Intelligent debate

August 10, 2008 ^ | Roger Palfree

[Soliton]

Gods, fairies, magic and the like are ways of saying "we don't know," and one simply can't base a scientific theory on a set of assumptions that includes "and something we don't know, but you can imagine it to be anything you like, happens here."

Science is a discipline, a rewarding endeavour to understand things in relation to other things and their interactions. The theory of evolution is not a belief; it is a scientifically useful model. As more data support it, it might be a threat to certain beliefs, but it is not a threat to belief in a creator, because science can never explain existence itself.

[ClearCase_guy]

"and something we don't know, but you can imagine it to be anything you like, happens here."

Yeah, that whole "Cambrian explosion" thing always bothered me. Punctuated equilibrium just seems like something people dreamed up to explain why life seemed to spring out of nowhere with tremendous diversity. They don't understand it, but they call it science.

[Soliton]

The cambrian explosion has been explained. It happened more slowly than originally thought.

Of course creationism doesn’t explain anything in the fossil record, so we’re stuck with the best answer, evolution.

[ClearCase_guy]

Evolution is all supposition and conjecture. If the Cambrian Explosion is an idea which is "selling" then that's good theory. If people start to think it doesn't make sense, then the new theory is "it happened more slowly than we thought".

Some folks say this is good science. New evidence results in a stronger and more viable theory. Science is constantly being improved. At least, that's what they tell me. But since it's all supposition and conjecture, I think it feels more like Maxwell Smart: "Would you believe that most major animal groups appeared in a very short time? No? Well, would you believe that most major animal groups appeared in a slightly less than average time? No? Well, would you believe ..."

[aruanan]

Yeah, that whole "Cambrian explosion" thing always bothered me.

Punctuated equilibrium just seems like something people dreamed up to explain why life seemed to spring out of nowhere with tremendous diversity. They don't understand it, but they call it science.

Punk eek and the Cambrian explosion are not the same thing. Read Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History by Stephen J. Gould.

[kindred]

You know that there is one God and one faith as the scriptures clearly state throughout and every livng creature of mankind, male and female, must make peace with the living God of Israel or choose to make war with Him and those who believe Him.
And the sorrow of not beleiving Him will destroy all those who chose not to accept His offer of forgiveness by believing How that His only begotten,sinless Son died for OUR SINS on the cross of Calvary and rose again the third day unto everlasting Joy for the saints of God who beleive on Him.
Disregard the opposition of science, falsely so called and you will one day know when you die and go to the be judged for your sins before Him , Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour of them that believe Him.

Romans 1:
14. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[Natchez Hawk]

“Disregard the opposition of science...”

Do you include medicine as science?

[Soliton]

must make peace with the living God of Israel or choose to make war with Him and those who believe Him.

I guess He's Muslim after all

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Given the number of “evolution in the gap” arguments made by evolutionists, there seems to be a lot of “we don’t know” floating around on their side, too. And, by the way, part of “science” is to criticise faulty theories (such as those proposed by evolutionists) as part of the falsification process, which is why evolutionist arguments that “creationists only criticise” are bogus. You could make the same accusation against people who debunked the phlogiston theory or the aether, and be just as wrong, from a philosophy of science perspective.

[Soliton]

Let’s criticize Intelligent Design’s research. Do you know of any?

[aruanan]

Science is a discipline, a rewarding endeavour to understand things in relation to other things and their interactions.

The intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity being measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.

If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.

The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. In addition, all systems of thought that deal with the cause of existence, the purpose of existence, or the meaning of existence, whether theism or naturalism in all their many varieties, are outside the field of science. The problem lately has been that too many naturalists have forgotten this. They seem to believe that since they have limited themselves and the rest of existence only to measurable quantities, with the assumption that all these should be, in theory, open in some way to the verification by their own senses, the universe and all that was, is, or ever shall be (to quote St. Carl) is restricted to these measurable quantities that exist in a web of cause and effect that pervades everything. This is a naturalist belief, but it is not a scientific one.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Let’s criticize Intelligent Design’s research. Do you know of any?

Actually, I don't, but that is for the same reason that I wouldn't be able to present a sound critique of Shakespeare's collected works - I haven't read or seen much by the Bard, so most of what he produced is unknown by experience to me. Likewise, I actually don't follow the IDers much to be able to know what, if anything, they are researching. Perhaps you should investigate the matter for yourself?

And again, I note that an important function of science if falsification - presenting arguments and evidence which shoot down false theories, which is just as important as proposing new ones. Why does it seem like evolutionists are deathly afraid of falsification?

Imagine if Caesar Augustus had been that afraid when he invaded Gaul, he'd have never gotten anything accomplished!

[ClearCase_guy]

Willfully missing the point, IMO.

The party line is: Evolution is true. How do we know it's true? Well, Intelligent Design doesn't have any scientific research!

Bit of a strange argument. One of the points that ID'ers put forward is that there are criticisms that can be put forth against Evolution, and part of good science is the criticism of science wherever a possible weakness has been identified. But the Evos take it personally when Evolution is criticized and seem to respond: "Well your theory sucks more!"

That's not science.

[LeGrande]

must make peace with the living God of Israel or choose to make war with Him and those who believe Him.

I guess He's Muslim after all

That was a good catch : )

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Bit of a strange argument. One of the points that ID'ers put forward is that there are criticisms that can be put forth against Evolution, and part of good science is the criticism of science wherever a possible weakness has been identified. But the Evos take it personally when Evolution is criticized and seem to respond: "Well your theory sucks more!"

Evolution is true because it is assumed to be true. Since evolution is true, we can dispense with all that silly nonsense about "falsification". Because it's just, you know, true.

[Caramelgal]

20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

Some might interpret this as something along the lines of:

“I created a physical world and you and all the mechanisms and laws of science for how it all works and set them into motion and they (are clearly seen) and I gave you a brain and a curiosity (being understood by the things that are made) and you (are without excuse) for not figuring it out.”

[LeGrande]

And again, I note that an important function of science if falsification - presenting arguments and evidence which shoot down false theories, which is just as important as proposing new ones. Why does it seem like evolutionists are deathly afraid of falsification?

You are absolutely correct that falsification is important to science. All you have to do to falsify evolution is have a father or a mother produce a clone of themselves through sexual procreation. The fact that they don't produce a clone of themselves does falsify ID and Creation theories, like doesn't begat like (not exactly).

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Sorry, but horizontal natural selection does not falsify creation/ID, nor does horizontal natural selection provide positive evidence for evolution.

[ml/nj]

The theory of evolution is not a belief; it is a scientifically useful model.

Sure it is!

(So how about a prediction, or two? Isn't that what models are good for?)

ML/NJ

[Soliton]

But the Evos take it personally when Evolution is criticized and seem to respond: "Well your theory sucks more!"

Scientists accept scientific criticism. You haven't offered any