Textbooks at center of evolution debate

Associated Press ^ | 10/31/03

[Physicist]

Ping.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[PatrickHenry]

An article about one of the witnesses in the Texas schoolbook controversy: Physics Nobelist takes stand on evolution.

[longshadow]

As I said, evolution is a theory, imo, not a proven.

This is one of the anti-Evolutionists' favorite straw men to bash: "Evolution hasn't been proven." But it is based on a misnomer.

What is not well-known outside of science is that scientific theories are NEVER proven. The reason is that since all it takes to refute one is a single counter example, and since there are virtually an unlimited number of potential "test cases" for most theories, it is impossible to exhaustively exclude every one of them.

Therefore, all scientific theories are held tentatively, based upon their ability to withstand attempted falsification: the more attempted falsifications, the more strongly the theory is held to likely be correct.

This is why it is a requirement for a theory to make "useful predictions" in order to be considered "scientific" -- because the theory that makes NO predictions cannot be tested or falsified, even in principle. Similarly, theories that are consistent with ALL possible outcomes are similarly "unfalsifiable" and are thus not "scientific" theories. Examples would be Creationism ("That's just the way God did it!") and it's kissing cousin so-called Intelligent Design Theory (The designer designed it that way!") Neither one can be falsified, even in principle, because they are compatible with virtually ANY possible data.

Science embraces the Theory of Evolution tentatively, just as it embraces the Theory of Gravitation tentatively. And as for that other anti-Evo canard: "Evolution isn't falsifiable!" I respectfully suggest that discovering widespread mammalian fossils in the pre-Cambrian strata is just ONE example of data that would turn the Theory of Evolution on it's head.

[gore3000]

Great pics! Watch out, I may steal them!

[Ogmios]

And here's a Professor of Biology doing a critique of Darwins Black Box.

Here's the link, enjoy!!

http://biomed.brown.edu/Faculty/M/Miller/Behe.html

[Ogmios]

Oh, and here's Dr Millers Homepage, you might find it fascinating, or upsetting, All depending on your views of ID.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/

[Dimensio]

The data does in fact tell of a "CREATOR"

It does? Perhaps you could provide references?

[Dimensio]

Some of the data is the data of fact that there is no possible way that the number of life forms we have on this planet and the number of positive "mutations" that would have had to take place are even remotely possible.

Evidence?

It takes much less faith to belive in God

Are you referring to any generic god, or a specific God in particular?

than it does to buy the outlandish "hey, I need to reproduce, I think I will grow a dingle" sequence.

Given that no scientific theory posits such a thing, I don't know why you bring it up. Are you ignorant of scientific theory, or are you trying to muddy the debate with strawmen?

[Dimensio]

Is the universe really "like" a design?

This is actually pretty easy to determine. Just compare this universe to several other universes that you know are not designed. If you find significant differences between this one and the undesigned ones, then you've got good reasoning to assert that something special has happened here.

Alternatively, find some universes that you know are designed and compare them to this one for similarities.

[Dimensio]

Darwin was very definitely a creationist.

So? A concept is not religious just because it was thought up by a religious person. Issac Newton's theories aren't religious in nature just because he was a devout Christian (and Alchemist, but that's another matter).

[BiffWondercat]

Thanks for the pings as always.

Some state that "99% of mutations are harmful"
Y'all are much more up to speed on this point.

I can give one example of where a 'harmful' mutation, was of a benefit. Sickle cell anemia. In the old areas of malaria, the mutation allowed the mutants to survive longer than the non-mutants who had no resistance to it. In the short term, it conferred a great benefit, in todays world, it is a miserable affliction. I thought Tay-sachs had something similar to it. What about Lactose-intolerance?

Any clues are appreciated!

[DannyTN]

"but intelligent design by whatever name should be left to religious training. "

Why? If intelligent design fits the data, why not allow it as a hypothesis?

[PatrickHenry]

I'm not an expert on mutations. I suppose there are as many possible mutations as there are possibilities for imperfect replication of genetic material. Many are irrelevant. Some are lethal. Some turn out to be beneficial. Natural selection is what sorts them out, like a filter, for the next generation.

[PatrickHenry]

If intelligent design fits the data, why not allow it as a hypothesis?

Because it fits all data, so it serves no explanatory purpose. Nothing will ever contradict ID. It can't be falsified. It's scientifically useless. Pleasant concept, however. But it's not science.

[BiffWondercat]

I read in Discover about a physicist who is an proponent of "modified gravity" While he is dismissed; his thories do away with the need for 'Dark matter/energy'

But he will have to 'prove' it. I'm kinda rooting for him.

[Hunble]

Oh do not bother.

The ID people are doing a fantastic job of proving that there is no God. That may not be their goal, but it is what they are doing.

Those of us who do believe in God, have enjoying this debate. It teaches us how religions can be distorted for political gains, by false profits who have a vested interest in deception.

Science is the understanding of how God did it. To the mind of an ID person, they are trying to invalidate everything that God has shown us.

I find that rather sad.

[DannyTN]

"Because it fits all data, so it serves no explanatory purpose."

What do you mean it fits all data? I can say my car is designed. That fits all data, but it is a fact. If only because I have the testimony of the car dealer and news organizations. Should science be in the business of disallowing facts or theories, simply because it fits?

What do you mean it serves no explanatory purpose? Design works as an explanation in the car example, why not with life? Does either evolution or ID really offer that much in the form of an explanatory purpose? Neither really advances our understanding of anything useful. Advances in biology, genetics, microbiology, etc, could all have come with either or neither of the two theories. Because advances in both are from observations at a lower level. Does faith in evolution advance my doctor's ability to treat the human body? Not one iota. Does it advance my ability to train my dog? Again, not one iota. Name one useful thing that evolution has added to science that couldn't have been discovered in the absence of the theory.

It can't be falsified. It's scientifically useless.

Can't you really say the same thing about evolution? Even when the evidence contradicts evolution, evolutionists just blindly say, there must be some "natural" explanation. Isn't that the same as the creationist saying, there could be either a "natural" or "supernatural" explanation? Does either really contribute to science? But aren't both equally valid theories on our origins?

[DannyTN]

"Certainly there is some reason for existence and the universe but a 'Creator' of the kind you seem to suggest is a matter of faith, not data. "

Isn't that statement itself a statement of "faith", not data?