"You just admitted that the fossil record is evidence. That's one sort of test. There is also the manifest evidence -- and more of it every day -- from genetics. All this evidence points in exactly the same direction, and none of it contradicts the theory of evolution. Again, evolution is not a theory about origins, so your question about where the primordial sludge came from, fascinating as it is (really), doesn't apply."
Sure, there's evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The problem is that any evidence that contradicts evolution can be explained away by the theory of evolution.
Find a critter that didn't seem to evolve? Well, then there must have been two seperat evolutionary paths that branched farther back in history. One branch may have evolved faster than the other. I mean, after all, this is all just random chance. You can't expect an orderly progression without a design.
If there is an orderly progression is would be evidence of a possible design.
Evolution doesn't preclude a design. An inteligent design may very well include evolution. Neither can explain away the other completely no mater how much evidence you gather. That's one of the reasons why they are theories.
"Further, evolution is not a "leap of faith." It is the best explanation we have that takes in all the known facts. When a better explanation comes along, that new explanation will become the operative theory. There is no faith involved."
Any time you choose to believe in an unproven theory you are making a leap of faith. If you accept it as a theory, rather than fact, it does not require a leap of faith. This is true if we're talking about evolution or ID.
"Again, evolution isn't about origins and it doesn't pretend to be."
I would have to argue that people try to make it explain everything, but the origins are where the theory breaks down.
When you refuse to consider the origins, you're refusing to look at one of the main problems with the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how things got started. Nothing really does explain the origins, buecause even if you say God created the universe, where did God come from?
However it's a valid theory to question if some intillegent being may have created the universe, and then it brings into question how much of what we see as evolution is random chance and natural selection as opposed to a design that includes a degree of random chance and natrual selection.
These are theories. There aren't hard and fast answers. We need to teach students theories, and we need to teach them as theories.
The teachers unions and groups like the ACLU are trying to keep the theory of ID out of schools and only teach one possible theory. When you only teach one possible theory and exclude all other theories and not being credible, you're in effect teaching that theory as fact, and not teaching students to think for themselves.
"There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.
Not in science."
Why? Because you define science to exclude the supernatural? That's funny since science evolved from the study of things though to be supernatural.
"Intelligent design isn't a theory because we can't test for it. That's not the same as "prove" it. It also predicts nothing ... like I say in the next sentence you quoted."
You can't come up with a test for evolution that can't be explained away by different paths of evolution that branched at an earlier point in time that may have evolved at different rates. That's the nature of explaining something through random chance over a nearly infinite period of time.
It's no more disprovable than ID. It's just more accepted by those who CHOOSE not to consider as a valid theory.
"We disagree on whether the people in question understand science, and we further disagree on whether the people who are touting id do."
Too much of a generalization about the people touting ID. I don't question that there are some people pushing ID for blind religious reasons. There are also people pushing evolution because of their opposition to religion.
That neither supports or diminishes the viability of either theory.
"I suspect that scientists have a much better grasp of what we don't understand than most of us do."
My father has a PHD in Physics and I grew up in an environment very supportive of education and learning to think critically. I've got a BS and a MS degree. Those degrees mean I've got more background information and know more rules to apply to subjects than some other people.
I've taught classes while getting my masters degree.
Here's what I learned. Facts are nice, but they don't really amount to knowledge until you're able to question them and understand how they all fit together. You can't do that by excluding ideas because preconceived notions such as calling things not science because they involve something you don't understand.
It's just as important to realize what you don't know as what you do know.
Despite the education I've attained, I've often found people who are able to figure out things that elude me and explain them to me that have very little formal education. Sometimes what we think we know can be a barrier to learning. Excluding theories such as ID because they aren't considered Science is a barrier to learning that serves no useful purpose.
Teaching ID as a theory merely exposes students to the fact that we don't know all the facts and that there are different theories out there that might explain things. The possibility that there may be some intelligent entity that has had a hand in our world becomming what it is isn't some new concept that no one considers a possibility. So why exclude it and teach only one theory?
Well, no. Perhaps someone on this thread has mentioned the Precambrian rabbit fossil. Perhaps someone has pointed out that the frequent creationist request for a "fish giving birth to reptile" would actually be disproof of evolution.
Find a critter that didn't seem to evolve? Well, then there must have been two seperat evolutionary paths that branched farther back in history. One branch may have evolved faster than the other. I mean, after all, this is all just random chance. You can't expect an orderly progression without a design.
The theory of evolution says that evolution happens, not that it must happen, or that when it happens it will do so in an "orderly" manner -- whatever that is -- or that creatures living under vastly different conditions and pressures must evolve at the same rate. It is only after the fact that we can see a progression, and it is usually in small steps. Which is exactly what we would expect to find.
If there is an orderly progression is would be evidence of a possible design.
The problem is that there's nothing that couldn't be construed as evidence of design.
Evolution doesn't preclude a design. An inteligent design may very well include evolution. Neither can explain away the other completely no mater how much evidence you gather. That's one of the reasons why they are theories.
ID is not a scientific theory for a variety of reasons I've already pointed out. You've countered with objections to evolution and not with tests for or predictions of ID.
G: "Further, evolution is not a "leap of faith." It is the best explanation we have that takes in all the known facts. When a better explanation comes along, that new explanation will become the operative theory. There is no faith involved."
Any time you choose to believe in an unproven theory you are making a leap of faith. If you accept it as a theory, rather than fact, it does not require a leap of faith. This is true if we're talking about evolution or ID.
Here we go again. All scientific theories are unproven. I don't understand your point about accepting a theory as a theory as opposed to a fact -- theories are theories and facts are facts by definition -- but no matter what the statement means, it doesn't make ID a scientific theory. There has been no scientifically accepted instance of ID that doesn't involve natural causes (You can make an argument that there's intelligent design in automobiles, but any "intelligence" involved comes from humans. There is no evidence -- surprise! -- of supernatural intervention).
G: "Again, evolution isn't about origins and it doesn't pretend to be."
I would have to argue that people try to make it explain everything, but the origins are where the theory breaks down.
Well, you don't have to argue that. Let me try to explain this. Origins are outside the theory of evolution. That means that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with or say about origins. This cannot be a point where the theory "breaks down," because the point isn't addressed by the theory. You might as well object to the theory of gravitation because it doesn't offer an explanation for the way mass has color.
When you refuse to consider the origins, you're refusing to look at one of the main problems with the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't explain how things got started. Nothing really does explain the origins, buecause even if you say God created the universe, where did God come from?
Origins are outside the theory of evolution (I think I've heard that somewhere before). Therefore, origins cannot be a problem for the theory of evolution, because the theory of evolution isn't about origins.
I'm really stretching trying to find a way to put this so that it will sink in.
The beginning of the universe is also outside the theory of evolution. God is outside the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to say one way or the other about God. I know a lot of creationists want to put the theory of evolution in opposition to God, but it's their own invention. I also know that Mr. Dawkins likes to use evolution as a club to beat the religious, but he's as wrong as anyone else using the theory of evolution in that manner.
However it's a valid theory to question if some intillegent being may have created the universe, and then it brings into question how much of what we see as evolution is random chance and natural selection as opposed to a design that includes a degree of random chance and natrual selection.
The origin of the universe is outside the theory of evolution. Any supernatural event is also outside the theory of evolution, but for another reason: the supernatural is outside of what science can study. There is also no supernatural component to gravitational theory, color theory, string theory, or any other scientific theory you'd care to name.
These are theories. There aren't hard and fast answers. We need to teach students theories, and we need to teach them as theories.
The teachers unions and groups like the ACLU are trying to keep the theory of ID out of schools and only teach one possible theory. When you only teach one possible theory and exclude all other theories and not being credible, you're in effect teaching that theory as fact, and not teaching students to think for themselves.
When it's science, it will be in science class, and no one who knows anything about science will object. Until then, it doesn't matter who does or does not like it, if it's not science, it shouldn't be taught as part of science.
"There are still simply questions that are better answered by divine intervention than by evolution.
G: Not in science."
Why? Because you define science to exclude the supernatural? That's funny since science evolved from the study of things though to be supernatural.
I don't define science that way, science defines science that way. It doesn't matter how science first arose, there are things science simply cannot study. That someone would propose a force that cannot be detected or tested for can never be part of science. How would science, for instance, test for the theory that there's an angel on your shoulder?
But let's take another look at history. Medieval scholars told us that roses are red becauseGod wanted to remind us of the blood Jesus shed for man. What's the scientific test for that? Should it be in science class, too? It's as much a theory as id. How about N-rays?
G: "Intelligent design isn't a theory because we can't test for it. That's not the same as "prove" it. It also predicts nothing ... like I say in the next sentence you quoted."
You can't come up with a test for evolution that can't be explained away by different paths of evolution that branched at an earlier point in time that may have evolved at different rates. That's the nature of explaining something through random chance over a nearly infinite period of time.
See above re: Precambrian rabbit fossil.
It's no more disprovable than ID. It's just more accepted by those who CHOOSE not to consider as a valid theory.
This is just wrong.
G: "We disagree on whether the people in question understand science, and we further disagree on whether the people who are touting id do."
Too much of a generalization about the people touting ID. I don't question that there are some people pushing ID for blind religious reasons. There are also people pushing evolution because of their opposition to religion.
True, but beside the point. A scientific theory stands or falls on its own merits, not because of the character or motives of the people behind it.
G: "I suspect that scientists have a much better grasp of what we don't understand than most of us do."
My father has a PHD in Physics and I grew up in an environment very supportive of education and learning to think critically. I've got a BS and a MS degree. Those degrees mean I've got more background information and know more rules to apply to subjects than some other people.
I've taught classes while getting my masters degree.
Here's what I learned. Facts are nice, but they don't really amount to knowledge until you're able to question them and understand how they all fit together. You can't do that by excluding ideas because preconceived notions such as calling things not science because they involve something you don't understand.
You're right about facts and their relationship to science. Propose the test for divine intervention, and if it can be repeated, it will be part of science. Until then, it's useless to rail about "preconceived notions," because the particular one you're objecting to is what makes science science.
It's just as important to realize what you don't know as what you do know.
Despite the education I've attained, I've often found people who are able to figure out things that elude me and explain them to me that have very little formal education. Sometimes what we think we know can be a barrier to learning. Excluding theories such as ID because they aren't considered Science is a barrier to learning that serves no useful purpose.
What's the scientific test for id? What does the theory predict we'll find if it's true?
I'm not arguing education levels.
Teaching ID as a theory merely exposes students to the fact that we don't know all the facts and that there are different theories out there that might explain things. The possibility that there may be some intelligent entity that has had a hand in our world becomming what it is isn't some new concept that no one considers a possibility. So why exclude it and teach only one theory?
We can expose students to our lack of omniscience by stating that "we don't know everything." I remember hearing it often in science classes. As theories were introduced and explained, their limits were also pointed out. But there is no reason to teach a non-theory as a theory, or say in every biology class that a group of people who can't formulate a scientific theory and appear not to understand what science is have made enough noise that we're now required to tell you that they don't like certain aspects of a scientific theory they don't really seem to understand and therefore things might have happened some other way we can't determine.
And where would it stop? The Flat Earth Society is still out there. All they'd have to do is start making enough noise.