Posted on 11/13/2005 6:07:54 AM PST by NYer
I am pretty sure that Kurt Godel proved that any self-referencing logical system (including scientific theories about the universe) is either incomplete or inaccurate. In other words, one can't use words, or any other system of symbols to describe the unknowable parts.
My problem with the intelligent design crowd is that they are not giving God enough credit. They think that just because they can't understand how He did it, He couldn't have done it the way he says He did in the first few verses of Genisis.
That's my take too. And I think the reason modern believers do this is that they must have the Bible as an absolute authority, and to do so they must believe in the literal accuracy of everything contained in it. Leads to some interesting contradictions.
And gravity is only a "theory" too.
The difference is that experments can be desogned and do show the effects of gravity in a predictable manner. Any good theory can predict future behavior given initial conditions. This can be done even by HS physics students in Lab.
OTOH Evolutonary Theory is based on interpetion of the fossil record and cannot be used to predict future evolution. Also no mechanism is described to explain how the DNA changes other than 'random' mutation. This is inadequate to describe, the rapid, massive changes seen over relatily short periods of time in the fossil record.
Most dramatically there is no experement to show how life evolves from inorganic or organic chemicals. At best there are experments that show how some amino acids can be cooked in a lab from inorganic chemicals.
This part of biology is VERY soft science, it's not like physics or chemistry where there theories grounded in math and experement that can be described and produce predictable results.
There is work that has described order 'spontaneously' springing from disorder when energy is added to the system. This suggests a very different universe than the dumb random universe.
Ilya prigogine provided some Hints that lay a foundation the could be used to develop an ID theory.
his bio at U of Texas: http://order.ph.utexas.edu/people/Prigogine.htm
Stuart Kauffman's stuff about self organization in complex systems is also interesting. He applies his insights to evolution, but this approach could also be used in ID models.
Ultimatly science has not way to prove HOW the univevse came into exixtance, and how the initial conditions were what they were. The conditiosn that allow the universe we live in to exist (life and all).
All God had to do what bring the universe into existance with the correct conditiosn and God's 'design' will unfold according to the 'design'.
People of Faith can 'believe' in God and his primacy as the creator and Atheist can say God doesn't exist and wasn't neccesary for the universe to exist, neither side can 'prove' scientifically their position.
The current confilict over evolution is politics and not science. I am dismayed by the censorship being applied towards ID. That is not science. Both sides should be allowed to present their moldels, and supporting arguments.
I believe strongly in ID, but those who say it is not "religious" are wrong. That "higher power" is understood by many to be through God. He is the basis for my religious beliefs as he is for many others.
(no offense to any Astrobiologist)
Watch out! The Jetson's vet is out to get you!!!!
The proplem with ID is it may take an above IQ to understand it.
ID does use science, but you are right, it takes the faith in a "higher power" to understand it.
I’ll put that on my viewing list next to “Fahrenheit 9-11”
Isn't that the "global warming" video. It had a lot of hot air.
New ideas are always met at first with ridicule;
then with vehement opposition; afterwards, they
are seen to have been obvious.
Such happened when scientists suggested the earth orbits the sun.
Bingo!
My problem with the intelligent design crowd is that they are not giving God enough credit. They think that just because they can't understand how He did it, He couldn't have done it the way he says He did in the first few verses of Genisis. IMO God described the process of creation in a way suitable for the audience at the time, a early agricurtural society. If God described quantum mechaics to those folks it would have been gibberish to them. God gives us the previlege of learning about and gaining an understanding of His creation. God bringing the universe into existanence and setting the rules to allow it to unfold this way is very elegant, as opposed to bludegoning the world into existanence in 8 days.
I'm guessing that time is not a corcern for God 8 days, 15 billion years, NBD to God.
And cold fusion. Oh wait...
While I am a strong creationist, I do believe that some things in evolution do apply. There WERE dinosaurs and other ancient living things. There's no disputing that. The truth is NOBODY completely understands the process except him who did it--God.
This is one Christian who has never had a problem with science. I regard it as man's way of explaining God's processes. I hate to see the backlash against ALL science by some people because of the creationism dispute. It's SCIENCE that has given us pretty much every comfort we know today and will continue to do so in the future.
Utterly and completely wrong. Come back to us when you have a better understanding of what a theory is in a scientific context. Currently, you're making the same mistake the other folks are making.
If you really knew about the matter in a more concrete way than guess work then it would be a fact.
Wrong again.
I really wish the people who attempted to critique science would first bother to learn something about it. Making firm pronouncements about a topic you don't know the first thing about does little to add to the discussion, and a lot to make yourself look foolish.
It reminds me of Clinton and his parsing the word is.
It may look that way to people who don't understand the subject, but it's a false impression.
Actually, *you're* the one overparsing words in order to try to "prove" your position through symantics instead of via valid argument and evidence.
Evolution isn't "just a theory", it's a "SCIENTIFIC THEORY", which is another animal entirely. And no amount of your "one definition fits all" fiddling around with the word "theory" is going to change that. Deal with it.
These evolutionist are willing to cling to each and every piece of flotsam in the water in order not to believe.
Ah, yes, the old "evolution is atheism" nonsense. Hint for the clueless: the majority of American evolutionists are Christians. Sorry if that makes your head explode.
God help them, i feel sorry for them, but not sorry enough to let them corrupt the young and curious minds of children who no longer believe it is so because the evolutionists say it is so.
Ah, yes, it "corrupts minds" to actually learn enough science to understand how the world works. Got it.
The more they stop answers from coming through anything but their CULT of evolution the more they look like the catholic church demanding that science teach that the world is earth centric, and that everything revolves around the earth in our solar system instead of the sun.
No, the more you guys ignorantly try to denounce a field of science you don't understand but are afraid of because you mistakenly think it challenges your faith or scripture, the more you continue the tradition of the kind of medieval superstition that rejected the discovery of the heliocentric solar system. You're still stuck back in the 1600's. Science has moved mankind beyond that -- but some people are still kicking and screaming, refusing to be enlightened.
They are the new persecutors of those who don't buy the evolution "chic" and popular notions.
Yeah, sure. Right. You betcha.
It is funny how they are so insistent that the other side not be heard.
You guys are "heard" all the time, and no one's stopping you. What we *are* insisting upon is that you guys stop telling falsehoods about science, and stop trying to teach your religion as if it *was* science, when it is not. In short, all we insist upon is that you stop lying, especially to schoolchildren. I'm sorry if that's too much of an imposition.
They know they live and die on the idea of "theory" so they, like clinton, do their thing and promote the idea that a theory is not a theory. Is is not is. HA they make themselves the fool.
Hey, fool, get a clue (from http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/theory.html):
But it's "JUST a THEORY"
Version 1.0
Copyright 1999 by Ken Harding
[last update August 24, 1999]
This is such a common complaint about evolution that it deserves a page of it's own. This comment is born out of misuse of the word theory. People who make statements like: "But it's only a theory; it's not a scientific law," or "It's a theory, not a fact," don't really know the meanings of the words their using.
Theory does not mean guess, or hunch, or hypothesis. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory.
The following definitions, based on information from the National Academy of Sciences, should help anyone understand why evolution is not "just a theory."
A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the universe would be very well-described, but still unexplained and very mysterious.
A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.
For example, there is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you can feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity, which explains the phenomenon of gravity, based on observation, physical evidence and experiment. Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Sir Isaac Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force.
There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. (see also: Darwin's Precursors and Influences)
So there is the theory of evolution. Then there is the FACT of evolution. Species change-- there is variation within one kind of animal. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists readily admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can develop into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They never give any reason for this fabricated limitation-- they just deny that it can happen. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of their dogma. But in reality, there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.
The process (simply stated) involves the genetic potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, which initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation. There is more genetic stuff to it than that, but that is basically how it works.
Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Evolution is a very well established scientific concept with a massive amount of physical evidence for support. It is not a guess. Evolution is the basis of modern biology, and universities and laboratories across the world are engaged in research that explores evolution.
You don't have to 'believe' in evolution. You can trust that the thousands of scientists who study this phenomenon aren't morons, or Satanists. You can accept the general idea that life propagates with modifications, and those modifications can lead to improved survival, and that as those modifications are passed over time, many modifications can lead to a species that looks very different from its predecessor. Is that so hard to accept?
I have no faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands or falls by the strength of the evidence used to substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it goes hand in hand with geology.
Some people can say "Well, scientists weren't there... they don't know what happened. It's still faith." But that is mere blind objectionism, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand. There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past. My favorite analogy is forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and scientists can reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty person-- with such accuracy as to cause that man to receive the death penalty. For example, most Americans are convinced of O.J. Simpson's guilt... even though no one was there to see him do it. The situation with evolution is much the same-- reconstructing the past through examination of the evidence. It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has.
See also: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
This is the statement from the National Academy of Science:
Explanations of this same basic, elementary misunderstanding (usually by creationists) are splattered all over the internet. Is there any particular reason you didn't bother to even do a Google in order to educate yourself on the topic before you spouted off so confidently about something you're so wrong about?
The theory of evolution explains how life on earth has changed. In scientific terms, "theory" does not mean "guess" or "hunch" as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses. Biological evolution is the best scientific explanation we have for the enormous range of observations about the living world. Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence supporting the idea is so strong.Why isn't evolution called a law?
Laws are generalizations that describe phenomena, whereas theories explain phenomena. For example, the laws of thermodynamics describe what will happen under certain circumstances; thermodynamics theories explain why these events occur. Laws, like facts and theories, can change with better data. But theories do not develop into laws with the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the goal of science.
I didn't say the first sentence.
Christianity was a new idea too at one time. And almost nothing has had as much opposition against it as Christianity has.
From my long experience with its practitioners and its adherents, your hypothesis turns out not to be the case. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I find it significant that the reasoning skills of the most high-profile IDers are such that it seldom takes them long to make several fallacious arguments or factual howlers.
I love science and am thankful that there are those out there who can explain about it to the rest of us (not referring to you here) peons. I love watching my little first graders get excited about learning science too (note that ID nor evolution is in the first grade curriculum).
Besides, what little boy has grown up without being interested in dinosaurs?
several fallacious arguments or factual howlers.
Factual howlers:) I joined a wolf pack for a year to become a better one:). My voice "evolved."
There are still scientists out there working on cold fusion.
The way a cardiologist is an expert on a special kind of person called a "heart." The author has made a howler.
That's why "ID", which is dogma thousands of years old, lost out to evolutionary biology in the marketplace of ideas over the past 150 years.
If Darwinism can’t stand the scrutiny of scientific inquiry
"Darwinism" has only become more and more validated over time.
and universities have to resort to censorship to protect it,
ROFL!!! Yeah, right. Pull the other leg now. The only "censorship" is that we insist that people stop lying about science. But even that seems too hard for the "IDers" and creationists to do.
how long can it survive?
150 years and still going strong, in fact it's on more firm ground than ever. With the advent of DNA analysis a few decades ago, the evidence for evolution, along multiply independent lines of cross-confirming evidene, has become so overwhelming that it's one of the most well-established fields in all of science.
So in answer to your question, it's likely to survive for a very, very long time.
Will natural selection eliminate it?
Unlikely.
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.