Seattle think tank raises questions about evolution

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

[BeAllYouCanBe]

>>If Adolf Hitler said to you, "Two plus two equals four.",<<

I think that the "Master Race "THEORY"," was somewhat based on Darwinian - survival the fittest logic - Arians being the fittest in Darwinian terms.

So people can take science and distort the "facts" and use science for other purposes or evil ventures.

[dartuser]

Good argument ... except evolutionists do exactly the same thing yet are not criticized for it. Recall the net theory of how birds first took to powered flight. They were better than their ancestors because they could use their wings to catch more bugs. And by flapping to catch the bugs they eventually took off and flew.

Now what empirical evidence was there for this theory of flight? There was none, nor could there be. But enough "scientists" agreed that was a reasonable explanation and that was the prevailing thought until an aerospace engineer disproved it. The final words of the scientist who invented the theory was ... "the theory served its purpose."

It seems that modern evolutionists are not really all that interested in the truth of whether something did or did not happen ... but rather eliminating God as having anything to do with it.

[Quark2005]

The supposition of intervention of a higher power in the workings of nature is indeed a legitimate discussion topic, but one that belongs in the field of philosophy, not natural sciences. Biology, physics, etc. are called NATURAL sciences for a good reason - the assumption of naturalism is required in science to produce any predictable or applicable results.
Intelligent design is not just bad science, it is not science at all. Science deals with predictability and strict consequence; to say we have reduced God (aka the "Designer") to a predictable scientific entity is not only an overextension of science but an insult to religion as well, in my humble opinion.
There is already an appropriate procedure for the introduction of new scientific theories via the peer review process, and despite the "conspiracy" claims of some, traditional theories undergo challenges & adjustments in this forum all the time, within the important constraints of observed results. The problems arise when people try to sidestep the legitimate process through bad websites, inaccurate books and political pandering (this is what universally irks scientists).

[concerned about politics]

Some people just blindly hate anything righteous or God oriented. When they're fearing the demise of their own beliefs, there's no getting through to them.

[RobbyS]

Like most of us, they hate to explain their premises and try to lay them on some foundation other than the authority of others. But evoltuonism, which is not quite the same thing as the idea of evolution, rests upon the notion that matter is somehow self-organizing, more or less in the way that our individual minds organize our nature over time. So they replace the idea of God with a "force."

[RobRoy]

A sharp rock isn't science either. You can still cut yourself with it.

ID could be science. How do you know it is not verifiable unless you scientifically analyze it?

[r9etb]

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

Stupid premise -- there's no need to posit "all" -- and thus a stupid challenge.

More reasonable: Suppose the development of life was influenced by intelligent agents. Please define an experiment to prove or disprove the intelligent agent theory.

Experiment 1: Assess the feasibility of the premise by demonstrating the ability to manipulate biological development to achieve specific goals. Status: Done and commonly practiced in real life. Conclusion: It is not reasonable to a priori rule out intelligent agents as a possible cause for at least some biological phenomena.

Experiment 2: Demonstrate that intelligent agents were directly responsible for some observed biological phenomenon that is not a priori known to have resulted from human activity. Status: inconclusive.

The problem with the latter is that, although it follows naturally from the success of the first experiment, some people automatically deride such questions as "non-science." This suggests that a devotion to "good science" may not be the primary reason for their dismissal.

However, the current state of the debate is that even serious proposals cannot make inroads into "real" scientific circles. Again: we need only to buy stock in the local biotech firm to know that a theory of "intelligent agents" is feasible -- so why is the topic kept out of the general debate? In my opinion, it's because the objections are fundamentally based on something other than science -- and that "the mantle of science" in this debate is often used in precisely the same way that other folks use the Bible.

This isn't to say that folks like the Discovery Institute should get a free pass -- they definitely shouldn't. There are a lot of quacks who've latched onto the ID train. The usual rules should apply: if a scientist is going to do an experiment, or propose a theory, related to intelligent agents, he has a responsibility to do it according to common scientific principles. Most importantly, the scientists would need to provide some means to discriminate between "designed" and "non-designed."

We could turn the question around, though -- suppose we have a biological phenomenon (say, dog breeds or certain varieties of wheat) that we know to have resulted from human influence. Could you define an experiment to provide a naturalistic explanation (i.e., one that did not include intelligent agents)? Sure. Would it be right? No. So did you do good science?

[r9etb]

Like that some wolves evolved into dogs. That's proven.

Actually, that particular example happens to strengthen the argument for intelligent design, as the "evolution" from wolf to dog has been guided by human breeders.

[LauraleeBraswell]

"" Here's part you don't grasp about homeshcooling: this is MY school and it will reflect my beliefs.""


I'm sorry but that was a very good line and I just had to repeat it! I'm all for vouchers too.

[Ichneumon]

But neither can we "observe" macro-evolution.

False.

Evolutionary scientists claim to see a link between species yet the fossil record doesn't show these "trans-species"

Very false.

and paleontologist/archeologists base much of their dating on geological strata age assumptions

False again.

but ignore anything that crosses multiple stata.

Again false.

These are HUGE holes in this theory

Such as?

yet because they are adament about not allowing for a "higher power" being involved, they have to ignore them.

Yet again incorrect.

True science doesn't ignore contradictory evidence, it tries to study it and formulate new assumptions.

Correct.

Darwinists gave up on science long ago.

Slanderous lie.

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"?

It's not, because that's a grossly inaccurate statement of the scientific position.

Are you teaching your kids these falsehoods?

[concerned about politics]

By-the-way, we have been using the Abeka system exclusively this year. My sister-in-law selects her texts from multiple curriculums. There are any number of ways to do this and being new at it, I need input. Any suggestions for this "newbie" homeschooling dad?

The first thing you want to do is teach the kids to read and comprehend. It's of the utmost importance!!!! If they can understand what they read, they can eventually teach themselves anything just by reading a book.
My kids are now teaching themselves. The only time they come to me is when they can't figure something out alone. This is important when teaching multiple grades, and it teaches the kids good work ethics without saying a word.
They're also very proud of them selves when they kick the public school kids butts on their SAT's! They did it all by themselves!

As far as curriculum, we started with Alpha-Omega, but now we're just using a mixture of books and the net. We just bought a book on every subject from start to finish. The kids go as far as they need to. All ages can use the same books.

[LauraleeBraswell]

There is no way evolution could work without intelligent design.

No one can argue the existence of a higher power. It's proven.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Ask a pure Darwinian Atheist "what came before this, and what came before that, and this and that."


At one point, something came from nothing. And no one knows how.

[DesertSapper]

This will take a while I see . . .

"Domestic dogs are not members of C. lupus."

First, check wikipedia and do a search for both "dog" and "wolf". On the "wolf" page, let your eyes wander down to the right and notice the entry beside "Species:". Now let's read out loud together . . . "C. Lupus". Now, let's complete the lesson by doing the same on the "dog" page . . . Species: . . . what? . . . can it be? C. Lupus.. I'll bet that stands for Canis lupus - just like wolves.

I'll address your other points at my leisure but you do everyone a disservice by making trite "Strike one" comments and then proceed tell me a lie.

[Ichneumon]

I think that the "Master Race "THEORY"," was somewhat based on Darwinian - survival the fittest logic - Arians being the fittest in Darwinian terms.

Actually, as shown in his own notes, Hitler based it specifically on the Bible.

Hitler's own handwritten notes, drawing an outline of his philosophy:

Hitler divided his study into five sections:

1. The Bible
2. The Aryan
3. His Works
4. The Jew
5. His Work

Under the first section, "The Bible -- Monumental History of Mankind", he lists these topics (among others): "2 human types-- Workers and drones-- Builders and destroyers", "Race Law", "First people's history (based on) the race law-- Eternal course of History".

Hitler was actually basing his racial view of mankind on *Biblical* foundations.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
-- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

So people can take science and distort the "facts" and use science for other purposes or evil ventures.

Ditto for the Bible. Your point?

[Quark2005]

Interesting cartoon. Cosmology and Norse mythology may sound equally fanciful to you; the distinction between the two "stories" that this cartoon fails to make is that the statements in the left column are supported by a great wealth of evidence and the statements on the right are supported by by no evidence at all. The writer of this silly comic should take some time to learn about the Hubble constant, cosmic microwave background scans, general relativity, stellar evolution, etc. before taking wild stabs at a well-established set of theories.

[LauraleeBraswell]

There are many different versions of Evolution, remember that. And evolution does not and frankly cannot rule out the existance of God. It just doesn't. Evolution is a fact and so is God. Why do we continue to put these two principles at odds is beyond me.

[RadioAstronomer]

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

Since there is no testable method for proving or disproving ID, it cannot be science. No difference than if I posit elves had a hand in the diversity of the species. That too is not disprovable, however, it certainly is not science.

[RadioAstronomer]

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

God is a faith thing, not a science thing.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Hitlers proclaiming of Christianity was for political reasons.