Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
The cover story of the August 15, 2005, issue of Time magazine is Claudia Wallis's "The evolution wars" -- the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory.
With "When Bush joined the fray last week, the question grew hotter: Is 'intelligent design' a real science? And should it be taught in schools?" as its subhead, the article, in the space of over 3000 words, reviews the current situation in detail. Highlights of the article include:
While Wallis's article is inevitably not as scientifically detailed as, for example, H. Allen Orr's recent article in The New Yorker, or as politically astute as, for example, Chris Mooney's recent article in The American Prospect, overall it accomplishes the important goal of informing the general reader that antievolutionism -- whether it takes the form of creation science, "intelligent design," or calls to "teach the controversy" -- is scientifically unwarranted, pedagogically irresponsible, and constitutionally problematic.
Risking demotion from Darwin Central -- this is at the edge of hypothesis. Add the qualifier "reasonable" and you have a hypothesis, or perhaps an hypothesis.
I've never been happy with argument from dictionary definitions.
I'm not a mathematician, but I believe the word conjecture has a rather happy history in the most logial of the sciences.
At any rate, speculation is the fountainhead of all scientific ideas. The iterative process of speculation and testing is what distinguishes science from pseudosciences like astrology, and from philosophy and religion.
If Behe wants to put forward his irreducible examples as testable hypotheses, and is willing to make his stand on them as the result of his objective method of spotting non-stochastic design, then I would admit them as science. Unfortunately they have already failed this test.
I bet you aren't willing to let criminals go free because forensic science doesn't meet your high standards.
When I question the claims and validity of evolutionism as "science," it is the unobserved, unrecorded assumption that all life is derivative of a common ancestor that I have in mind, or that order can arise apart from an intelligent agent.
I thought that's what you meant. the methodology of science is fine as long as it confines itself to sending criminals to execution, but let it declare certainty on biological history, after 150 years of investigation, and you are all over it.
Caught you responding to a troll. Sometimes you gotta respond to the post, even if there is no intelligent life at the other end.
Evolution leaves historical tracks. Both morphological, geological, and via DNA. The Chugabrew method of only allowing human witnessed science is a handy tool allowing you to ignore the facts supporting evolution. But otherwise it has no justification.
Your biblical interpretation does not see evolution spelled out in those few hundred words of Genesis 1 and 2, so you believe that God didn't do it. Whatever.
What I find more interesting is you insistence on a young earth. Now you've thrown out nuclear physics, relativity, geology. And to the extent that you've disallowed counting seasonal layers in Antarctic ice and the geologic layers, you've thrown out the fundamentals of accounting too.
The ability of people to close their minds so as to allow them to keep an unsupported religious idea is just amazing. I'll never wonder why some democrats are so pig headed again.
Yes, and insufficient is the same as saying "invalid." There is no "reason" to accept the premise.
There is insufficient evidence to conclude man is derivative of a primitive life form.
Not only is there sufficient evidence all available evidence points in the direction that this is the only way homo sapiens came into existence.
There is also insufficient evidence to reliably conclude that matter organizes itself apart from an intelligent agent.
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. Matter organizes itself and there is no evidence yet that there is said "intelligent agent," ergo this statement is invalid.
As long as you are willing to admit as much, then you ought to be willing to grant admittance at least to the notion that biological entities may have a common designer
And Leprechauns dancing for too long a period MAY cause earthquakes. But there is no evidence of Leprechauns or a designer.
matter does not organize itself without intelligent design.
No evidence. In fact the laws of physics are precisely what spells out this organizing principle. The real question is why there are any such laws in the first place.
Not only so, but you ought, in term of reasonability and certitude, to hold it on at least the same level as evolutionism.
Evolution explains the fossil record. The existence of a fossil record and transitional forms is evidence. There is no evidence of ID. None. They are not on the same level, period.
Ha,ha,ha!(snip)- You really are a card. Prove that statement so I can get more laughs.
You are correct. Forensic science has its place. In terms of certitude it stands far above evolutionism, but well below Earth's gravitational constant.
. . . but let it declare certainty on biological history, after 150 years of investigation . . .
One can declare as much all day long. CBS would still be more credible. The 150 years of investigation done by a handful of folks who discard the standard given that science operates in an intelligently designed universe doesn't hold a candle to one day's worth of science done by the majority of those who operate with the same given in the background.
From the standpoint of one who believes in evolutionism, I reckon it does. As I've said many times, if one assumes a universe other than an intelligently designed one, it is easy to make the evidence fit. But science is not just piles of evidence waiting to be interpreted. If you think it is, then you hold it in lower esteem than you pretend.
But even people like Behe accept the fact that evolution happened. It was accepted for decades, if not centuries before Darwin. ID is disputing a rather narrow point dealing with the source of variation.
I see you also choose to gloss over the tens of thousands of physicists who accept the mainstream determination of the age of the earth.
You have Bill Clinton's ability to compartmentalize.
If this statement is at all demonstrative of your ability to comprehend the English lanuage and argue effectually you will never make a good apologist for the philosophy of evolutionism.
Not only is there sufficient evidence all available evidence points . . .
Appently you also hold science in such low esteem that you place more faith in so-called piles of evidence than you do in direct observation and testability in the real world. Man, stay away from the science classroom.
And Leprechauns dancing for too long a period MAY cause earthquakes . . .
I suppose one may propose as much, but it would lack scientific credibility without direct observation and testing. Your creative example, however, serves as a reminder that you bear the marks of your Creator.
Ah, the old "I'm Chester, and I approve this message" argument. Is this an ex cathedra pronouncement of yours, then? Care to show how exactly one differs from the other?
The real tragedy is your assumption that it must be either that God created the universe, or evolution is true. You refuse to consider that God may have made the universe exactly the way that science has described it via evolution etc.
You've also avoided the point I made of your faith in a 6000 year old earth, and the vast regions of science you've therefore thrown out.
You live in a fantasy world fester.
It must be all those brews.
For it to be "reasonable" there must be a "reason" which presupposes a "phenomenon" to be explained by the hypthesis. In other words, evidence. Otherwise any assertion could be considered a hypothesis. In that case we are back to Zeus and the Greek Pantheon as valid explanations for natural phenomenon.
I've never been happy with argument from dictionary definitions.
Then no rational conversation is possible. If we are not using mutually defined and acceptable terms then there is no way we can know we are talking about the same thing.
In fact, this is exactly what is wrong with so many of the discussions in these threads, lack of precise and concurrent definitions. Thus we just continually commit the Fallacies of Equivocation and Amphiboly. If words don't have precise meanings then, in the final analysis, there is no meaning to any statement. Thus all discussions are futile.
This is, in fact an extremely crucial issue. A word represents a concept in a person's head, and a definition is description of that concept. This is especially important for higher level abstractions like "conjecture." If I'm talking definition 1 and your hearing definition 3 we have an Equivocation of meaning. That is what dictionary definitions avoid. So you can run away from them if you want but you are only hurting your own cause. We need more precise agreements about the terms of what we are discussing, not less.
At any rate, speculation is the fountainhead of all scientific ideas. The iterative process of speculation and testing is what distinguishes science from pseudosciences like astrology, and from philosophy and religion.
Once again, a different word, a different context. I disagree with your first sentence but you are welcome to it if you want. The foundation of science is observation and then an attempt to explain what caused the phenomenon. Without experience, sometimes a lifetime of it, there would be no material for "speculation." This is the "a priori versus a posteriori" argument all over again.
Parcing sentences and taking them out of the context of the entire argument, is not only ignorant but foolish. I now know it is foolish to argue with you, your "logic" has blinded you from a full and comprehensive debate on the matter what a shame it was fun while it lasted and I will not continue it with you.
Good Day
Who says I am a creationist, I have chosen to argue on the side of ID for this thing.
But as long as we are on this argument, you said why not add wicca, astrrology etc to the creation debate. Lets make it simple then remove Darwin from all classrooms. Simple and clear. Nom favoritism, no ID over Wicca, no Darwin over ID. No argument.
There so all you cry baby evolutionists can really have something to ball about.
Well, I do sometimes present information in response to a troll's raving. But in doing so I don't engage the troll in debate. It's a fine line, but I generally stick to what I had said.
That's fine, it isn't my intent to be an "apologist" for the "philosophy" (sic) of evolution. Although if I wanted to, I'd make a better one than you do for ID.
Appently you also hold science in such low esteem that you place more faith
I talk facts and logic and all you do try to attack me personally by projecting emotions and ideas on me that you have no way of knowing I entertain. You must resort to this because you have no rational arguments of your own.
so-called piles of evidence
Poisoning the Well.
place more faith in so-called piles of evidence than you do in direct observation and testability in the real world.
Never said that either.
Man, stay away from the science classroom.
Oh, like the ID supporters who are trying to cram their non-science into school science classrooms? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I suppose one may propose as much, but it would lack scientific credibility without direct observation and testing.
As does ID, which is impossible of direct observation or testing.
I'm impressed theat you managed to write that without using a single comma. That begs the question: why?
Stream of consciousness is not your friend.
Ahh, the personal attack, the kick in the shins before running away.
You just don't understand what I am doing. Every sentence is either a premise, a conclusion or a premise with an implied conclusion(Enthymeme). To analyze every statement in isolation is testing the logical validity of the premise and/or conclusion. With the full explanation of each the context wasn't dropped, you just didn't like what I had to say.
200
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.