Evolution debate turns into debate over intelligent design [farcical "debate" approaching]

Kansas City Star ^ | 30 April 2005 | JOHN HANNA

[Nataku X]

Macroevolution cannot be tested and is therefore not science.

Sure. Find a chimera of two distinct lineages (e.g., winged horse) or find a dinosaur with fossilized spearheads in it, and you've falsified evolution.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

And that is bad how?

I did not intend to say it was bad but perhaps I did not communicate well. There is a principle of Neurolinguistic Programming that says, "What you heard is what I said, no matter what I thought I said." I guess that was in play here.

The other option would be to choose an arbitrary point of knowledge and say "WHOOPS, guess that is all there is to know". What if that arbitrary point was made before the discovery that infection was caused by a living organism? Well, no point creating antibiotics since the cause of infection is "unknowable".

To me this argument seems specious, but what do I know?

Let us hit the wall when we hit it, do not try to shut down discovery because each answer leads to more questions.

I agree and I never intended to suggest differently and I don't think I did. But again, what do I know?

[Avenger]

"Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any]."

I tell my wife that all the time. Unfortunately she's not buying it. Maybe a little fire and brimestone is called for?

[Junior]

West pointed to the Cambrian Explosion - a sudden appearance of diverse, multicelled life during the Cambrian Period, some 500 million years ago. Where fossils for ancestors of Cambrian life should exist, he said, they are lacking.

Proof positive that anti-evolutionists do not understand the concept of a Google search. Five minutes on line can reveal lots of pre-Cambrian multicellular fossils with relationships to later organisms.

[ndt]

"It should at least have a tent set up in the market place of ideas--alongside whatever other evolving theory is out there."

Agreed, the problem is where do you pitch the tent?

ID is a theory, but not a "scientific theory" which has a very specific meaning. It fails at being a scientific theory, in the same way that ether does. It relies on an untestable, unfalsifiable, unquantifiable "thing" to answer its questions.

So where does the tent for ID belong? Church, coffee shop chats, philosophy classes, comparative religion classes, critical thinking classes, sure, all of the above, but not in the science classroom.

[freedomfiter2]

To many, evolution is "claptrap" but to not consider its possible applicability would be foolish.

Maybe, but a couple years ago I was reading an article by a scientist who claimed that the honey bees cannot communicate through their "dance" because that could be explained by evolution because of it's complexity. Of course this contradicts the observations of many other scientists. In this case a scientists insistence on making the observed behavior fit evolution caused her to discard it.

[Coyoteman]

In the immortal words of Steven Tyler, let's not be so "open-minded" that our brains fall out.

The CS and ID folks are the ones with closed minds. Their belief system, e.g., belief in the bible as literal truth, makes it impossible to entertain other ideas.

As one of our departed philosophers noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

Science as a whole, on the other hand, has no such belief system. Rather, scientists have a time-tested method, really just a series of tools, which allows them to propose and test explanations for observable phenomena. Note that this is a self-correcting mechanism. What one scientist offers up, many others will test.

As an example, look at the cold fusion claims a few years back from those two scientists in Utah. The first thing that happened is a dozen other labs tried to duplicate the findings.

Compare with CS and ID. There is no way to test these claims, as it in reality they stem directly from the bible (check their websites and you will see example after example of this). A two minute search found this:

Our Vision

To build a Biblical Framework for all of education based on God's word and God's relationship with man -- not man's relationship to man (Biblically based, not secular knowledge with scripture added).

This is clearly not science, no matter how cleverly it is disguised.

[bondserv]

Please do not mistake my satirical comments for insults. I am well familiar with the fact that I am the least qualified to discuss these topics. Many of my comments are intended to keep the discussion grounded in terms that don't require a PhD.

Parabolic language can be an engaging way to alter perspectives. My common sense tells me that nature cannot apply superior engineering methods than the kind mankind's intellect can come up with. Unfortunately when these types of ideas are presented, the discussion quickly shifts to a lawyering of definitions.

An explanation for the development of the multilayered systems that far surpass mankind's capacities has never been addressed. It leads to an answer like: "Again, your argument from incredulity is faulty logic." I am glad you find maintaining intellectual honesty is critical. I aspire to the same standard in all areas of my life, including faith.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

As I replied in another post, I suppose I am not communicating well. I agree with you. My statements dealt with finally reaching the limits of available knowledge. There is always something beyond that.

I did not intend to suggest, as one poster seemed to think, that we should ever stop inquiring, researching, or posing hypotheses. After all, much of our discovery has been from proposing the ridiculous and then trying to prove it. The earth is round? Voices and pictures traveling through space? Time is a variable relationship? Curved space? Worm holes? String theory? All at one time were foolishness but we keeping pushing beyond the limits of present day available knowledge. We always should..

[microgood]

Sure. Find a chimera of two distinct lineages (e.g., winged horse) or find a dinosaur with fossilized spearheads in it, and you've falsified evolution.

Nice dodge but tell me how to empirically prove a bird evolved from a dinosaur. First we need to get our hands on a dinosaur.

[ndt]

"I did not intend to say it was bad but perhaps I did not communicate well. There is a principle of Neurolinguistic Programming that says, "What you heard is what I said, no matter what I thought I said." I guess that was in play here."

As likely as not my bad reading in which case feel free to disregard the last post.

[PatrickHenry]

In the immortal words of Steven Tyler, let's not be so "open-minded" that our brains fall out.

Let those with "open minds" open them to the purpose behind the ID movement:
One Nation, Under the Designer. The true goals of the ID movement.
Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project". Replacing science with theism.
The Wedge at Work. The Discovery Institute's war against reason.
The "Wedge Document": "So What?" The Discovery Instutute defends the Wedge document.

[ndt]

"I would posit the unprecedented results that came about after a man died and resurrected himself should be sufficient evidence that there are powers beyond our senses ability to measure."

Wow, please send me a tissue sample and the results of blood work on that gentleman right away, this could be a breakthrough.

"Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any]."

And ID is just another "scientific theory" and is not promoting a Christian world view"? Ya, right.

[Junior]

No we don't. We simply need to A) follow the fossil record back to that era, B) use the fossil record to determine other relatives of dinosaurs (such as crocodilians) and C) genetically compare birds to crocodilians to determine how closely related they actually are.

You see, evolution is based on literally thousands of threads of evidence that just so happen to converge to support the theory. This is something the anti-Es can never quite seem to grasp.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Of course this contradicts the observations of many other scientists.

As does our present day global warming flap. Much of today's disagreement is political bias rather than objective observation. However, scientists are human and it is often difficult to discard ingrained opinions.

[spinestein]

[Darwin said it. I believe it. That settles it. You just have to love the open minds of you "scientists" and objective thinkers...../sarcasm]




The BIBLE says it. I believe it. That settles it. You just have to love the open minds of you "intelligent designers" and faith based thinkers...../sarcasm

[Nataku X]

In a way you're right, as long there is any one species that has gone extinct without a fossil record, a lineage tree can never be fully and accurately described--only estimated based on the current information that we have.

But, are you saying that it is impossible for a dinosaur-bird intermediate to exist? We have examples of such fossils that mix many features now exclusive to modern reptiles and features now exclusive to modern birds. They cannot be categorized as being either "reptilian" or "avian".

[bondserv]

Wow, please send me a tissue sample and the results of blood work on that gentleman right away, this could be a breakthrough.

Your reality is very limited. Do your friends have to have a blood work up before you can trust them? Our education system has really succeeded at convincing people they need an expert opinion before thinking.

P.S. O.J. was guilty, despite the expert opinions.