The question even Darwin avoided

The Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 12/22/05 | Paul Davies

[highball]

There is no evidence of Darwin being correct.

I'm sorry, but that's simply nonsense.

Theories do not become "theories" without evidence to support them. That's what the word means.

You may not want to admit all the evidence to support evolution, but you can't pretend that it doesn't exist. Even Pope John Paul II admitted that there was evidence to support it.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I can't seem to find the direct quote anywhere.
I'll keep looking.

[Antoninus]

And tell me: when that occurs, what will you have to say?

If that happens, I'll say, 'wow' and revise my opinions accordingly.

I have an open mind about such things--unlike certain fundamentalist atheists who take things, like the inevitability that functional RNA will be creatable in a lab ex nihilo, purely on faith.

[Ichneumon]

There is no evidence of Darwin being correct. What he did is formulate a theory of how things may have come into being. Others took those theories, and tried to prove them, with only limited success. They have been unable to explain where it began. They have been unable to find any facts to support their theories. There are no macro-links, only little deviations within species. There are no dog-cats, nor are there any bird-sheep. There are only more postulations, and theories...

Sorry for being blunt, but could you please stop making claims about a field you clearly have an extremely poor familiarity with, and of the little you do know about it, most of what you "know" is wrong. This is like listening to a Michael Moore fan lecture people on geopolitics... You're just parroting gross misinformation (and disinformation) that you've heard elsewhere. If you had any decent knowledge of the field, you wouldn't spew such nonsense.

Here, try to learn something for a change:

29 Evidences for Macroevolution

This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, or cannot be falsified.

Evolution and Philosophy: An Introduction

Critics of evolutionary theory very often misunderstand the philosophical issues of the speciality known as the philosophy of science. This essay seeks to summarise some of the more important recent developments, provide a reading list, and to show that evolution is no worse off philosophically than any other science would be, and that the usual arguments against evolution from a philosophical approach fail.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils

It is impossible to to debate creationists without hearing them claim that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. This essay puts the lie to that claim by listing and briefly describing a large number of transitional fossils among the vertebrates.

Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation

Creationists often argue that evolutionary processes cannot create new information, or that evolution has no practical benefits. This article disproves those claims by describing the explosive growth and widespread applications of genetic algorithms, a computing technique based on principles of biological evolution.

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

This essay is a must-read for anyone who wants to participate in talk.origins. It lays out the land for evolutionists and creationists alike, presenting the ideas behind and the evidence for biological evolution.

What is Evolution?

All too often creationists spend their time arguing with a straw-man caricature of evolution. This brief essay presents a definition of evolution that is acceptable to evolutionists.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Biologists consider evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity. However, the mechanisms of evolution are less well understood, and it is these mechanisms that are described by several theories of evolution.

To cover other talking points you think you might have, check out this list of common creationist claims -- each item is linked to a discussion of the weaknesses of that talking point.

If you still have any unresolved questions or require further explanation of why you're talking nonsense, ask me and I'll cover it in more detail.

[ElectricStrawberry]

I simply don't believe that a young person who has the ability and inclination to be a scientist will be "ruined" by a discussion of ID

Ruined? Not at all. BUT ID doesn't belong in a course that's based on the scientific method, that's trying to teach those youngsters ABOUT the scientific method and it will alter their knowledge and trust of the scientific method. Put it in a philosophy course, or some other non-scientific-method-based class......and discuss to their heart's content. THEN, I would have no problem with it.

It would be sheer hypocrisy to try to teach kids the strict scientific method and then introduce a scientifically baseless hypothesis to be an accepted addition to a proven theory.

BTW, immunologist (mostly protein chemistry right now...playing with MAbs).

[NormB]

The very idea that life can spontaneously create itself is like saying that two mice who never meet each other can have babies together.

No amount of primordial sludge can produce life, or jello for that matter.

By all rights no life should exist on this planet or any other.

[Anti-MSM]

And when it went "BANG" how did the matter (rocks) become living organisms?

I'd like to know how this "it" or initial "matter" came into existence if not by a supernatural (i.e. creation) event.

[foghornleghorn]

That is just nonsense. Einstein was coming up with "thought experiments" all the time. The question is one of logic. Not all "scientific" discovery occurs in the laboratory. The attempt to define "science" in some narrow sphere that permanently eliminates all but the known and understood physical realm limits its usefulness.

[highball]

Interesting. Is that an internet rumor?

No.

Eric Rothschild, an attorney for the plaintiffs, is cross-examining Dr. Behe:

Q: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well. (emphasis mine)

You may find the transcript here. I've linked to the exact question, for your convenience.

Either astrology is a science, or ID is not. Which is it?

[cornelis]

So what's wrong with his answer?

[cornelis]

Well that's it then. No more Darwin in the science class either. That sneaky pete was sneaking teleology through the back door!

[FairWitness]

Ruined? Not at all. BUT ID doesn't belong in a course that's based on the scientific method, that's trying to teach those youngsters ABOUT the scientific method and it will alter their knowledge and trust of the scientific method.

"altering their knowledge and trust of the scientific method" sounds to me like the next thing to "ruin", and I don't believe it is that easy to do. I have more faith in the students that are scientifically inclined in the first place, and if the teacher isn't qualified to distinguish between what ID is saying and the scientific method I am not sure they are qualified to teach evolution in the first place.

[adiaireton8]

No....it would be SCIENTIFICALLY true, until someone proves them wrong

What is the difference between a claim being "scientifically true" and simply true? Or does "scientifically true" just mean "made it through the peer-review process"?

You seem to think that when one interprets evidence, one never needs to determine what is not the case. When you look at the evidence [for evolution], you are determining that *having been created yesterday* is not the best explanation for that evidence. Otherwise, your interlocutor could simply do the same thing to you, i.e. shift the burden of proof such that you have to prove that "the world was created yesterday" is not true. This is why shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy, because both sides can do it, and it therefore does not advance the discussion or show which claim is true.

-A8

[Fester Chugabrew]

Yes. Let's follow that logic:

Modern Geology isn't valid science, since I can't assemble a back-arc basin in my lab.

Modern Astronomy isn't a science, since I can't create a star in the lab.

Intelligent Design isn't a science because I cannot assemble a simple cell.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I only grabbed you two because you were the closest and I needed a launching pad. You may ignore me if you wish.

It is interesting to me that this ToE vs ID issue comes up simultaneously with the left's war on God, the church, Christmas, etc. It seems another leftist issue and front in the battle to change our culture to one more amenable to Communism

If man can be depicted as nothing special, just an accidental assembly of chemicals which evolved over millions of years, it is much easier to denigrate any rights he may claim or any specialness as individuals. Collectivism and herding are then much easier to accomplish.

It also seems to serve quite well in dividing conservatives on the God issue.

Enjoy the debate but don't take your eye off the larger political issues. We are at war for our survival against the Democrats/Communists and the Islamists and it is truly a battle to the death.

[highball]

"So what's wrong with his answer?"

Nothing at all. It's a valid response to the question.

But it traps anyone who claims that ID is a valid scientific theory into admitting that astrology is as well. So I ask you - which is it? Is astrology a science, or not?

Here's the link I promised. Sorry, botched the HTML in my prior post:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm327

[Ichneumon]

Why does a man's sexual organ fit a woman so perfectly? Why aren't we hermaphroditic? Why are there male and female components within most higher level species? A simple organism must have a need to change into another form, if the theory is correct.

There are answers to all these questions, which you would know already if you had bothered to spend a little time researching them, instead of reading creationist pamphlets reassuring you that they're "impossible" to answer, no need to go looking for answers, no need to learn anything...

You are welcome to your evolutionary faith. It is at odds with mine...

Accepting the validity of evolutionary biology requires no "faith" at all, it requires familiarity with the evidence, understanding of the process involved, and knowledge, in the same way as it does not require "faith" to accept physics, chemistry, geology, etc.

Perhaps this essay will help you understand the difference: Do You Believe in Evolution?.

[epow]

Since it is known that life arose from non-life, no one would postulate at law which contradicts that occurance

How do we know that? Has science been able to demonstrate that process by the vaunted scientic method we hear so much about whenever this issue is discussed? I am not a scientist, but the following is what I believe concerning the origin of life on this planet:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" Gen ch2: v7 AV

Life begets life. Planet earth and it's atmosphere contain all the elements needed to form human flesh, blood, and bone. But the spark of life can only be transmitted to those non-living elements by another living being, i.e., the same living God who first made those elements.

When science advances to the point that it can create living, self-sustaining, self-replicating animal tissue complete with the DNA necessary to replicate itself, then I will consider, but not necessarily believe, the incredibly remote possibility that life was spontaneously created on this planet by a once in 10 billion years chance exposure of precisely the right combination of organic chemicals to cosmic radiation or some unknown natural force under precisely the right conditions at precisely the opportune time.

If that ever happened (I don't believe it will) it might change my view of interpreting the Genesis account of creation. But it would not change my confidence in it's essential veracity, or in the reality of the eternally existing God who inspired it.

[Anti-MSM]

If man can be depicted as nothing special, just an accidental assembly of chemicals which evolved over millions of years, it is much easier to denigrate any rights he may claim or any specialness as individuals. Collectivism and herding are then much easier to accomplish.

I totally agree and we have seen it in the erosion of the way we value human life. Abortion is now just a choice and numerous people try to equate life of an animal to that of a human. When life isn't valued, it makes it easier to move down that slippery slope.

Collectivism is just another way of devaluing life. People are treated as subjects of the state, rather than individuals created by God for His purpose.

[cornelis]

it traps anyone who claims that ID is a valid scientific theory into admitting that astrology is as well

Is that the trap you fell into?