Posted on 09/28/2005 6:31:31 AM PDT by gobucks
(snip) But in order to attract converts and win over critics, a new scientific theory must be enticing. It must offer something that its competitors lack. That something may be simplicity (snip). Or it could be sheer explanatory power, which was what allowed evolution to become a widely accepted theory with no serious detractors among reputable scientists.
So what does ID offer? What can it explain that evolution can't?
(snip) Irreducible Complexity (snip)
Darwin himself admitted that if an example of irreducible complexity were ever found, his theory of natural selection would crumble.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," Darwin wrote.
Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. (snip)
A necessary — and often unstated — flipside to this is that if an irreducibly complex system contains within it a smaller set of parts that could be used for some other function, then the system was never really irreducibly complex to begin with.
It's like saying in physics that atoms are the fundamental building blocks of matter only to discover, as physicists have, that atoms are themselves made up of even smaller and more fundamental components.
This flipside makes the concept of irreducible complexity testable, giving it a scientific virtue that other aspects of ID lack.
"The logic of their argument is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Rhode Island. "The instant that I or anybody else finds a subset of parts that has a function, that argument is destroyed."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
What should be taught along with evolutionary theory are the scientifically-based criticisms of Darwin's theory, and they certainly exist.
The claim that allowing science-based criticism of Darwinism is "the end of science" is MSM eyewash to fool the gullible.
Darwinists remind me of those classical physicists who, when relativity theory was introduced, simply dismissed it, unwilling to even debate the evidence or the theory.
Or those relativity theorists like Einstein himself who, when quantum mechanics was introduced, dismissed it with his famous saying, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."
There have been so many orthodoxies of science in the past that have turned out to be incorrect or incomplete and their many adherents went down with the ship, clinging to their wrong theories to very last.
I predict that 50 years from now Darwinism will be one of those orthodoxies.
The study of His creation reveals how (and right now, evolution through natural selection empirically explains it best).
I find agreement with Lamoureux on this (warning: long read - there is also a related audio lecture).
What is taught in school is not really scientific theory but evolution as a premise. You need to understand that the majority of kids in a typical class cannot handle theory. They are very impatient with ideas. The joke is a students looks bored and asks:" Is it going to be on the test?" The joke is close to the truth. Look at the average high school biology textbook. It never goes beyond simple assertion because most kids will not demand more than that.
How can evolution be tested?
Science has done very will over the past several hundred years not matter the views of the people.
Actually, I run into 6K er's all the time at church. They know I'm comfortable not buying into a literally time analysis of the bible. But I would trust the average 6Ker to babysit my Little GoBucks LONG BEFORE I would trust Dr. So and So bio scientist at my local university...
Your average 6Ker CARES about what God thinks about the quality of that babysitting. Your average bioscientist doesn't care to think about God, or babysitting, or anything else that is 'boring' ... and thus the neglect of Little GB would be my biggest fear.
Another way to say this is as follows: if science could be shown to make people desire to be 'good', science would have far more credibility than it does now. This is why 6k'ers have traction in today's 'modern' society.
"It goes without saying that scientists are smarter, more honest, and more rational than the rest of us. Didn't you get the memo where it told us that we weren't allowed to question this? "
I sure did - from my Mother ... she has a PhD in Genetics. And teaches evolution to college students. And she sure did deliver that memo. It was quite, QUITE the education I must say...LOL.
"I predict that 50 years from now Darwinism will be one of those orthodoxies."
I don't think it will take that long.
LOL! My mother told me on a recent visit that you get objective news reporting, with no ideological agenda, from the MSM! OldTax-lady is NOT an idiot, but she's something of a crank, and I think she was just trying to pull my chain :-).
I notice you didn't include biology among your unaffected sciences.
Biology is at least in the business of describing what life forms are like. In fact, all science is basically the business of describing what things are like.
I have a strong desire to be "good" because that's what I expect from my fellow man. I do not however do it out of fear of retribution of a God, I do it because it's the right thing.
Would you rather your kids be watched by someone who is truly a good person even if they don't get anything out of it, or someone who is good because they're hoping they make it into paradise?
PS. Just playing devil's advocate, I'm not available for babysitting duties.
Very well said. Elegantly clear.
"Why do they get themselves so worked up about ID if evolution has been proved over and over and over..."
Well, I have a theory about that: it is called G.U.T.S. The Grand Unified Theory of Sex.
Here's the abstract: Sex is merely a method by which humans engage in activity which is just about the only way in which you can tell if someone is REALLY telling the truth.
Thus, if you don't have God, and thus have NOT experienced the associated spiritual truths (which appropriately puts the sex experience itself into proper perspective), then by definition, the Sex experience is the exclusive TRUTH experience available.
So, if we bible thumpers get our way, we'll make laws outlawing access to the 'exclusive TRUTH experience', and thus denying that pseudo-spiritual access to the truth experience to the rationally minded (for them since its the only experience in town, it is not 'pseudo' of course).
In short, sex is survival (not in the reproductive sense btw) to the godless, and we are threatening a kind of 'death' (pure IDers see this implication, but drop all discussions of God/Jesus etc). In short, evolution implicitly serves as the core underpinnings to legal protections of the sex nonsense flooding our nation today as well as hidden eugenics practice known as 'abortion'.
Oh, one other thing - there is a great deal of money involved and at stake regarding the outcome of this fight. The pornographers are well aware of it. And so are the scientists who are hostage to the 'publish or perish' scientific grant machine known as 'research'.
But this is just my opinion...
Your reaction to evolution is based on your mother?
"I have a strong desire to be "good" because that's what I expect from my fellow man. I do not however do it out of fear of retribution of a God, I do it because it's the right thing."
How did you learn it is 'the right thing'? How do you KNOW it is the 'right thing'?
Silly.... I said I got the MEMO from my mom!
Which criticism of Darwin's theory is the best one to start with?
LOL!
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.