Seattle think tank raises questions about evolution

Charlotte Observer & The Seattle Times ^ | 04/05/2005 | LINDA SHAW

[cvq3842]

Interesting article.

I personally never saw a conflict between the theory of evolution and my religious faith, as I understand them both. But it is possible that some of the Darwinists are adopting their own "blind faith approach" to any questions about evolution. Scientific method requires constant collection of new information and questioning of prior assumptions. Evolution is not like, say, the "theory of gravity," which can be expressed in relatively simple mathematical formulas and which can accurately PREDICT future events. I say, keep studying with no preconceived notaions and let the chips fall where they may. But the question of how this is taught is indeed important. I don't have all the answers.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

"Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them," she said.

I guess the evolutionists are not guilty of this though -- since they are scientists -- they say evolution and stop looking for an explanation too.

With no scientific way to really explain how we got here except for saying -- "may have", "possibily caused", or the favorite "could have" the evolutionists don't have much either.

[anniegetyourgun]

Oh look, the Seattle Times just discovered the Discovery Institute....right there, under their nose for nearly 2 decades!

[dominic7]

Looks like it's catching on:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F

Intelligent design is not science nor should it be treated as such.

[anniegetyourgun]

Well, maybe only about one decade in the current iteration.

[js1138]

The institute's call to "teach the controversy" meets strong resistance.

[RadioAstronomer]

Evolution is not like, say, the "theory of gravity," which can be expressed in relatively simple mathematical formulas and which can accurately PREDICT future events.

I disagree. The theory of gravity is no more "correct" than the theory of evolution.

ID and creationism are not science and should not be tought as such, no matter how you try to repackage it.

[RadioAstronomer]

His goal - a big one - is to change the very definition of science so that it doesn't rule out the possibility that an intelligent designer is actively at work.

Very bad idea IMHO.

[Publius6961]

They called it "teach the controversy," and that's become the institute's rallying cry as a leader in the latest efforts to raise doubts about Darwin in school.

It didn't take long for the writer's bias to emerge in an article which starts out seemingly neutral.

I avoid the evo-creationist debate like a root canal, since it's silly competition of warring "faiths"; a fool's errand.

I retire with just one question: is it "forbidden" to "raise doubts" about any theory that can not, up to now, be shown to be "certain"?
If it is forbidden, why?

[Elsie]

Ya wanna call your usual crew??

[r9etb]

ID and creationism are not science and should not be tought as such, no matter how you try to repackage it.

Just a question though: suppose for the sake of argument that ID and/or some creation agent played at least some part in the actual development of life.

Would they be science then? And would any science that a priori excluded them be good science?

[BeAllYouCanBe]

>>I disagree. The theory of gravity is no more "correct" than the theory of evolution.<<

I would guess that in order for you to test the theory of gravity you could setup experiments and examine your results. You could come closer with gravity to a proof of the theory than evolution.

With evolution there isn't a possible way to have conclusive results because of the nature of the theory.

[Mark Felton]

""Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them," she said."

utter and complete nonsense.

The vast majority of scientific advancement has come from Christian societies.

This person is obviously not a Christian and does not understand Christianity. She lumps Christianity in with other religions which have stalled their people in medieval societies.

There is no question that God fears. My faith drives me to learn more about God's universe, not less.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

>>I retire with just one question: is it "forbidden" to "raise doubts" about any theory <<

I would extend your statement to encompass "laws of science" that are only laws until disproved.

[wallcrawlr]

I think it sounds good...and more correct.

Why does it sound bad to you? Is it a God thing?

[Publius6961]

I disagree. The theory of gravity is no more "correct" than the theory of evolution.
I disagree. Even a jr high school student can verify and confirm the science behind gravity.
No one is yet able to verify and confirm the "evolution science" behind the development of man from primordial slime to complex biological organism.

ID and creationism are not science and should not be tought as such, no matter how you try to repackage it.
A personal opinion not universally shared.
In addition, "evolution", as presently presented and understood, also fails the most elementary tests of what "science" is: Consistent results, independent repeatability, and no gaps requiring leaps of faith.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Evolution is not like, say, the "theory of gravity," which can be expressed in relatively simple mathematical formulas and which can accurately PREDICT future events"

Half right----evolution can't be expressed in "relatively simple mathematical formulas" (but neither can most of the OTHER interactions of biology)---however, evolution CAN (and has) successfully predicted a number of things--like the development of insectide resistance among insect populations, and the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria.

[Publius6961]

Very bad idea IMHO.

We are in total agreement here.
I would cut neither camp any slack whatsoever on the definition of science.

Just for grins, and tangentially related to the present discussion and the role of science, how do you deal with the following statement?

"First there was nothing; then it exploded"?

[Mark Felton]

It is bad science to a priori rule out the possibility of ID.

It would be like examining fossilized dinosaur poop and ruling out the possibility it was created by a dinosaur. (if you had never before conceived of a dinosaur)

You do not know what you do not know.

Until you can prove that ID is impossible then you must leave it as a possibility, no matter how remote. Otherwise you are simply applying your own anti-ID faith into the science.