Seattle think tank raises questions about evolution

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

[concerned about politics]

The teach-the-controversy approach, he said, avoids "unnecessary constitutional fights" over the separation of church and state, yet also avoids teaching Darwin's theories as dogma.

Teaching evolution alone is Federally forced atheism.

[Publius6961]

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.

Totally irrelevant non-sequitur. That's like arguing that if a huge meteor strikes and leaves a huge geologic hole, it verifies the theory and role of erosion.

I see neither a necessity nor a possibility of a nexus between insecticides and evolution.

[DesertSapper]

No, creationism is not science by definition because we cannot "observe" what happened. But neither can we "observe" macro-evolution. Evolutionary scientists claim to see a link between species yet the fossil record doesn't show these "trans-species" and paleontologist/archeologists base much of their dating on geological strata age assumptions but ignore anything that crosses multiple stata. These are HUGE holes in this theory yet because they are adament about not allowing for a "higher power" being involved, they have to ignore them. True science doesn't ignore contradictory evidence, it tries to study it and formulate new assumptions. Darwinists gave up on science long ago.

What if I say I DO know that God created humans? I have an historical document that says so (as do all the major religions) and current science that CANNOT disprove it.

How is it preferrable to say "we have no clue what really happened to start everything but if we ignore all the holes in our scientific processes, we can produce a theory that may explain some of this"?

[Rebel_Ace]

"...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?"

This is false reasoning. Suppose pixies from the netherworld created life. Suppose Mars is made of reddish colored styrofoam. (We have not retreived samples, we just have pictures) Suppose, suppose, suppose. You can suppose any half-assed idea, but it is NOT "good science" to be chasing down and refuting ideas for which there is NO physical evidence, or measurable phenomenon.

So, suppose Pixies designed all life. Please define an experiment to support or disprove the Pixie theory. Kinda hard, huh?

So, suppose Mars is made from styrofoam. Define an experiment to support or disprove the styrofoam theory. This is easier: Go to Mars and bring back some rocks. Kinda expensive, huh? But hey, if I as a Scientist just "ruled out" styrofoam, I'm not practicing "good science". Why, I can justify spending a few billion to bring back some samples, because, hey, it could be styrofoam.

"Good Science" is the following:

(1) Observing physical reality
(2) Forming theories based on observations
(3) Constructing experiments to test theories from Step 2
(4) Take the results of the experiments are repeat from Step 1 as long as a better understanding is desired.

Now that's good science.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

>>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.<<

A broken watch is correct twice a day -- so?

Being correct on one thing does not a proven theory make.

[DesertSapper]

True predictions yet all fall neatly inside the realm of micro-evolution / intra-species adaptation.

This in no way shows anything at all that would indicate one species is becoming another.

[dartuser]

And I predict Sammy Sosa will hit a home run tonight ... sometimes propability takes over and it just happens ...

[concerned about politics]

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

On the contrary, quantum physics and religion are starting to agree with each other. Human conciseness and belief does affect reality. All the major quantum physicist say "something, a conciseness or a word, had to start it all".

The Bible says "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God."

Science and religion are running into each other.

[RadioAstronomer]

I will be back in a few mins. Let me clear up some misconceptions about the Earth's rotation on another thread first.

[PatrickHenry]

This same article, same author, with a different title, was posted earlier:
Does Seattle group "teach controversy" or contribute to it? [Evolution vs. ID-Creationism].

[DesertSapper]

Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

You may consider it "bad" science but, based on these definitions, ID/creationism is a theoretical explanation of phenomena, is widely accepted, and can be used to make predictions (at the micro-evolution level). It will not support experimental investigation very well but then again, no scientist was around to record the "big bang" either.

I will however concede that science will never be able to "prove" creation even if it tried . . . but it will also never disprove it.

[cvq3842]

I didn't say ID or creationism were science. I do think that the fossil record is not complete and questions remain about evolution. (Maybe gravity too!)

As I said before, I would like all questions to be on the table without preconcieved notions. And again, I personally never saw religion as addressing this in the same way science does. I know others disagree.

Thanks for responding and allowing me to clarify.

[cvq3842]

thanks for info - see my post 32

:)

[Mark Felton]

(1) Observing physical reality

Then open your eyes.

"(It's as difficult) to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." -- Werner Von Braun

"There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error: first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power." -- Sir Francis Bacon, Formulator of the Scientific Method using inductive reasoning

Isaac Newton, Discoverer of Law of Gravity -- "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than any in profane history."

William Herschel, Astronomer, Discoverer of the Planet Uranus -- "The undevout astronomer must be mad."

Paul Davies, Physical Scientist. -- "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me there must be a God...."

[stacytec]

Teaching evolution alone is Federally forced atheism.

That is a heaping pile of BS. Evolution is a study within science, it isn't a federally forced mandate for people to give up their faith.

[concerned about politics]

As I said before, I would like all questions to be on the table without preconcieved notions. And again, I personally never saw religion as addressing this in the same way science does. I know others disagree.

If the world of science were to spend as much time and money proving there was a God as they do trying to prove there isn't a God, things could be very different today. Instead, they simply rule it out because they don't want to know.
Religion doesn't have to go looking for religious answers. They already know.

[concerned about politics]

That is a heaping pile of BS. Evolution is a study within science, it isn't a federally forced mandate for people to give up their faith.

It is for the children being taught it.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...A broken watch is correct twice a day -- so?
Being correct on one thing does not a proven theory make."

Theories are supported or refuted by observable results of predictions based on the consequences of the theory. As a given theory piles up more and more positive predictive results, support for the theory is strengthened. If a repeatable result occurs that flatly refutes the theory, the theory must be re-worked to include the new result, or dropped if necessary.

The Theory of Evolution makes certain predictions, and some of these predictions are observable in a human lifetime. Other predictions require eons to observe, and evidence for such things must necessarily come from an imperfect and spotty fossil record.

Creationism, on the other hand, makes no observable predictions. In fact, quite the opposite. Creationism neatly does away with *ANY* puzzling observations with the explanation that "God made it that way."

So, from a physical reality standpoint, you are asking to chose between a theory that correctly predicts some observable phenomenon and one the makes no predictions what so ever.

[MEGoody]

"But what the center calls a compromise, most scientists call a creationist agenda that's couched in the language of science."

And what these 'most scientists' call taking a stand for science, I call a show of desparation.

[LauraleeBraswell]

My mother believes that Adam and Eve were the first of modern man. The theories work. How do we know how long 7 days is. 7 days could be 7 billion years. What is 6 days to God?