turn evolved from lower life forms, on down the line until everything, including humans, evolved from microorganisms.

(3) There are aspects about human nature, personality, and physiology which are sufficiently complex that it is difficult to provide a complete explanation for their existence based upon only the current evidence we have concerning evolution; many people believe that such evidence will be found as the science and technology to analyze organisms advances, and many people are satisfied with the current evidence being sufficient to show that humans were created through the evolutionary process, although some of the details have yet to be ironed out.

(4) Children in a classroom are likely to have their views influenced by the content of the materials presented to them by their teacher and the manner of the presentation.

(5) No one has provided objective, verifiable proof of God's existence to the rest of the world, although many people claim to have had subjective spiritual experiences witnessing to them that God exists.

(6) There is wide disagreement on whether observable conditions and phenomena in the universe support the view that God exists.

(7) Parents generally should have input on what children are taught, but this principle should not be applied so as to deny a child exposure to a range of ideas, even ideas with which the parent disagrees.

In light of the foregoing principles, I suggest that children in school (whether public or private) should be exposed, as objectively as possible, to both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. Teachers should be required, however, to present the material in a way which does not pressure students to disregard either theory or accept one over the other. For example, I would not be in favor of a curriculum where the teacher is allowed to tell its 10-year-olds something like, "Today, we're going to talk about evolution, a satanic theory which denies the existence of God and which has been thoroughly debunked by respected Christian scientists. We'll also talk about intelligent design, and learn how God created the world as described in the Book of Genesis." Likewise, I would not want a teacher teaching its fifth-graders, "Everyone but a few Christian wackos knows that evolution is true and that humans evolved from other species. The fossil record clearly shows that neither God nor anyone else had any guiding hand in how humans evolved. So-called 'intelligent design' is just an irrational theory designed by ignorant theists to cope with the unpleasant fact that they don't have a shred of evidence for God's existence and that all the science shows that humans are mere animals who were created through nature."

Any curriculum must acknowledge and explore the controversy between the two theories, fairly present the arguments on both sides of the debate, accurately and objectively acknowledge the majority consensus in the scientific community, make clear to the students that they are free to formulate their own opinions on the subject based upon the arguments and evidence put forth, and also clarify that the role of formal non-religious education is to focus on science and facts, not teach theology or advocate any set of religious beliefs.

Thank you. This is very informative and objective. I've been looking long and hard for this type of explanation, and you provided a compare and contrast which was great.

[MannyPaquio]

One thing science can never explain away are the incorruptible saints. Look here at Padre Pio:

http://www.pilgrimages.com/padrepio/padrepio.jpg

see the holes in his hands, those are called the stigmata (the wounds of Christ), he bore those for the last 51 years of his life. Many scientest and cynics analyzed his hands, but never could they explain it away.

And check out St. Bernadette (hold your mouse over the image):

http://www.catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/ba_bernadette_intro.htm

That picture was taken 118 years after her death, yet her body still hasn't decompossed.

And there any plenty more incorruptible bodies of saints I could post. We have a saint, John Neumann, in the Philly area. I'm bringing my friend who lives in unbelief to see his incorruptible body and I want him to somehow explain to me how it can be without the hand of an Almighty God.