Posted on 07/06/2005 6:51:06 PM PDT by infocats
In the fall of 1900, a young German physicist, Max Planck, began making calculations about the glow emitted by objects heated to high temperature. In retrospect, it seems like a small-bore problem, just the task to give a young scientist at the beginning of his career.
But if the question sounds minor, Planck's answer was not. His work led him to discover a new world, the bizarre realm of quantum mechanics, where matter is both a particle and a wave and where the predictable stability of Newton gives way to probabilistic uncertainty.
As Dennis Overbye of The New York Times once put it in these pages, Planck had grasped "a loose thread that when tugged would eventually unravel the entire fabric of what had passed for reality."
Physicists reeled. But physics survived. And once they got over their shock, scientists began testing Planck's ideas with observation and experiment, work that eventually produced computer chips, lasers, CAT scans and a host of other useful technologies - all made possible through our new understanding of the way the world works.
Biologists might do well to keep Planck in mind as they confront creationism and "intelligent design" and battle to preserve the teaching of evolution in public schools.
Usually, when confronting the opponents of evolution, biologists make the case that evolution should be taught because it is true.
They cite radiocarbon dating to show that Earth is billions of years old, not a few thousand years old, as some creationists would have it. Biologists cite research on microbes, or the eye, or the biology of the cell to shoot down arguments that life is so "irreducibly complex" that only a supernatural force or agent could have called it into being, as intelligent designers would have it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
No. The mathematical theories are judged on their usefulness; faith generally is not; unless you are claiming that faith should be judged by its utility.
Of course.
The phrase should be "speculation and theory." The history part is speculation,...
Actually, in this phrase, the history part is the theory and current observations are the "facts." Taking the latter first, scientists directly observe evolution on a small scale; mutation, speciation events, allele changes in populations and so forth. Anti-Es generally dismiss this as microevolution. The theory, or history as you term it, are proposals like common descent and the sufficiency of natural selection to explain diversity.
And please don't throw in a term like speculation to describe evolution. It is a very solid theory that has stood the test of time. When you've got someone with the stature of the late Pope John Paul II saying the evolution is supported by multiple lines of evidence and can't be considered simply a speculation any more, it's time to let go of that line of dismissive attack.
Evolution, however, does not have the benefit that more recent history has, like witnesses or video recordings, etc.
No, but it can be, and has been, tested with current observations like any other scientific theory dealing with historical matters. It is generally accepted that the South American east coast and African west coast were once joined based on a significant number of similarities between their geologies - ridges one one side continued on the other, matching mineral signatures north to south, etc. Shared pseudo-genes and many other observations are just a compelling evidence of shared ancestry.
Or maybe it is like the bystander who believes there was an architect of a building, and another who says it is unscientific to think so.
That isn't what I am trying to say at all. I think I will give it up.
Let me be sure I understand the challenge. ... but rather formulating a useful theory where the existence of God is axiomatic.
There are two challenges. Let's put aside developing a theory and concentrate on the easier one for now. From your own personal experience, what attributes do you ascribe to God, not because you think they are True, but that you have simply chosen to, for whatever reason aesthetic or practical, and if someone else were to make a different choice, you wouldn't consider that other choice wrong but only different?
Now I may be assuming too much here. You've never said whether you are in fact religious and I am supposing you are. If I'm wrong, then perhaps you can pretend to be religious and answer on their behalf. We can easily verify this with the many believers who routinely post here.
"The mathematical theories are judged on their usefulness; faith generally is not; unless you are claiming that faith should be judged by its utility."
That is all I am asking. Judge faith by its utility.
I think I'm on pretty firm ground in saying that religious people would take it as an insult to suggest they shape God to their own ends. Even so, I think is exactly what has happened. God is conceived to suit certain phychological needs that many, but not all, people have.
Like you, I also have found these crevo threads useful. Although the vast majority of the anti-Es are ignorant and have nothing of interest to contribute, a few make cogent observations and objections and I've learned a lot investigating and thinking about them and reading the reponses, such as yours, to them.
I think his message goes deeper, to the very Godlike of our being.
Common Descent is a scientific fact given that the current consensus of scientists is that it is beyond doubt given the evidence.
Scientific facts don't have to be directly observable. It is scientific fact for example that Pluto has an orbit of 248 years and a scientific fact that in the last 2000 years Pluto has orbited the sun about 8 times. Yet neither of these scientific facts has been directly observed. They are infered from a chain of other scientific facts, which I guess are grounded in these axioms everyone is talking about on this thread.
Someone could play silly word games and claim that Pluto orbiting the Sun is only speculation, and not fact, because noone has actually witnessed a full orbit. They could also attack the claim that Pluto has orbited the Sun 8 times in the past 2000 years by pointing out that noone was around to be sure it did so.
Scientific facts and absolute facts are not the same. Inferences about historical events can become scientific fact, because unlike absolute facts, scientific facts can be overturned with future evidence.
That's the Johnnie Cochran Theory of Science; it's commonly used by Creationists.
OK. But be careful what you wish for. Your wish may be granted.
"But assumption of an intelligent designer is not one of the basic assumptions needed to reason logically."
Two things:
1) just for clarification, the assumption of an intelligent designer is a feature of creationism, not intelligent design. In intelligent design, it is deduced from information theory.
2) I have trouble seeing, though, how the assumption of an intelligent designer is not needed to reason logically. For instance:
If the world is simply a collection of particles, and we are the result of unguided but deterministic (or even non-deterministic) sequence of events, it is not logical to trust our conclusions, as they are only guided by physics and not by logic.
To put it another way, if I say "you only believe he is innocent because you are his mother", I am saying that your thoughts are unreasonable, that there is an outside force causing you to believe something that is contrary to fact, and that you are bull-headed in your position only on the basis of external forces beyond your control. However, if I say "you believe he is innocent because of the facts of the case" I am saying that you have made a logical deduction and have used reason to do so. In a purely materialistic world, however, the former is all one has available to them. Therefore, the entire ability to reason is unfounded without the assumption of a metaphysical reality beyond materialism.
"That is irrelevant considering that the fossil record is clear evidence that common descent has occured. The pattern of the fossil record is compatible with common descent against the odds - high odds."
Was the pattern of common descent determined before or after looking at the fossil record? I agree that the fossil record is highly patterned, but that does not imply common descent. In fact, the ordering of the fossil record makes implying descent from it very difficult. We have found living species of plants and animals that were missing from the fossil record for tens and even a hundred million years. Had we not found them alive, we would have assumed on fossil evidence that they had gone extinct.
While I agree with the heavy ordering of the fossil record, I don't think it agrees with an evolutionary explanation, because it has disparity preceding diversity in the cambrian, while the theory of evolution predicted the opposite. Likewise what we find in the Cambrian are not simple creatures. Some of these creatures have very complex systems and mechanisms surpassing what we find today.
The only reason that the order of the fossil record matches the order of evolution is that the order of evolution was deduced from the fossil record. Had the fossil record had birds before reptiles, evolution would have no problem explaining that I'm sure. My point isn't that evolutionists are pulling a fast one, but rather that evolution doesn't predict the specific ordering of the fossil record. If the ordering was due to a physical process you may very well get the same ordering (for example, the buyancy of carcasses -- I know this is true for the general ordering but not aware of the specifics -- but this is one example).
"Well that is what the fossil record shows as well - simpler and less diverse."
Not really. Some of the cambrian fossils are remarkably advanced. Likewise, as far as diversity, there were more phyla present in the Cambrian than exist today.
"Billions of years of radiodecay have occured. This is what the measurements show."
Some of the measurements. C14 measurements of fossils, coal, and diamonds show the opposite. The measurement of Helium escape from Zircon crystals indicate that the radioactive decay occurred quicker than the radioisotope measurements indicate.
I agree that certain measurements show the earth to be very old. But also certain measurements show the earth to be very young. All to often, in textbooks and in popular media, only the measurements showing the earth to be old are used, and they pretend as if they are the only measurements in existance and they all agree.
"The supposed 'data contradicting evolution' do not exist," a Steve, Dr. Steve Rissing, a biologist at Ohio State University, said in an e-mail message.This is just stupid. By this logic Mendel should have been a hero. However, his work was ignored for 35 years and not widely received for another 35 because it contradicted what evolutionists believed about evolution, despite the fact that he had reproducible experimental data to back him up.
But if they did, Dr. Rissing added, "I sure would want to be the scientist publishing them. Think of it - the covers of Nature and Science, and Newsweek and Time, too!"
Todd Wood has proposed a mechanism for biodiversity that explains things that evolution has difficulty explaining and matches current evidence, but I doubt that Newsweek is going to be calling him any time soon, even to reply to these idiotic evolution propoganda pieces.
Scientists form hypotheses, devise ways to test them, analyze the data that they collect and then decide whether the results support or undermine their hypotheses.This is wrong on two counts. (1) this is not the only way in which science proceeds. (2) this is implying that creationists do not proceed in this way, and in fact they do.
The telling part, though, is this last line:
That is the difficulty faced by advocates of creationism and intelligent design. It is possible to believe in evolution and believe in God. Plenty of biologists do. But their deity is not a creator or intelligent agent at work in the material world in ways that transcend nature and its laws. That would be a matter of faith, not science.And that is where the issue is. This reporter echoes evolutionists in saying that God cannot have worked in a way that transcends nature or its laws. I have also seen it phrased that if he had, its not science. Both of these are specifically what many people in and outside of the scientific community reject -- philosophic materialism.
Thank you. You honor me. :-)
Yea because these things aren't billions of years old!!
The measurement of Helium escape from Zircon crystals indicate that the radioactive decay occurred quicker than the radioisotope measurements indicate.
This is a common myth. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
I agree that certain measurements show the earth to be very old. But also certain measurements show the earth to be very young. All to often, in textbooks and in popular media, only the measurements showing the earth to be old are used, and they pretend as if they are the only measurements in existance and they all agree.
A lot of measurements have been made up to claim the earth is young, but many of them are based on incorrect information. Including: -Earths shrinking magnetic field -Rate of salt depositation in the oceans -Helium escape from the atmosphere
Which information theory?
If the world is simply a collection of particles, and we are the result of unguided but deterministic (or even non-deterministic) sequence of events, it is not logical to trust our conclusions, as they are only guided by physics and not by logic.
If logic works I will trust it, regardless of where it comes from.
Was the pattern of common descent determined before or after looking at the fossil record?
The pattern in the fossil record would have had to be determined after looking at the fossil record.
I agree that the fossil record is highly patterned, but that does not imply common descent. In fact, the ordering of the fossil record makes implying descent from it very difficult. We have found living species of plants and animals that were missing from the fossil record for tens and even a hundred million years.
Name one
Had we not found them alive, we would have assumed on fossil evidence that they had gone extinct.
This has nothing to do with common descent though. I would assume the exact same thing even if I didn't believe common descent. If something is missing from the fossil record for millions of years then I assume its gone extinct.
Common descent doesn't say that all life must go extinct after a short time. Nor does it say every species must constantly change form over time.
While I agree with the heavy ordering of the fossil record, I don't think it agrees with an evolutionary explanation, because it has disparity preceding diversity in the cambrian, while the theory of evolution predicted the opposite.
But regardless of the pre-cambrian/cambrian situation, other parts of the fossil record strongly show common descent.
Likewise what we find in the Cambrian are not simple creatures. Some of these creatures have very complex systems and mechanisms surpassing what we find today.
Many modern species seem to be a lot more complex. Mammals for example have sweat glands. Birds have flight feathers. Does that make them more complex though? Many people would argue that you cannot easily quantify the complexity of a species.
The only reason that the order of the fossil record matches the order of evolution is that the order of evolution was deduced from the fossil record.
Well yes of course, although not entirely. Genetic comparisons help too.
Had the fossil record had birds before reptiles, evolution would have no problem explaining that I'm sure.
Yes if the fossil record had indicated that reptiles came from birds (not just that they were "before"), then that would be the explaination.
If common descent is not true then why are bird-like reptiles found in the fossil record slap bang at the time period when common descent would expect such things to exist? This is the kind of coincidence that many people, including me cannot ignore.
If common descent is not true then why do we not find modern birds such as seagulls in the Triassic?
My point isn't that evolutionists are pulling a fast one, but rather that evolution doesn't predict the specific ordering of the fossil record.
Perhaps not the specific order, but it does predict the general order. For example evolution lays out a general tree of descent of life and from this it predicts that no modern birds will be found in the Triassic, no modern mammals will be found in the jurassic, no grasses will be found in the Cretaceous, etc. If common descent is not true then there is no reason why we shouldn't find such contradictions.
Does any alternative theory make such bold predictions?
If the ordering was due to a physical process you may very well get the same ordering (for example, the buyancy of carcasses -- I know this is true for the general ordering but not aware of the specifics -- but this is one example).
You may do, but noone has yet proposed such a physical process in a way that stands scrutiny. Alternative explainations often claim they can explain the current data, but refuse to predict future finds. Their explainations are not solid enouh for example to be able to predict whether or not we should find bird fossils in the triassic. Evolution is the only explaination that currently sticks its neck out and make these kind of predictions.
I know very well that if tommorow a modern bird was found in the Cambrian the anti-evolutionists would be elated and use that as evidence in their books. But while such a thing has not been found they can also just use its absense as evidence of one of these flood bouyancy models you talked of. In other words it is not the evolutionists who are interpreting any find as support for their explaination.
Not really. Some of the cambrian fossils are remarkably advanced. Likewise, as far as diversity, there were more phyla present in the Cambrian than exist today.
Yes there were more animal phyla in the cambrian than alive today, although including other modern phyla such as plant phyla (which the cambrian lacks) then there are actually more total phyla today than during the cambrian.
The number of phyla is not a measure of diversity though. For example the Chordata phylum today includes a wide diversity of life from fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds, and of course there are thousands of species within each of those sub categories. So Chordata represents an immense diversity of life nowadays.
On the otherhand almost none of this diversity existed in the Cambrian. The Chordata phylum did exist in the cambrian but only contained small swimming things (fraid i dont know any technical words other than "swimming things")
No, I would not classify myself as religious.
I think God is non-coercive.... Is this the kind of attribute you are asking for?
That depends. Have you decided that it is true? Are the poeple who argue that He is coercive wrong?
"Yea because these things aren't billions of years old!!"
Diamonds aren't billions of years old? They were found at the bottom of the geologic column. Likewise, every fossil ever found has had measurable amounts of C14 in them. Likewise every coal deposit.
"This is a common myth. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html"
Just because T.O calls something a myth does not make it so. I encourage everyone to read the given link, as well as the link to Russell Humphrey's response to the criticism in the sidebar.
"Name one"
Wollemi Pine. Coelacanth fish. Neopilina.
I don't agree. Lateral transfer is a scientific fact and renders the idea of universal common descent clearly false (assuming, and there is no reason not to, that early life swapped genetic material as do today's). Even absent this fact, the vast lack of evidence about the path by which early life developed should preclude any consensus about the existence or not of a common ancestor of all present life. Yet another point, would you say that viri and cellular life have a common ancestor?
That said, your point about the difference between scientific and absolute facts is well taken. There does come a point when some claim is so well supported that it is perverse to dispute it.
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.