Zogby poll on evolution is released

UPI web site ^ | 7 March 2006 | UPI

[Dimensio]

The fundamental assumption of evolution is that it has to be true because there is no other "scientific" way for it to have had happened.

This statement is not correct. Evolution is accepted as "true" by many biologists because compelling evidence supports the theory, not because of an abscence of any other scientific explanation.

This is the assumption that Darwin made and it remains as the basis of most arguments.

I would ask that you support this claim that Darwin made this assumption as you allege.

This assumption is two edged sword in that eliminates the alternative, but it also limits the search for the truth. Simply put how would science operate if we assumed that there was a God?

That would depend entirely upon the nature of the "God" being assumed. It is possible that for many definitions of "God", science would be no different. I do not see how this relates to the theory of evolution. I also do not see how this justifies your previous unsubstantiated claim that evolution has a "problem" with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[Boiler Plate]

You asserted a violation of the second law of thermo...I blew your @ss out of the water because you have no clue what the second law is. If you chose to say that life must exist everywhere that follows the second law...well, that is your problem. Explain away.

DK,
You may have mistook my ass for your nose. Please, if you are so informed about the the 2nd law, explain how thermal energy from the sun is used to organize information on the earth.

The violation of the 2nd law is this. 1st there is no such as a closed system. There are Always losses and gains in and out of any system. In regards to our solar system the are much greater losses than gains. 2nd in spite of those losses the solar system can be cosidered closed for modeling purposes which brings back to the problem of increasing entropy in that system. 3rd There is no mechanism outside of life itself for making use of the suns thermal energy in regards to organization. As demonstrated by the other planets there is a fine balance between too much and too little. However we are still left with the where did the first mechanism come from? Any suggestions?

Classic arguments for evo's and entropy are as snowflakes, hurricanes and crystals. Based on those arguments the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't apply to everyday occurrences. So then how did it get become a "Law" of science and not a suggestion of science?

Another classic argument was that if you gave typewriters to an infinite number of monkeys and allowed an infinite amount of time they would produce all the works of Shakespeare. Unfortunately this was tried in a finite fashion and in a very short time all the typewriters were destroyed. The end result was thus realized much sooner than Kingdom Come, that being energy (monkeys) into a system (typewriters) may in fact accelerate entropy.

Look DK if you really want to believe in evolution you go right ahead. Maybe you'll win the powerball too. It certainly can happen but, if you think your trivial answers even come close answering the questions then maybe you have a new career path on the lecture circuit.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"In regards to our solar system the are much greater losses than gains. 2nd in spite of those losses the solar system can be cosidered closed for modeling purposes which brings back to the problem of increasing entropy in that system."

The relevant system isn't the solar system but the Earth. The Earth is not even CLOSE to being a closed system. Look out your window one day, and maybe you'll figure out why.

" Based on those arguments the 2nd law of thermodynamics don't apply to everyday occurrences."

How about an acorn becoming an oak tree? According to the creationist 2nd Law of thermodynamics, that's not possible either. In fact, according their rewrite of the Law, life isn't possible either.

[ahayes]

You sound confused. Let's break it down.

Are you saying that light energy is incapable of converting simple molecules into more complex ones in the absence of biological machinery?

[js1138]

You may have mistook my ass for your nose. Please, if you are so informed about the the 2nd law, explain how thermal energy from the sun is used to organize information on the earth.

You might start by looking at green plants. Then tell me exactly how evolution is different, from a thermodynamic standpoint, than growth, metabolism and development.

[elfman2]

"I agree with you in that science should be left to discerning facts and not speculation. "

Unfortunately you’re not agreeing with me because that’s not what I said. Speculation from fact is essential to science. It’s inductive reasoning. Couple it with deductive it is the core of the scientific method.

ID is not that at all. It’s antithetical to science’s core. Look at the highlighted Criteria for a Scientific Theory that it does not meet.

Scientific Theory Characteristics

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Ockham's razor.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.
Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as:
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.").

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."--end quote

"As we both agree we have not been able to figure out what the "Life" mechanism is does not necessitate improbability however as the complexity increases in will tend towards impossibility."

Nothing specific that I’m aware of is called the “Life mechanism”, and there is abundant but incomplete evidence or scientific theory each step of the way.

" The fundamental assumption of evolution is that it has to be true because there is no other "scientific" way for it to have had happened "

On the contrary, that’s the only claim ID has to evidence, and even it is very contentious. If anyone advances a theory that is scientific enough to meet most of the above criteria for a scientific theory, it will be taught in Science class rather than philosophy.

" Simply put how would science operate if we assumed that there was a God? Would it bring an end to the discovery of truth and fact? "

I think those are two excellent question! And I’m sure most people would agree that they are appropriate for a philosophy class.

" I really don't see these crevo debates as much more than socio/politico/philosophical debates. "

Exactly. I think you are inadvertently supporting my position, that there’s a place in education for exploring and criticizing evolution. That’s in science class. But the place for exploring and criticizing ID or science's dependence on God are “socio/politico/philosophical” classes.

Best Regards,
Bill

[Dark Knight]

The violation of the 2nd law is this. 1st there is no such as a closed system. There are Always losses and gains in and out of any system. In regards to our solar system the are much greater losses than gains. 2nd in spite of those losses the solar system can be cosidered closed for modeling purposes which brings back to the problem of increasing entropy in that system. 3rd There is no mechanism outside of life itself for making use of the suns thermal energy in regards to organization. As demonstrated by the other planets there is a fine balance between too much and too little. However we are still left with the where did the first mechanism come from? Any suggestions?<<


So you are saying life can organize itself using the sun for energy. Moron.

As for the rest, have you heard of a solar cell? I know it has the word cell in it, but it is not alive. The sun drives many non living processes on the earth.

DK,
You may have mistook my ass for your nose. Please, if you are so informed about the the 2nd law, explain how thermal energy from the sun is used to organize information on the earth.<<

I think you mistook your mouth for your @ss. You may want to be careful at dinner tonight.

I'm a big ToE fan? Get out more, read more. You certainly aren't paying attention here. Maybe you should start on less contentious threads...maybe discussing the Oscars...you know, get your feet wet. Then when you are really ready to argue come back when you are more prepared.

You'll get to look at pretty pictures...you like pretty pictures, right?

But in the mean time, when you're at dinner tonight, you should avoid hot peppers. Your @ss might not be ready for them.

DK

[Boiler Plate]

Because growth makes use of an existing system. Evolution magically changes that system.

[Boiler Plate]

DK,
OK, you're Big ToE fan. Well I guess you should go out and buy yourself some bumper stickers. It certainly easier than try to understand the problems with ToE.
Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[Dark Knight]

I am so shocked at how you can keep proving your ignorance. I'm a big ToE fan? You could have just checked my posts, even in this thread alone. ToEs have problems, second law violations ain't one of them.

Maybe you can join me in an Oscar thread. They can be fun and I was thinking about posting a picture of Jessica Alba.

You really aren't doing yourself proud here.

DK

[Boiler Plate]

EM2,
Again you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but The concept of keeping "Science" in the science classes and "Religion" in the religion classes has never worked. Most evolutionists spend an inordinate time trying undermine religion with so called "science". Mr Hawkins being a current example. My engineering and science professors at Purdue did not feel the need to be so constrained to so called "scientific" definitions such as the one you provided and it made for both good discussion and deep contemplation. I failed to see the harm in it and certainly appreciated their candor.

Having said that, if science cannot prove God doesn't exist then it must contemplate that he might. Darwin already made the mistake of assuming that which he had no basis to assume and it has caused trouble every since.

To teach that God has created an infinitely complex universe hardly stifles science in my opinion. Instead it causes me to really look forward to each advance because unlike the end of a good story this one never ends and each chapter is better than the last.

Best Regards,
Boiler Plate

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Having said that, if science cannot prove God doesn't exist then it must contemplate that he might."

I agree. And their inability to prove that Santa doesn't exist means they have to contemplate he might too.

" To teach that God has created an infinitely complex universe hardly stifles science in my opinion."

It also does nothing at all to advance science. God is an untestable claim.

[Boiler Plate]

DK,
I simply do not pay a whole lot of attention to people who pretend that this is game. Your posts are gibberish spiced with insults and obscenities. Your lack of education has really hurt you and you might want to go back to pre-school and learn some manners.
Warmest Regards,
Boiler Plate

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Maybe you can join me in an Oscar thread. They can be fun and I was thinking about posting a picture of Jessica Alba."

Now that's what I'M talking about. :)

[Boiler Plate]

It also does nothing at all to advance science. God is an untestable claim.

And so is the theory of evolution.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"And so is the theory of evolution."

Thanks for admitting that God is untestable, and therefore outside of science. Though you are woefully ignorant if you think that evolution doesn't make untestable claims.

[Dark Knight]

DK,
I simply do not pay a whole lot of attention to people who pretend that this is game. Your posts are gibberish spiced with insults and obscenities. Your lack of education has really hurt you and you might want to go back to pre-school and learn some manners.
Warmest Regards,
Boiler Plate<<

You do have some things right. You don't pay attention.

I am nice when people are nice. I am not when they are not. You are wrong about second law violation in ToE. It's assertion should not even be here, it is that trivial.

I am sorry you don't understand the second law. I am sorry I spanked you in public. I'm sorry you cannot even do the basic research and call me an evolutionist. I'm sorry you continue to embarass yourself here.

Naw, I'm not sorry.

You're the one that is sorry.

DK

Pre-school? Are you for real?

[Dark Knight]

"Maybe you can join me in an Oscar thread. They can be fun and I was thinking about posting a picture of Jessica Alba."

Now that's what I'M talking about. :)

Of course you do know that in "Dark Angel" she was intelligently designed.

There are some tests of evolution that do come to mind now.

DK

[ahayes]

Perhaps you missed my post. I'll ask again: "Are you saying that light energy is incapable of converting simple molecules into more complex ones in the absence of biological machinery?"

[Greg o the Navy]

I promote the teaching of Intelligent Design because it conveys essential elements of the Creation Story. It will plant the seeds that will ultimately drive the secular agenda -- which is anchored in Darwinism -- out of the public schools. As to Darwinism being "valid science," I don't accept that. Never have. It's humanist cock & bull.