Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
I was responding to the claim made in the editorial, that theories are based on things not directly observed. (The editorialist also claimed that humans cannot be said to have "directly observed" evolution -- you can take that up with him....)
What does it [ID] predict? How can it be tested? What hypothetical observation would falsify it?
Those same questions would obviously apply to the Theory of Evolution. And I'd be especially interested in seeing how you'd answer how "prediction" would work.....
Be that as it may, Intelligent Design answers those questions with amazing ease -- not unexpected, since it is at root a theory based on the application of engineering principles. The monkey/jellyfish gene combo provides an excellent test case. The prior condition for ID (i.e., what does it predict) would be some perceived need or desire to achieve a certain biological result (e.g., a DNA marker that glows in the dark). The testing/falsification aspects are done according to standard scientific/engineering practice.
I suspect what you're really asking is: how would one detect the actions of a designer after the fact, even if we know that a designer was involved? That's a very thorny question, made tougher by the fact that we humans tend to think of things mechanically, and in terms of how we might design them. (This helps explain the loose language of the typical "nature created an ingeneous adaptation" explanation.)
Which is to say, we have an innate sense of how design might have caused this or that biological feature, and it often makes a lot of intuitive sense to think that way. It seems far a more difficult task to think up ways for random mutations to explain something that is so easily explained by the actions of a designer.
Clarify what you are driving at here please.
Evolution is certainly a comfortable fit with its explanatory power, but that is a post hoc benefit. What macro changes has it, or can it testably predict?
Because science uses subtle distinctions. People need to understand what the definitions are inside the scientific world as apposed to the layman use.
Science doesn't have a monopoly on subtleties. People understand quite well what a scientist means when he tells them evolution is a fact, and it's not the same thing your abstract posited about 23 chromosomes being a titular "fact."
I said no such thing.
Evolve!
> the Genesis Creation account stands up to scientific laws/principles.
Uhhh.... BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
Yes... plants before the sun.... sure thing....
>Creation is more in line with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics than evolution.
Hogwash. Evolution is entirely consistant with the laws of thermodynamics.
>Something does not come from nothing
Cosmogenesis is a separate discussion from organic evolution.
> and the organized tends toward disorganization.
Yes, in a global scale. And the *tiny* fraction of the Earth that has self-assembled into a more complex order has been powered by the heat in the Earth's core (which is cooling) and by the sun (which is burning out). The Earth's biosphere is NOT a closed energy system. There is substantial energy input from outside.
Well, not according to this thread posted just today:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1290301/posts
Any other credibility enhancing suggestions?
OK, first of all, blindly following these guidelines is just as bad as blindly following the guidelines of the creationists.
You presume that this statement is free of bias, arrogance, and scientific dogma.
Don't expect the scientific community to be free of bias.
In some ways, their own terms and rules can reflect their own religious dogma.
>> However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely
There is a problem with this statement.
1. How the hell does one know the likeliness of abandonment in order to say that "their subsequent abandonment very unlikely"? That's akin to saying "what I say is absolutely true until in an unlikely event proves otherwise." It's an arrogant statement of self accreditation.
2. The presumption is that that the evidence itself is indisputable. Bodies of evidence can in fact, be incorrect. Bodies of evidence *do* give creedence, but do not mean a theory is true. (As you well know, there is always the causation versus correlation problem, among other problems, when it comes to "evidence".)
As far as facts being more likely to be disproven than theories, I beg to differ to a degree.
On the macro level, this statement isn't true -- For example, under typical circumstances gravity will cause items such as an apple on a tree to fall to earth.
On the micro/quantumn level however, "facts" become less factual. Things that apply at the macro level don't necessarily apply here. On this statement I could agree.
And I do agree that *consensus* does give crediblity to a theory, but doesn't place it in the "unlikely to be abandoned" category.
Science isn't a religion, and the scientific community needs to try harder in eliminating it's religious dogma. It's ok to believe in God, and it's ok to say theories are best guesses and not indisputable -- neither of these fly in the face of pure science.
As I stated earlier, many theories have been wrong. Hawkings theories on black holes turned out to be wrong, despite being "unlikely to be abandoned."
OK, first of all, blindly following these guidelines is just as bad as blindly following the guidelines of the creationists.
You presume that this statement is free of bias, arrogance, and scientific dogma.
Don't expect the scientific community to be free of bias.
In some ways, their own terms and rules can reflect their own religious dogma.
>> However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely
There is a problem with this statement.
1. How the hell does one know the likeliness of abandonment in order to say that "their subsequent abandonment very unlikely"? That's akin to saying "what I say is absolutely true until in an unlikely event proves otherwise." It's an arrogant statement of self accreditation.
2. The presumption is that that the evidence itself is indisputable. Bodies of evidence can in fact, be incorrect. Bodies of evidence *do* give creedence, but do not mean a theory is true. (As you well know, there is always the causation versus correlation problem, among other problems, when it comes to "evidence".)
As far as facts being more likely to be disproven than theories, I beg to differ to a degree.
On the macro level, this statement isn't true -- For example, under typical circumstances gravity will cause items such as an apple on a tree to fall to earth.
On the micro/quantumn level however, "facts" become less factual. Things that apply at the macro level don't necessarily apply here. On this statement I could agree.
And I do agree that *consensus* does give crediblity to a theory, but doesn't place it in the "unlikely to be abandoned" category.
Science isn't a religion, and the scientific community needs to try harder in eliminating it's religious dogma. It's ok to believe in God, and it's ok to say theories are best guesses and not indisputable -- neither of these fly in the face of pure science.
As I stated earlier, many theories have been wrong. Hawkings theories on black holes turned out to be wrong, despite being "unlikely to be abandoned."
"If your interpretation of the "law of physics" were correct, there would be no life at all, since every living thing violates your interpretation."
Exactly my point. Something other than a random combination, such as hydrogen and oxygen combining to make water, is at play here. Survival of the fittest, which I believe, requires the arrival of the fit.
The problem lies in the arena of capability vs. actual use. Many folks COULD be much smarter and wiser than they are - unfortunately, they aren't. Check the reading level of any of the Federalist Papers and you will find that they were written on a post-graduate level. Do the same thing with most papers today and you will find the result to be much lower. The goal of making everyone equal is nearly complete!
Where are they? You've posted about 50 items. And please give me the one best. I'm not going to make a career out of debunking dozens of silly quotes. I want your strongest quote. Surely you're capable of making that kind of evaluation.
The technique of picking a small minority of dishonest scientists and using that to claim that all scientists are frauds can work both ways.
I seem to remember that preacher Jim Jones, the original Koolaid drinker, was a mass murderer. With the recent Catholic homosexual scandals, many secular people believe that all religious people are one step away from similar acts.
That and a personal example in my life, where a Southern Baptist Church in Oklahoma City helped cover up the actions of a convicted child molester don't make religion a good example of honesty.
I hope my previous post has cleared up your misconceptions about theories. ;-)
"Do you think that this is a statement on evolution, or are you just changing the subject?"
If creationism is being posed as being an alternate view on the subject, then obviously the subject is on origins -- which is actually what is taught in schools when they talk about evolution.
I'm not "suggesting" anything except that it's foolish to rule out something that we humans do on a regular basis; namely, use our intelligence to create living things with desired characteristics. Given that we do it all the time, why is it somehow "unscientific" to suggest that it may not be a process that's limited to Earth-bound humans?
The initial problem is in getting folks to acknowledge the obvious fact that intelligent designers are alive and working on planet Earth. Sometimes it's those obvious facts that are hardest to accept.....
Did you go to public high school in this country?
The schools struggle to teach the basic components of a cell, how will they deal with the morphology of 3500 types of eyes or the molecular precursors of flagella???
Not going to happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.