Trial Over 'Intelligent Design' Resumes

AP - Science ^ | 2005-09-27 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[narby]

Oh my goodness! AP now endorses religion! It filed this under the "science" category!

When your religion can bring us things like wireless communication, space travel, DNA identification, atomic power, then let me know.

[itsahoot]

Honestly, if folks knew a tenth of what they think they know when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, this trial would never have occured.

You are exactly correct, in this assumption.

Evolutionary theory is one of the best-supported theories in science, regardless of what your pastor or those creationist websites claim. The theory has been tested and has passed those tests for 150 years.

But exactly wrong on this one. Please show how evolution has been proven, and please do it by not resorting to discarding any information that discredits your suppositions.

[Skooz]

I think we've both posted the same article.

Geesh. How can you tell?

All crevo threads feature the same posters saying the same things over and over. They are all totally interchangeable.

[narby]

please do it by not resorting to discarding any information that discredits your suppositions.

It's interesting that the entire Intelligent Design industry (and it *is* a business) rests on its ability to discard information that discredits its suppositions.

[Junior]

No theory in science is ever "proven" -- which indicates to me that you have a cartoon-version view of science. Secondly, what evidence is discarded to support evolution? Please post it and let's discuss it.

[Coyoteman]

Evolutionary theory is one of the best-supported theories in science, regardless of what your pastor or those creationist websites claim. The theory has been tested and has passed those tests for 150 years.

=====

But exactly wrong on this one. Please show how evolution has been proven, and please do it by not resorting to discarding any information that discredits your suppositions.

You have deliberately misrepresented what Junior said. He wrote "one of the best-supported theories" and "theory has been tested and has passed those tests." You then demanded "show how evolution has been proven."

Theories are supported (or not) by further data, and by comparison with other theories. Science does not "prove" theories even after many successful tests.

It is disengenuous of you to disregard the scientific method with such a demand for proof. From the tone of your post I would guess that you will probably feel that your side is supported when no "proof" of evolution is forthcoming.

It would really help if you would argue using the rules of science. Science must adhere to specific methods, and it is not helpful to set up a false demand (e.g., where's the proof) and then degrade scientists for not meeting that demand.

[paolop]

-->Certainly. However, why single out the theory of evolution for a disclaimer?

Reply:

It is a reflection on the sad state of education that the disclaimer is not understood for all that is being presented in a classroom. That aside, I am reading Prof. Behe's book, Darwin's Back Box , and if students were just taught what is contained therein, it would be a good education. Evolution, IMHO, is but one component of what will be ultimately learned.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I like the Memoriam. Nice touch.

[Junior]

I figure we ought to remember those who have fallen in battle on both sides. Besides, I miss quite a few of them...

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Evolution, IMHO, is but one component of what will be ultimately learned.

The schools can't even find time to cover evolution now. Otherwise this trial would've been unnecessary.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I agree.

[VadeRetro]

Well, it looks like Italian again tonight!

White clam sauce. (Uuurp!)

[itsahoot]

It would really help if you would argue using the rules of science.

It would be a lot nicer if the Evolutionists did the same thing, but they don't.

I asked first for any proofs that evolution has happened over the last 150 years.

Why is it that the Layer age theory has never been found to actually exist anywhere in the world?

Why are there not millions of intermediate species in the fossil records?

Why is we have found so called living fossils thought to be extinct for millions of years, but yet they show up virtually unchanged?

These CREVO threads always boil down to the same thing. You claim to have science on your side, because YOU say science supports your side of the issue. Reminds me of an interview I saw on TV a few years back.

An artist had two or three people performing live sex on the sidewalk in New York City, to be fair it was behind a curtain, and one had to walk in to actually see it. But when the interviewer asked, "What makes this art?" he replied. "Because I am an artist, and I say it is art."

Science can not explain the present world but you sure claim to know exactly what happened millions/billions of years ago.

Maybe you could use the scientific method to predict the next evolved species for me?

Sadly most of the so called scientists on these threads only have an interest in destroying Christian faith, nothing more. And what does it benefit you? If you are right it will matter not one whit, people will just die and that will be the end of it, so you can't do any more damage to the dead ones anyway. However if they are not wrong in their faith, it is a totally different situation.

Prove what you can, believe what you want, nothing will change the final outcome.

[TexasGreg]

Evolutionary theory is one of the best-supported theories in science, regardless of what your pastor or those creationist websites claim.

Not all pastors are Creationists. Not all Intelligent Design proponents are Creationists. I am an ordained United Methodist Minister and the pastor of a UM Church. I tend to accept the concept of Theistic Evolution. As such, I also tend to accept the idea of Intelligent Design and that God enacted that design via evolutionary processes.

The theory has been tested and has passed those tests for 150 years.

As is true with all theories, it has changed, modified to adapt to the latest evidence, and been adjusted again and again. It is still just a theory. It's a good one, but it's a theory nevertheless.

The other theories mentioned are much younger.

The antiquity of a theory is irrelevant to its truth ... though a theory that is adjusted, modified, and adapted to meet changing evidence demonstrates great flexibility and usefulness. However, it is still a theory ... a useful tool that makes sense of some of the current evidence and attempts to bridge gaps that do exist in the evidentiary chain. It is not perfect, it is not "fixed in stone," it is not "Scientific Dogma." If evidence arises that challenges it, or a better theory is presented which merits consideration and acceptance contrary to Evolution, then Evolution should be set aside ... as other scientific theories have been set aside in the past. Is this going to happen? I don't know. As things currently stand, it would seem that Scientists, non-Scientists, and students are not allowed to raise questions or challenge the theory.

Honestly, if folks knew a tenth of what they think they know when it comes to the Theory of Evolution, this trial would never have occured.

I certainly agree ... and that stands true on BOTH sides of the debate. The blanket stereotyping of Intelligent Design proponents is rampant and politically driven and, frankly, counter productive.

Do I want ID taught in schools? Given the current state of the theory, NO. Do I want Evolutionary Theory taught as a theory, incorporating the varying questions within the different schools of approach within the scientific community AND the fact that some disagree with the theory (and without judgments being leveled either way) ... YES.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Explain to me how the Earth can only be a few thousand years old.

[VadeRetro]

Why is it that the Layer age theory has never been found to actually exist anywhere in the world?

I have a theory why that theory hasn't been found anywhere. You just made it up. That or it's lying right next to the Layer Cake Theory.

Did you mean to say the geologic column doesn't exist anywhere in the world? The explanation of that statement is simple. It's untrue.

[VadeRetro]

Why are there not millions of intermediate species in the fossil records?

Nothing in our models of geology and evolution says there should be. Darwin knew that in 1859 and devoted a chapter of his book to the subject. This does not make a good objection to what Darwin wrote.

We have about the geologic column and fossil record that our models of geology and evolution would predict. The situation is thus a problem for any creation model that doesn't predict exactly what evolution does.

[JamesP81]

The theory has been tested and has passed those tests for 150 years.

Describe to everyone how you would go about testing the theory of evolution, if you don't mind.

[Coyoteman]

The theory has been tested and has passed those tests for 150 years.

=====

Describe to everyone how you would go about testing the theory of evolution, if you don't mind.

How about starting with the fossils? There is a pretty good sequence of fossils from early mammals through Homo sapiens.

The theory of evolution organizes all of that data into a logical sequence. The very next fossil to be found that relates to this sequence is a test of the theory. If data (fossils) appear which do not fit the theory, then the theory fails and has to be modified.

How'd I do. (I didn't know there was going to be a test or I'da studied!)

[PatrickHenry]

Describe to everyone how you would go about testing the theory of evolution, if you don't mind.

EVOLUTION MAKES TESTABLE PREDICTIONSAll present and fossilized animals found should conform to the standard evolutionary tree. And they do.
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the "correct" chronological order on the standard tree.
Many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions.
Species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA.. Excerpt:

[A]n hypothesis of evolutionary relationships is provided by the fossil record, which indicates when particular types of organisms evolved. In addition, by examining the anatomical structures of fossils and of modern species, we can infer how closely species are related to each other. When degree of genetic similarity is compared with our ideas of evolutionary relationships based on fossils, a close match is evident.