Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
I believe that God created everything and the He is in control, but I am not sure that I said what you appear to think I said. I might say that I think that mutations appear to be designed rather than random(or undesigned).
Did I miss something? Why would placemarkers be illegal?
It seems each creationist has their own version of the concept of evolution. You will have to be more specific. At first you were apparently disagreeing with the notion of common ancestry which is a claim of the theory. Now what would you like to see falsified? That man descended from Australopithecus?
Try posting a theory first. One person already has, and I have responded to it. I have been very specific. I am not proposing a theory -- I am asking for a theory to be posted. Guys like you respond with comments like the above but -- no theory. You act like a theory has already been posted, and everyone has already agreed that this is the theory under discussion, but that is not the case. Let me be even more clear, and use Karl Popper's criteria for a valid theory (these criteria are used to separate pseudo-science from science and are widely accepted): the theory must posit a cause for the observed effect, must be testible, must be refutable, and must be falsifiable.
Feel free to post your understanding of what is the "theory" of evolution. I'll wait.
This experiment was done decades ago. At least two populations of fruit flies were unable to mate. The beginnings of speciation.
Please post a reference to the documentation for the experiment. I will be interested to read it. I looked on the web and didn't find it. I did find this comment by a researcher Michael Pitman on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:
"Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."
I did find reference to experiments in the 1930's on fruit flies by Theodosius Dobzhansky. It says: "In accumulating genetic differences, Dobzhansky saw how two populations might also accumulate differences in body size, colour, genital architecture, behavioural idiosyncrasies, and a thousand other characteristics that could eventually make them reluctant or unable to mate with one another. In these distinct genetic profiles, Dobzhansky believed he was seeing the origin of species in its infancy."
But note it does not say he did produce populations unable to mate with one another. It says that he "saw" how characteristics "could eventually" make them "unable to mate" with one another.
Well I got the words mostly right, if not the intention:
Posted by AndrewC to js1138
On The Smokey Backroom 08/04/2003 1:58 PM PDT #1,741 of 1,744
but on one post to me he explicitly said he believes God tweaks mutations.I believe that God created everything and the He is in control, but I am not sure that I said what you appear to think I said. I might say that I think that mutations appear to be designed rather than random(or undesigned).
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1,725 | View Replies
To: js1138
Yes, but the (supposed) mechanism for delimiting hot and cold spots could have evolved.
Yes and God could have sent his angels to tweak the molecules. You don't accept that, and I don't accept your explanation.
3,355 posted on 07/28/2003 7:01 AM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3353 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
On the contrary, to this I do not agree. Falsifiability is absolutely a demarcation criterion between science and pseudo-science. It is Popper's criteria (a) a theory must posit a cause for the observed effect, (b) be testible, (c) be refutable, and (d) be falsifiable that permit us to declare that astrology is pseudo-science. Remove those criteria, and we have to let astrology into the science tent. I for one am disinclined to do that.
Regarding your statement that no one would set that up as a criterion of validity unless they had a predetermined interest in trying to attack evolution -- is absolutely correct, as long as you realize that the same attack is applied equally to any other area of science. Unless you are asking that evolution be "let off" the hook and not held to the same standards as "real" science? After all, other theories have to meet those criteria before they get to be considered real theories. Try publishing in a reputable journal without subjecting your theory du jour to those parameters and you won't find it easy to be published -- unless of course you are publishing in psychology or sociology, but then those aren't real sciences, are they? (Sorry in advance if you happen to work in either of those 2 areas.)
They sell books, tapes, and comics.
Actually I do believe there is an exemption in there somewhere.
My God, you don't understand sarcasm do you? That was a sarcastic remark.
His entire book disproves evolution - with facts. His irreducible complexity and his bacterial flagellum have been the subject of a fight to the death attack by evolutionists. So yes, his facts disprove the theory of evolution. As I have told you, I am not the least bit interested in whether he categorizes his work as disproving or as not disproving evolution. It does, and that's all that matters. It seems you are more concerned with opinions than facts. That's fine, but science is not about opinions.
Have you read his book? I have. The bacterial flagellum denies common descent. His entire book denies the theory of evolution. The whole discussion in the book treats of disproving Darwin's statement which I already quoted earlier. Furthermore, as I have already said before, I could care less of what Behe's opinion regarding descent is even if your claim is true (which you have yet to back up). His work disproves evolution - period, paragraph, end of story.
It is amazing how many times I have seen examples of this - supposed scientists working for years looking at some species and not having the time to see if they can produce viable progeny. Seems to me they are quite aware that the claims of speciation they are making will not be supported by the one true test of speciation.
First of all what "work" by Behe?
Second of all, why does Behe come to a very different conclusion than you do?
His book - Darwin's Black Box.
Behe: "Intelligent Design is not creationism".
It is not, it is a concept that is non-sectarian and based on arguing against evolution on scientific grounds. That's all that means. It does not mean that it denies creation, it just means that it takes a different route, one which can encompass not only all religious persuasions, but even atheists who are interested in scientific truth.
Let's post what you linked to so all can read it:
Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book "Darwin's Black Box" (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable. The biological literature is replete with statements like David DeRosier's in the journal "Cell": "More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human" (1). Exactly why is it a thought-crime to make the case that such observations may be on to something objectively correct?
Scott blames "frontier," "nonhierarchical" religions for the controversy in biology education in the United States. As a member of the decidedly hierarchical, mainstream Roman Catholic Church, I think a better candidate for blame is the policing of orthodoxy by the NCSE and others—abetting lawsuits to suppress discussion of truly open questions and decrying academic advocates of intelligent design for "organiz[ing] conferences" and "writ[ing] op-ed pieces and books." Among a lot of religious citizens, who aren't quite the yahoos evolutionists often seems to think they are, such activities raise doubts that the issues are being fairly presented, which might then cause some people to doubt the veracity of scientists in other areas too. Ironically, the activity of Scott and the NCSE might itself be promoting the mistrust of science they deplore.
If that is an endorsement of Darwinian evolution, I would hope that all scientists would make such pronouncements!
Let's see. All life has evolved from a common ancestor. Variation produced by heritable mutations is acted on by natural selection. Many iterations of this algorithmic process has occurred to give rise to the diversity of life on Earth.
Thats from the cuff. Any problems?
He still is not saying anything negative about evolution. He agrees with common descent as you can see. Like I said earlier, he feels some of these macromolecular machines show evidence of design. This is not a refutation of "Darwinian Evolution" as you describe it.
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.