I should start by saying that I mostly like all of James Joyner’s new guest posters over at OTB And so far, I’ve liked Steve Verdon. I’m sure many people find him (like me) often a tad caustic, but I admire someone who will stand up and call a dimwit a dimwit.
Having said that; He blew it…. a mile high.
(He gave no link for his excerpt, so I have none)
Dover High School Administrators: Dimwits
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.
[Steve’s words]
Well it isn’t as bad as it could be. At least they make the tautological statement that a theory is just a theory instead of saying evolution is a theory (i.e., evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is “just” a theory). Of course, this is true of all theories. The statement that theory is just a theory is like saying, rain is just rain. It is an obvious truism that contains almost no information.There are gaps in a great many theories. All theories have controversies. These two facts do not render theories false, meaningless nor does it mean that alternatives are to be considered on equal footing. Such views underscore either an empty-headed understanding of science or it is a sign of dishonesty. …
Also, I think it is misleading to simply say that students should keep an open mind about any scientific theory in general. Science does not work that way. Theories are ranked according to how well the theories fit the data. If a theory does not fit the data as well as another theory why should we opt for the theory with less explanatory power?
Excuse me? Did he just say, “I think it is misleading to simply say that students should keep an open mind about any scientific theory in general.” WOW! The ego of man on proud display.
Considering he prides himself on being a scientist, I’m quite stunned he said that. I guess Steve would have thrown rocks at Copernicus.*
The guidelines were extremely well thought out and well worded. It covered all aspects fairly. (and that’s hard to come by nowadays.)
In case Steve was asleep in 9th grade, the Sun does not rotate around the Earth, the planet is not flat and angels do not dance on the heads of pins. If there is one truism in science is, it is that the more man is convinced he is right, the more often he is proven wrong. And every generation thinks theirs’ is enlightened – immune to such folly.
If there is a ‘dimwit’ to be castigated, it is Steve himself for unfathomable hubris.
When you fail to question a theory, you have officially made your beliefs into a religion.
Clarification: I get his point that “there are theories and then there are theories.” In rereading my post it looked like that was my only problem with it. It was not. I disagree strongly with refusing to teach another theory because “we all know” which one is right. History should have taught us the danger in that.
I tried very hard to NOT talk about the merits of one theory over another and perhaps I was unclear.
I’ll stop now, lest I change the discussion from one of the scientific method to one of the origin of man. (which I’m not discussing, but I’ll put a further comment in the comments)
]]>*Postscript: Contrary to the (modern) legend, Copernicus was not stoned to death. His work was actually published just a few weeks before his death and he never knew the stir it would cause.
Lots of people get this wrong. Darwin published two distinctly different works; Evolution was the first, an assembly of data concerning the evolution of plants and animals (psst…we get new flushots every year cause them little bugger evolve), and the second publication was The Theory of Natural Selection. Evolution is not a theory but a scientifically proven fact. The theory of natural selection remains just that, a theory but the best one around. Things evolve, microevolution is seen around us from everything from the common cold to insects developing immunities to pesticides. Macroevolution can be bothersome to those who believe an invisible man in the sky did it all.
PS:
PS: The proper way to question any theory is to conduct repeatable experiments of your own, or to indicate scientific work done by others, that provide a reasonable difference to what has been considered the norm. Simply arguing because you do not happen to believe in something, with no evidence save for an emotional predisposition, means you are a contrarian, not a person of good will that has chosen to embark upon a knowledgeable breakthrough.
Indeed, evolution is a reality, but what we do not yet have is an explanation for the origin of life. There’s a difference, and that’s one thing that bugs me about the way the Pennsylvania statement is worded: “Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.”
Naturalism does not yet have a credible explanation for the origin of life. There are a variety of theories being explored. And yes, ID definitely provides one proposed explanation for the origin of life—God put it there. (On that very specific point, certainly no less preposterous than the panspermia idea, which does nothing but shift the origin-of-life question to another planet.) But Darwinism is not an explanation for the origin of life, it is an explanation for the diversity of life that arose from the first life.
Admittedly, ID attempts to go much further than to simply explain the origin of life, and challenges the notion that evolution is the sole process driving the development of the species. To form a complete naturalistic counterpart to ID you need both modern Darwinism and some sort of abiogenesis theory.
Evolution is an unproven theory, Gunny. It may be “proven” to scientists, but none of them have ever won a debate with Kent Holvind. Evolution itself relies on theories of theories, i.e. radio carbon dating. Carbon dating is so exact it can date the skeleton of a fossil as being 20m years younger than the flesh on the bones it is attached to.
Just to be clear I’m not saying that Darwinism is “on probation” or anything like that just because we don’t have an established abiogenesis theory. That is a debate I’m not getting into. Just that there is a slight difference of scope between ID and darwinism.
If one were to question, say Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, I would suggest they speak to the people of Hiroshoma or Nagasaki. They may have an interesting point of view of how a “theory is just a theory.”
While no such proof is available for evolution, the basic outlines of Darwin’s theory have held up remarkably well for 150 years. While the processes involved in evolution are just now becoming known as a result of evolutionary biology, psychology, archeology and anthropology, what’s clear is that intelligent design is an anthropromorphic construct…not necessarily “wrong” but something akin to putting chicken before the egg.
Bio-tech labs are not run on principles related to intelligent design. If we want our children to be running these labs in twenty years rather than sweeping the floors of German and Japanese bio-tech factories, I would suggest that we teach our children modern biology…which is based on Darwin’s theories of evolution.
You know, in Einstein’s day it was thought we knew nearly everything about physics there was to know. The universe was hought by nearly everyone to be totally mechanistic until quantum mechanics turned that idea on its ear. It’s funny how wrong we often are.
That said, intelligent design looks unlikely. To paraphrase Glen Cook, it’s not necessary to explain anything. The weak anthropic principle says we have to be here, or we wouldn’t be asking how we got here. How unlikely the steps to evolve a human are is immaterial in an infinite universe.
“Evolution itself relies on theories of theories, i.e. radio carbon dating. “
Wha? ho? WTF? Counting atoms as they do in Radio carbon dating to measure the decay of certain isotopes is hardly “theory.” Anything measurable is as close to fact in science that you can get.
I suppose because no one has stepped off the 250,000 miles from the earth to the moon you’re not convinced that’s the case.
I hate to tell you, but Darwin’s theory of evolution is still theory. But he isn’t all wet either. Darwin’s own journals detailiing his day-to-day encounters with reality on the HMS Beagle are very worthwhile reading for any scientist worth his sheepskin.
There is still the problem of the K-T Boundary problem where the dinosaurs disappeared. Much to my chagrin, a Christian fundamentalist brought this to my attention, but at the time I was in no mood to listen. Then I went to a party for new Engineering PhD’s at UC Berkeley and I got into a rather long conversation with a rather quiet fellow who was a from the Physics Department. Being the young, brash know-it-all-just-got-my-PhD type, I told this interesting physicist about my encounter with the Christian fundamentalist and his statement that comets hitting the Earth ended the dominance of the dinosaurs. Wow! How stupid! Only dumb Christians could come up with such nonsense! Without changing his expression, the physicist said “you might want to re-consider your last statement about the dinosaurs”. Somewhat puzzled by this comment, I later asked my thesis supervisor to identify the physicist. His answer didn’t register at the time, but it did later. My thesis supervisor just smiled and said “that’s Louis Alverez, and the guy standing next to him is his son Walter!” Duh…the rest is history. If I’ve learned anything from this experience thirty years ago it is that theories are only as good as the experimental , critically- examined data by disinterested peers that is worth consideration. Even then, it will always be the guy who thinks outside the comfortable box (i.e., Eistein for example) that really advances our understanding of what is going on around us. Even Einstein had the balls to point out the holes in his own theories. That’s what makes reading his works so enjoyable.
Paul, I have a theory that Zorkon the Space God controls everything, but sometimes he doesn’t if he’s not in the mood that day.
Now, should the schoolkids be taught to “keep an open mind” and treat that theory in exactly the same way as the theory of evolution, which has stood the test of reality for over 150 years so far?
Steve Verdon’s statement was exactly right, even if the phrasing was poor. All theories are not equal, and to force students to approach them that way might even cripple their critical judgement.
Darwin’s theories have stood, with refinements along the way, for 150 years. Darwin began with facts, invented a hypothesis, then looked for facts that would refute it. He found none. No one has yet. That’s science.
ID begins not with facts, but with the idea that it wants to prove. I have never seen it presented in a form that could be falsified. As faith, it’s weak. As science, it’s bunk.
I just wrote a post about a PBS affiliate in Albuquerque, NM who pulled a show about “Intelligent Design” because it was backed by some who had “religious ties”.
Truely sad that those who have access to amazingly pertinent information are so scared of dissemination of this information if it has any sort of “religious ties”.
When there’s a billion to one chance that a random genetic mutation will lead to advancement of a life form, isn’t it obvious that there was “Intelligent Design”?
Very interesting comments. In fact, incredible comments. You rarely see this sort of discussion on the internet. Fine comments.
(Expect Superhawk who is in way over his head.)Everyone else is doing a fine job.
Carry on.
Theories about “how” we got to this point are interesting but can someone point me to the current scientific theory as to “why” and for what “purpose” life and the universe it inhabits exists? Is there an accepted theory as to where the evolution is taking us?
can someone point me to the current scientific theory as to “why” and for what “purpose” life and the universe it inhabits exists?
Yikes Jim- I don’t have that much Bourbon.
OK in my post I tried very very hard not to even touch on which theory was better than the other. That made the post very difficult to write. But perhaps if I touch on the issue here, it will make it easier to understand. (because you will know where I’m coming from)
========
So here is the deal. For generation after generation thru the millennia, every generation has been convinced -often convinced enough to kill those who disagreed- that their generation knew the origin of man.
***Our generation has no more clue than any of the ones in the past.***
Whether you believe we came from primordial ooze that got struck by lightning or you believe God put us here, you believe it not because you have proof, but because you have taken a leap of faith.
To be frank, having spent a great deal of time looking at both sides’ arguments, neither side accounts for even 1% of the questions out there. (well, OK religion decrees the answer to be correct but you know what I mean.)
If I had to give it a score like a volleyball game but 100 points were needed to win, I’d score it like this:
Religion 1 – Darwin 2
(insert your favorite words for “darwin” and “religion” ID whatever, I don’t care.)
When one theory takes a 10 point lead, get back to me. Till then, ignore the other at your own peril.
Look, there is a place for intelligent design being taught in schools: it’s called philosophy class. Intelligent design has no place in a science class because the “theory” is not a theory in the scientific sense that it is falsifiable. We can take the theory of natural selection and devise an experiment, albeit a hypothetical one, of documenting the physiological changes of various species over a period of hundreds of thousands of years to see if evolution is occuring. Sure, it’s completely impractical at this point, but it is a physical possibility. Meanwhile, there is no possible experiment one could conceive of that could ever yeild the possibility of denying the existance of an intelligent design, which boots it right out of the science arena and right into philosophy, where metaphysical discussions on it can be done all day long. Pretending that intelligent design is science does a great disservice to all parties involved.
Hmmm. Darwin’s Evolution Theory and the teleological Intelligent Design (simply a renamed doctrine that predates Christianity and Hebrew culture) are apples and, well, not oranges, how about rocks? This is a discussion placing them side by side when the original article being flamed here tried to distance the two – in an admittedly ineligant manner.
An apple may rot, but it’s seeds can sprout and grow new trees and new apples. A rock is good for bludgeoning your enemies or neighbors, but once you grind it down, all you have is dust. Certainly you may be able to make clay from it and fashion a nice pipe so you can enjoy a smoke and a pancake, but I prefer apple strudel every time.
Is that clear?
And its about as final as any discussion of this can be. Do we teach religious doctrine as scientific theory in public schools, scientific theory as humanistic doctrine, or present each as incomparable items, and leave it to developing adults to puzzle over these wonders, vagaries and paradoxes of multicultural human existence and our contradictions of truth?
Did you stop reading after the bolded section or something? Copernicus’ theory had the best fit at the time…so why would I throw rocks, let alone reject it.
My point is, and always has been, you don’t put all theories on equal footing (well maybe at first, but once you get data you shouldn’t). Do you really believe that all theories should be given equal weight? Should we dredge up Ptolemy’s model of the solar system, ressurect the notion of ether, and bring back lysenkoism? Personally I like Ian’s theory about Zorkon, maybe we should just go with that.
Personally I take the probabilistic approach to evaluating theories, hypotheses and what not. Basically, I keep an open mind in terms of evaluting data in terms of its impact on the probability of a given theory being true. In other words, all theories are treated the same, the theory and the data go through Bayes theorem and what comes out the other side is a probability of the theory being true given the evidence.
Oh…and evolution…its a fact. It has been observed. Organisms change. That is what evolution means…you know…change. Now the theory of evolution, well yeah that is a theory. Of course, such statements are tautologies and pretty much devoid of any useful content.
Remember…Rain is rain.
My problem with the whole ID thing is similar to Derb’s over at NRO: that it’s premised on pointing to what we presently don’t understand and throwing up one’s hands. “Why, it’s irreducibly complex!” or some such. That claim isn’t an honest attempt at greater understanding, it’s a stop sign – a caricature of faith at it’s anti-knowledge worst.
Oh, and in case no one saw it, last week one of those “Irreducibly Complex” problems of biology got a lot less complex – how our adaptive immune system became adaptive.
corante.com/loom/archives/the_whale_and_the_antibody.php
Wonderful atricle for the lay person on this new understanding. The Panda’s Thumb sticks the knife in a little deeper here:
pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000701.html
No Steve, read my clarification.
My problem is the the theory of evolution is (scientifically) about as impressive as Ptolemy’s.
Declaring it the “winner” by fiat is just silly.
Man Paul you are scientifically illiterate. I’m not decalaring anything the “winner” in that it is true. If by winner, you mean it is more likely (given the current evidence) then yes, Darwinism is the best theory so far. I’m sorry I didn’t run down through the Likilihood Principle, Bayesian Inference, and how Bayes factors are related to Ockham’s razor.
Read Ian’s post. He got it. You don’t present the “theory” with less explanatory power as if it is on the same footing as all others. Do you ignore it? No, and ID has not been ignored. Philosophers of science (Elliot Sober), statistians (Richard Wein), mathematicians (David Wolpert, Jeffery Shallit), physicists (Mark Perakh, Dave Thomas) and biologists (Kenneth Miller, Wesley Elsberry, Steve Reuland, Dave Ussery) have looked at different parts and proclaimed much of ID wanting. This is not being ignored, I haven’t ignored it. It just isn’t for the introductory classroom, nor is it anywhere near a theory that has stood for over a century and a half.
Oh…and evolution is not about the origins of life. That is abiogensis. Evolution is about the diversity of life.
Ron,
“Evolution itself relies on theories of theories, i.e. radio carbon dating. Carbon dating is so exact it can date the skeleton of a fossil as being 20m years younger than the flesh on the bones it is attached to.”
Uh, that would be really, really amazing. Because the half-life of C14 limits the effective range of radiocarbon dating to 50k years or so.
To paraphrase: you have less than no idea what you are talking about.
Paul- You appear to lack the background for a serious critique of natural selection. Science is neither fashion nor instinct- ie only informed opinions have any serious value. You appear to be basing a great deal of your critique on instinct- but that is an unreliable guide to knowledge IMO, because it is inherently limited to what you are already familiar with. Only rigorous thought (or profound religious experience- eg Plato’s gnoesis) can bring you into new terrain.
Id like to hear what it is that makes you think that we’ve only come to understand about 1% of the general nature of life and its evolution. Many people have worked lifetimes to vastly increase our knowledge, but you dismiss this with a casual ‘plus ca change’…
A few points then my comment:
* No Steve, you are not declaring one theory the “winner” in that you saying it is true, you just say that if you teach the other of the two major theories out there, you are a dimwit… hmmmmm.
* And for the record, I was awake in 9th grade and understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis (which BTW you might note the proper spelling of, you consistently spell it incorrectly.) Bashing my comment above is just silly. I did not speak of the origin of man in my post and in fact I made it clear that my post had nothing to do with the origin of man. I posted the comment to help you understand my point. Yet you built the straw man. Sigh.
* If you read my clarification, I get your point that some theories are more plausible than others and should be weighted… I’ve never disagreed. But when you teach that close-mindedness is part of the scientific method, you blow it.
* It has not come up yet but it will so before it does lemme say this too… Yes, I get that ID is not so much a theory as much as it is an “anti-theory” (as a friend of mine humorously calls it.) If I refer to it as a theory it is only because I’m using the nomenclature of the day.
======
My larger point. This is about the 4th time you’ve posted the same post on OTB. Dover, Pennsylvania teaches ID and it pisses you off. We get it. We got it the first 3 times.
Here’s where the hubris come. You have no more proof that evolution is a fact than I have proof the moon is made of cream cheese. (see my footnote) To bash -with such vigor- anyone who says otherwise is folly. In fact, the longer the theory of evolution stays out there, the more problems we find with it.
Looked at honestly, “your side” has a theory that is about 2% finished and “the ID’ers” have a theory that is 1%. (see my footnote) You strutting around the rhetorical barnyard like you have all the answers in silly.
You attack and call names (which I’m not always against but I am here) anyone who might have another theory. If yours was demonstrably better, then I’d back you up, but it ain’t. (did I mention the footnote?)
You are not alone. Every generation thinks they have all the answers… Then a few centuries later we look back and say “Man what idiots” of the people who came before us.
So you just rant and rave and attack anyone who says there might be more to it than what Steve’s brain can comprehend today. As I said, it is a prime example of the ego of man and I’d hate to stop the show.
—
Footnote: It might surprise many of you but I believe the theory of evolution to be true. But I’m enough of a (real) scientist that I can separate my beliefs from statements of fact. We do not have, in scientific terms, much more than a hunch today.
I love the “science v religion” battle (call it what you will evolution v ID, I don’t care) because I am perhaps one of the few people who is on neither side. I realize both sides are idiots. The ID’ers for believing what is quite probably mythology and the Steve’s of the world for believing they have all the answers.
But in the whole scope of life, the “science crowd” pisses me off more. (Ironic since I’m a science guy) The religious people admit they are acting on faith. The science crowd refuses to make that admission. And considering they pride themselves on being scientists, they have the added responsibility to admit when their beliefs exceed the bounds of known science. The religious people are, by definition, immune from this problem.
—
AND BTW Steve, the topic is NOT evolution V ID. (I know that is where you will go) I added the footnote to help explain my point. The point is that you are taking a terrific leap of faith and bashing anyone who offers another theory. Not a very scientific way of looking at things no?
btw steve, read Mescalero’s post. twice.
In what respect does your open-mindedness about the origin of species differ from Boccardi and Thornburgh’s open-mindedness about the authenticity of the Bush ANG forgeries?
“The purpose of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
— G.K. Chesterton
Steve, can you give me one example of one species that evolved into another species?
If evolution is a fact than for-sure you can give me just one tiny example of when it happened right?
If evolution explains the diversity of life, there must be millions of examples right? right?
Zrimsek that is funny but ultimately too poorly reasoned to warrant a reply. Thanks for the chuckle.
P
The C/E debate usually quickly degrades into name-calling and elephant hurling. Thanks Paul for trying to steer the discussion away from arguing for or against a specific theory.
That said, the largest differences between Neo-Darwinians, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationist, IDers, and every other “belief system” are not which questions should be asked, which facts are accepted, or even the value of science. The main difference is one of perspective. Very similar to the liberal/conservative discussions, both sides see the same issues, but approach them from completely different mindsets. When a liberal attacks a conservative position, (s)he does so from her/his own position, which is held by a priori choice. The best conservative responses are often the ones that rephrase the problem into the conservative mindset. (As opposed to answering a critic according to their own thinking–which should at least be self-consistent)
My point here is, I believe, similar to Paul’s, limiting the discussion to the origin/diversity of life to one framework and declaring that framework to be the only framework that can be operated in is no different than declaring liberalism/conservatism the only approach to government, and all other thinking as stupidity.
Thanks for the discussion,
PaulD
It was a serious question. In each case the reasoning is, “It hasn’t been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt; therefore, I can believe whatever I like.”
If it makes you feel any better, I’ll admit my belief that Dan Rather is not Queen of the Space Unicorns is nothing more than a leap of faith.
Evolution is an unproven theory, Gunny. It may be “proven” to scientists, but none of them have ever won a debate with Kent Holvind.
That’s because the requirements for winning a debate with Kent Hovind is that you convince him that you’re right. Given that his mind is utterly closed, and given that he insists on muddying the debate on evolution with things like cosmology, astronomy and an atrocious lack of understanding of physics, chemistry, and most other things scientific, winning a debate with him by his rules is not possible. There are point-by-point refutations of his materials available on the web; all you have to do is Google. But if you need help, I’d be happy to point you in the right direction.
Oh, some other things not proven beyond the shadow of a doubt:
Einstein’s theories of relativity.
Newton’s law of gravitation.
Newton’s laws of motion.
The laws of thermodynamics.
Kirchoff’s voltage and current laws.
The blackbody equation.
The ideal gas law.
Bernoulli’s law.
Is the horse dead now?
Oh, just went to the Hovind FAQ on Talkorigins.com; it appears that Hovind has about five criteria for winning the debate; only the last has anything at all to do with evolution.
What we really need is another ‘Paul” in this discussion. 😉
Paul Z read this especially the (bottom) part about reasonable doubt. Sorry that is all the time I can allow on your point. — busy.
Are you sure angels don’t dance on the head of a pin?
A farmer wakes up one morning and sees the shape of the Mandlebrot set impressed into his wheat field. He reports it to the local university and one of the science professors comes around to look at it.
The scientist says to the farmer that it is entirely possible, given enough time, that the wind could blow down the wheat stalks to create the Mandlebrot set.
When the farmer laughs and asks him what he’s been smoking, the scientist then enhances his theory to say that the wind would only bend the weak stalks and that inertia and gravity would hold down the stalks once they’re blown down.
The farmer, finally deducing that he’s actually serious, tells the scientist that he is full of it, and that someone probably crumpled the stalks into the pattern observed.
The scientist begins to scream at the farmer, “What? You think aliens did this, don’t you? You’re a typical moronic hayseed who can’t fathom all of the forces of nature we scientists deal with every day!”
“I see nature every day too, and I know it can’t do this. And I didn’t say anything about aliens, mister. I just said ‘someone’ did it,” replies the farmer.
“Idiot. Imbecile. The wind did this, so you can take your UFO stories and shove ’em,” spits the scientist as he walks off in a huff.
The farmer chuckles, shakes his head lightly, and goes back into his house. Maybe a stern phone call to the math department will prevent his wheat from being mashed down again, he ponders.
“You have no more proof that evolution is a fact than I have proof the moon is made of cream cheese.”
-Paul
Untrue. Evolutionists have fossil records, inheritance/genetics, and extinction to point to, for starters. Meanwhile, you’re stuck having to explain why those moon rocks can’t be spread easily onto a bagel. But hey, at least you chose a theory that was falsifiable, unlike the IDers.
We are not required to keep our minds open to any and every theory. We are required to keep our minds open to new evidence. There is an important difference.
For the record, Copernicus’ model of the solar system still used (small) epicycles and was no more accurate than Ptolemy’s. Until Kepler realized that planetary orbits are elliptical, and modified the Copernican model to account for it, there was no scientific basis for preferring the Copernican model to the Ptolemaic one (or vice versa).
The situation with evolution through natural selection is quite different, in that there is overwhelming evidence for it, and no evidence for radical alternatives like intelligent design.
In addition, intelligent design fails the test of logical coherence and lacks any explanatory power.
It rests on the assumption that systems of great complexity could have only arisen through the conscious, intelligent design of some agent. Such an agent, capable of constructing and shaping the development of life, must perforce be no less complex or intelligent than the life forms it designed.
So who designed the intelligent designer?
CrowScape:
You think because you have fossils of things that are dead you have evidence of evolution???
Boy, you’re easy to please.
Answer Randy’s question then we can talk.
In order for me to accept that F=ma, I’m going to need you to show me one. Just a little one, though.
Whenever I see an evolution discussion, one thing pops in my mind: the platypus – a mammal that lays eggs and (males only) has two ‘fangs’ on its hind legs to poison attackers (the poison’s strong enough to kill a dog and make a person really sick).
The only mammal on the face of the planet that produces venom. The only mammal on the face of the planet that lays eggs.
What in tarnation evolved into that silly creature?
Many have stated that microevolution is a fact – and it is. Microevolution also has no theological implications. Macroevolution, however, is troublesome theologically – and difficult to support scientifically.
Peakah,
—When there’s a billion to one chance that a random genetic mutation will lead to advancement of a life form, isn’t it obvious that there was “Intelligent Design”?—
No, because the weak anthropic principle says we have to be here to ask that question. It doesn’t matter if the odds are a trillion to 1, or 10 e+1000 to 1. In an infinite universe, since it could happen, which we know because it did happen (we’re here), it had to happen.
TallDave, there is no infinite universe.
Still, the probability of an event having happened after the fact is 1.000, approximately.
And what are the odds that I would have said exactly that?
So because we exist, it must be that random chance did it.
Wind makes crop circles, too. It can be scientifically demonstrated.
So because we exist, it must be that random chance did it.
A couple of dozen smart replies later (as well as a sore backspace finger), I’m just going to leave it that I suspect you’re committed to not understanding.
CrowScape said:
Evolutionists have fossil records, inheritance/genetics, and extinction to point to, for starters.
Creationists and IDers use the same evidence to support their ideas, only with a different interpretation.
PaulD
How would one go about testing ID as a scientific theory, may I ask?
because the weak anthropic principle says we have to be here to ask that question. It doesn’t matter if the odds are a trillion to 1, or 10 e+1000 to 1. In an infinite universe, since it could happen, which we know because it did happen (we’re here), it had to happen.
That’s not argument, that’s circular logic. We’re here, so damn the odds of us being here.
That’s like arguing the odds of an apple falling up from the floor to the table, landing inside a bowl on the table, cored, peeled and sliced, without human intervention, is like a trillion to 1, but since you left the room and the apple was on the floor, came back and found it in the bowl on the table, cored, peeled, and sliced – damn the odds, it’s there so it must have happened and oh by the way you live alone so no way human intervention was involved.
That’s like
No, it’s really not. You’re talking apples and humans, here.