Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.
...
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.
On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
There are loads of contradictions on the ID/creationism side. I don't know if the same person presents both sides of the contradiction, but I don't know why they wouldn't. Some examples:
The regularity of the world proves a designer.
Irregularities and improbabilities prove a designer.
The Designer designed everything.
We can spot design when we see it.
Life is impossible, therefore ID.
The universe is made for life, therefore ID.
Evolution causes communism.
Evolution causes fascism.
Evolution causes the evils of capitalism.
Anything found in the wild is evidence of Intelligent Design; and your theories mean nothing unless you can actually produce something in the lab.
Anything people deliberately do in a lab is obviously evidence of Intelligent Design; and such tinkering tells us nothing about what happens in the wild.
Ooops! Donno how that happened.
Neither. The very definition of science was changed to include no science dogma (like creationism and ID) into the science classroom with the sole purpose of eventually overcoming any science that disagrees with the fundamentalist fanatics' views.
Somethings are worth repeating.
No theory can be proved.
So Evolutionist believe in an unproven theory made up by a finite Human brain?
Yes.
Kind of like the theory that the Earth was the center of the Solar System?
No, that theory has been falsified.
Evolutionist's offer no proof, only opinion, and yet want people to accept Evolution and then have the gall to to make fun of people who have faith in a higher power when you have nothing but faith in a chance and a theory!
Science does not deal in proof (I explained that in a previous post, but you obviously don't want to accept it.) Scientists deal in observation, hypothesis testing, leading to theory (see discussion below). Faith does not enter into science.
Perhaps you should understand reality instead of believing everything science tells you because science is constantly being proven wrong and having to backtrack.
Reality requires faith? And you find this where? The Koran, Rig Veda, or ??
Many of the goals of science is to prove there is no God and it can't.
Science cannot prove there is no God for two reasons; first, science does not deal in proof and second science cannot deal with things that cannot be observed.
And as far as support for evolution, support is not proof, show me the proof.
Again harping on proof. See the following discussion of scientific terms and note the role of theory.
Definitions (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. 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. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
Reading through the first hundred posts or so, there are a great number of people who express doubts about, or outright hostility, toward science. People have forgotten how respected "science" once was.
When my mother was the student editor of the college paper almost 50 years ago, she published the first "Extra" edition of the paper on the occasion of Sputnik. It was full of interviews of people on campus all urging that new emphasis had to be placed on science. When I was a kid 10 years later, those of us who were seriously interested in science were pampered a bit, because the teachers really wanted to attract more people into the subject.
But now look at these FR replies. Science is derided, ridiculed, and many people have equal amount of belief in superstitions as science. Not just belief in organized religion, but in genuine superstitions like black cats and broken mirrors and stuff.
How did science lose this PR battle?
I think the biggest damage has been done by "scientific" questions being taken up as political issues because they're successful in sparking the emotion required to fire up supporters. Environmentalism is a big one, and the problem here is that many big predictions of the environmental movement have been completely discredited. Such as predictions of "running out of oil" by 1990, or not enough food, and lately global warming (which may be occurring, but I seriously doubt is caused by man).
Science must take some affirmative steps, or it will be relegated to merely a political tool, and depending on the issue it will be disbelieved by one side or another, and so science itself will have no more respect than your average politician.
Science must police itself. And it must actively oppose the use of "science" as a political tool. When science does this, we can come out and say that ID is merely a political issue of religious conservatives, and is false as science, and the issue will go away merely because science again has the respect of the masses.
A couple of centuries ago, the scientific method was adopted because it was "sold" as the correct method to determine the facts about how things work. Science must again be "sold" to the public, and part of that must include separating itself from politics. Politics has always existed, and will always exist because of the nature of man. But science is a recent invention, and it can be destroyed, if it doesn't decide to actively promote itself, and hold it's standards above reproach.
In that ere, Heinlein was in full production, with the annual juveniles. He started many scientists on the path to learning.
Well, gee, could that be because you have shown no example of any use of mathematical principles by proponents of ID?
And if he had, you'd be one of the people standing in line condemning numerical calculations as being anti-Christian.
No, just the possibility of disproof. Otherwise it isn't science. You're right about why Einstein was great. I'm right about why he was a scientist.
Gumlegs:“No faith at all. It is the theory that best explains all the known evidence. If you think it's based on faith, you're not paying attention.”
We can observe the replication of DNA in a test tube. We cannot duplicate the hypothesized process of the formation of species, so our acceptance of speciation as fact is a leap of faith.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the hypothesized process of the formation of species," but we have observed speciation in nature and in the lab, so again I say there is no faith involved.
All the evidence leads us to the same conclusion. All the evidence from fossils, the newer DNA evidence, everything. There is nothing (at present), that doesn't fit. And there is nothing that ID adds.
Gumlegs: “ID uses mathematics in the absence of all the known factors, so the math is junk, too. As I've posted before, ID pretends to be able to tell us the odds of rolling a six in an unknown number of passes, with an unknown number of dice, each having an unknown number of sides. Go ahead and show us how you'd calculate the odds under those conditions.”
You have shown no example of any violation of mathematical principles by proponents of ID.
I've shown they don't use mathematics in a scientifically valid way. No one knows what the conditions were on the earth when life began. No one knows how many variables have changed or how much they have changed. Yet ID proponents claim they use math to model the impossibility of life arising naturally. Their claims are GIGO; any calculations they make, any guesses as to probabilities are just so much eye wash.
See the post after yours and anything by RussP.
after you instruct YOUR friends.
The problem is that science isn't hierarchical. There's nothing analogous to the papacy. (I say this knowing that the deranged conspiratorialists among the creationism/ID gang feel it's otherwise.) In science, only reality rules, but it doesn't speak for itself. We do have various organizations, and they do take positions, when pressed. Example: Statements from over sixty Scientific and Scholarly Organizations, all supporting evolution. But they have no power.
Why don't you trace the thread back and see who introduced that lovely tactic into the discussion?
"..you're a liar so it's not surprising that you keep bringing up the issue as though you've never heard otherwise."
And YOU have been told before about the large and growing number of ID scientists, and you act as if you've never heard it before.
And how is THIS lying?
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_czech_intelligent_design.html
Monday, October 24, 2005 · Last updated 11:28 a.m. PT
'Intelligent design' supporters gather
By ONDREJ HEJMA
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Hundreds of supporters of "intelligent design" theory gathered in Prague in the first such conference in eastern Europe, but Czech scholars boycotted the event insisting it had no scientific credence.
About 700 scientists from Africa, Europe and the United States attended Saturday's "Darwin and Design" conference to press their contention that evolution cannot fully explain the origins of life or the emergence of highly complex species.
"It is a step beyond Darwin," said Carole Thaxton of Atlanta, a biologist who lived with her husband, Charles, in Prague in the 1990s and was one of the organizers of the event.
"The point is to show that there in fact is intelligence in the universe," she said. The participants, who included experts in mathematics, molecular biology and biochemistry, "are all people who independently came to the same conclusion," she said.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1103ap_czech_intelligent_design.html
If you think the Seattle Post is LYING, take it up with them. loooooong eyeroll
Maybe you need more sleep, or something.
Can you define evolution for us?
Stop right there. ID is not a theory because it is not a testable body of evidence. It does not rise to the level of a theory, it is a mere hypothesis. Period
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.