Posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by gdani
It's also a tradition that theories manage to survive such ridicule--Berzelius was a great chemist who later on in life impeded progress in the field, but chemistry progressed despite him; continental drift was initially not accepted. In mathematics, Gauss blew off non-Euclidean geometry and Galois's field theory was ignored at first. For that matter, evolution was opposed by some scientists at first--remember Lord Kelvin's back of the envelope calculation of how long the sun could provide heat? (Too bad nuclear fission and fusion weren't known about at the time.)
I agree. However, I think many of the folks out there arguing evolution from a religious perspective are uncomfortable with it. They're essentially granting the basic premise of the argument, which is that if evolution is true, God doesn't exist.
After all, if I could prove Gods' existence, I wouldn't need faith.
Of course, "faith" in this context is something more than the blind wishes that atheists make it out to be. For me, at least, there is no question that God exists; instead, "faith" is more a matter of trusting God.
if you don't want your brain/family sterilized---
the shield between state and TALIBAN--religion(evolution/atheism) is gone...
this is... chernobyl---radiation poisoning...
NUCLEAR SOCIAL----ALIEN ANTARTICA---APE-AMERICA!!
---------------------------------------------------------
Changing--morphing words-meaning-reality...
the CONSTITUTION via your 'logic-reason' to your fantasy-bias world-bs/IDEOLOGY---LIBERALISM/EVOLUTION is called psychosis!
Well, perhaps that is part of the problem. For a rigorous reference of any matter regarding information theory as it is frequently used in these forums, the book that is the defacto gold standard in mathematics is "Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications" by Li and Vitanyi. It is well-known, highly regarded, and contains everything you need to know to make Dembski's flaws transparent. Mathematics is not science; if you accept the axioms, you have to accept everything derived from those axioms. I am highly skeptical of anybody who "reinvents" mathematics that contradict texts from reputable mathematics publishers such as Springer-Verlag. Unless they can demonstrate a flaw in the original derivation of the mathematics, they necessarily must throw out all mathematics as we know it, a step no one seems prepared to do. Dembski treats math like science, thinking that he can tweak the parts he doesn't like without having to throw everything out. This fact itself discredits him, nevermind the fact that his ideas don't really make any sense mathematically and are internally inconsistent if scrutinized rigorously. But as you point out, most people really aren't in a position to make a critical evaluation of all but the most trivial mathematical concepts.
However, no really rigorous math text is easy for the layman to absorb. The Li and Vitanyi book mentioned above is much easier to read than most (it is regularly used as a text for math post-grads), but it would still give most non-matheticians a "deer in the headlights" look by the end of the first chapter. Its like engineering: if you could learn it in a matter of months, people wouldn't be spending several years studying full-time just to get an entry-level amount of knowledge.
Certainly one can, but one cannot observe bacteria becoming an entirely different species.
Why is creation "special" and what dictates that a creator must be "divine" (whatever that means)? It reeks of irrational biases in your premises and does no credit to your argument.
Couldn't those genetics consequences also be said to 'back' creation, in that the codes are written to support life. Wouldn't they need to be 'written' by an Intelligence? How is that more difficult to believe than 'accidental' order?
Certainly one can, but one cannot observe bacteria becoming an entirely different species.
Ah yes, the difference between micro & macro-evolution. So, you do then believe in some evolution? (Others have commented that evolution as a whole is unobservable and unprovable).
Let me reword it. What we see is bacteria becoming 'resistant bacteria'. Resistant bacteria is still bacteria. Not a completely different 'animal,' so to speak.
Chemistry presupposes the existence of chemicals and makes no claims as to their origins, yet most people consider chemistry a science. How is this different than evolution, which incidentally is actually an expression of mathematical theory -- biology is merely a specific example of the relevant mathematics.
That's interesting. Why do you require belief in some unprovable proposition to make your life meaningful? (No offense intended; I really would like to know.)
everybody thinks(knows) they are right and anyone else/thing(different) is wrong---
then comes the big/final picture!
Truth/science/CREATION/GOD is LAWS/DESIGN---IMMUTABLE!
Replication is not a requirement for evolution, only mutation/change and selection.
I have no problem at all with micro-evolution. I didn't know there were those that do.
Huh? Then how did those first cells ever survive long enough to 'mutate'?
On the contrary.
The beginning of the discussion of the meaning of “theory” was the assertion by a believer in evolution that adherents of “Intelligent Design” were using the term to say that evolution had not been proved. Ergo: evolution is a “theory” not a “fact.”
Well, if we use the common vernacular, is evolution an indisputable fact, like gravity, the atom, or that germs cause disease? I would assert that even adherents of evolution, if they were speaking perfectly objectively, would state that it appears to be the best explanation of how animals and plants developed to their modern form.
It is the nature of most modern scientist to be naturalistic, that is, to assume at the outset that God does not exist and that there is not – and never has been – an agent that has affected the universe from outside of space and time (i.e. God). Assumption number 1 is: assume no God. I maintain that this is not a scientific fact, simply a modern prejudice.
Absent such an outside agent, evolution seems to be a reasonable explanation of some of the bones, imprints and artifacts that have been uncovered that are of great age.
I view evolutionary theory like a huge puzzle with an incredible number or pieces. Darwin has provided the big picture you get on the outside of the puzzle box. And all of the pieces we find we are trying to place so that they correspond to the picture. Of course there are huge gaps and pieces that don’t seem to fit. There are even pieces that we made up out of cardboard and paint to fit into a particular place – until someone found us out and made us take the fake pieces out.
But suppose, just suppose, that Darwin’s picture is wrong? The puzzle is really not a picture of a mountain scene on the cover of the box, it’s really a puzzle picture of a horse. That would be a great big cosmic joke on naturalists, wouldn’t it?
Wouldn’t it be more open minded if our scientists began their theories, not with proposition #1: assume no God; but with the proposition that included the possibility of a creator?
We are still dealing in theories here, but we could then get into a more genteel hair pulling contest among scientists.
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.