Posted on 01/09/2006 12:02:22 PM PST by WatchYourself
Not every evolutionist is ecstatic about the decision Judge John Jones made on December 20, 2005. In a startling article published January 5, 2006, Lloyd Eby, a philosophy professor from George Washington University, stated that the judge overstepped his bounds when he defined "science" in his 139 page ruling.
As a result of Jones' statements Eby wrote, "I predict that sometime in the future -- say a hundred years hence -- this case and Judge's Jones opinion in it will turn out to be seen as having been like the Catholic Church's case against Galileo. Except that this time the winning and losing sides will have switched; the proponents of evolution and scientific naturalism will by then have lost the war against religion and ID, even though they won the Dover battle." Possibly the prediction could come true much sooner than Eby thinks.
The overstepping slip by the judge amplifies one of the major arguments creationists have voiced against evolution from the beginning of this debate -- evolution is not science! While evolutionists prefer an obscure definition of science, Judge Jones has now put it into law. This is very exciting for critics of evolution because Jones has made "science" definitive. The ramifications in the future court cases could overturn evolution education in public schools, which is exactly what Eby has predicted and is exactly the opposite of what Jones intended.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitolhilljournal.com ...
Try again, this time in English.
Morphological similarities do not necessarily constitute relationships in history.
Which is why the completely independent genomic evidence is so powerful and useful.
The phylogenetic tree is rife with reasonable guesses far more subjective than, for example, studies and measurements related to gravitational forces.
Please show what subjective premises are involved in constructing a maximum likelihood or maximum parsimony molecular phylogenetic tree.
Why would you expect honest citations from creationists? They have shown a tendency to miscite for lo these many years.
Their philosophy is summed up by the bumper sticker---"The Bible Says It, I Believe It, and That's The End Of It".
"Independent genomic evidence" is able to eliminate the assumption that certain physical objects are related or unrelated in history? How? The physical objects used to deduce the tree were found at different places, consist primarily of bones and fossils, and were not observed directly to have been related to one another. You tell me. What makes the phylogenetic tree any more than a product of inference and reasonable conjecture?
I expect the same tact to be taken as that of liberals who are afraid of the word "liberal." Somehow words like "conjecture," "inference," and "atheist" are anthema to dogmatic evolutionists (i.e. those who think their dogma should be established by federal law), when in fact these are the very foundations of what they purport to be "hard science."
What assumption? We look at morphological similarities and deduce relationships, based on the observation that morphology is a result of genetics, and that therefore close morphological similarity is evidence, albeit not conclusive evidence, of common descent.
Deduction is not conjecture.
From your link:
"With an infinite number of universes, says Susskind, there is bound to be one with a cosmological constant like ours."
Hmm. "bound to be. . . "
Now that's what I call evidence. Absolutely irrefutable. Easily testable and easily falsifiable, too.
Not always, but it is when the history has not been directly observed. Deductions such as the ones we are discussing give the appearance of being firmly rooted in reality. The notion that life would progress from simple to complex forms is highly reasonable on the face of it. But then, issues of "simple" vs. "complex" inherently entail issues of design and purpose.
I hope no judge ever comes along to rule atheistic science as prohibited by law. As I read the authors of The Wedge Document it strikes me that their aims are beyond what the Constitution says.
I think the general notion is that conditions were ripe for cell formation simultaneously and on a wide scale. A single cell would not leave traceable evidence in the fossil record anyway. Considering the human propensity to reason from simple to complex, it is no wonder we would be inclined to use the same reasoning to describe biological history.
Not always, but it is when the history has not been directly observed
If we find a body in a room locked from the inside, with a gun in the hand, brains blown out and a suicide note on the desk, we deduce suicide. We don't conjecture it. Note that the deduction may not be correct, but it is definitely a deduction, not merely a conjecture.
The notion that life would progress from simple to complex forms is highly reasonable on the face of it. But then, issues of "simple" vs. "complex" inherently entail issues of design and purpose.
Since evolution says nothing about whether life progresses from simple to complex forms, this is not germane. In fact, evolution in some cases leads to life progressing from complex to more simple forms - the tapeworm is an example.
The Bible has never been proven wrong. Charges that supposedly proved the Bible wrong were later discredited: e.g., existence of Hittites and many other examples.
The Bible also doesn't contradict evolution. It REPEATEDLY says that the meaning of "time" is different for man and God, yet the know-nothing Creationist types still insist on an earth that was "created 6000 years ago".
Since evolution says nothing about whether life progresses from simple to complex forms . . .
The general definition of evolution is "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form." To say it says "nothing" about progression is a bit misleading. Besides, look at most biology textbooks and books treating of evolution in general, and they show a progression from simple lifeforms to what are perceived as more complex life forms. Of course there may be exceptions. Nothing wrong with that. A virgin birth is an exception, too.
Of course, all of this is just more FesterWorld handwaving, attempting to infer that all hypotheses are equally since all require some degree of deduction. The fact that one of the hypotheses (ID) has zero (to repeat: zero) evidence in support of it doesn't faze him one bit. Welcome to FesterWorld.
Why is the time over which the fossils were discovered relevant?
But you do admit it's a deduction?
The general definition of evolution is "a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."
Not a scientific definition. In fact, in the two scientific contexts I use evolution, neither implies an increase in complexity.
Besides, look at most biology textbooks and books treating of evolution in general, and they show a progression from simple lifeforms to what are perceived as more complex life forms.
You're committing a fallacy. All complex forms arose from simple forms. That does not mean that all or even most simple forms evolve into complex forms. In fact, a bit of simple math and logic proves that in fact, 99.9 % didn't.
It's like the old argument that if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (If most Americans descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?)
Not at all. There are degrees of certitude involved with all areas of science. The evidence ID uses to support its case is the presence of organized matter that behaves according to laws. The evidence evolution has to support its case is the presence of forms that give the appearance of being related to one another throughout history. Organized matter is not just an "appearance," unless one cares to adopt a philosophical position that maintains otherwise.
So this refutes evolution....how? And supports the presence of a supreme intelligence...how?
"The presence of cubical salt crystals proves that there's a supreme intelligence."
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.