Posted on 05/07/2008 5:09:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I am an agnostic when it comes to explaining the origin of life. I don’t believe yet in evolution, creationism or intelligent design. I can see flaws in all three. I just simply don’t know and frankly don’t think it matters whether we know or not.
My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious. I am against banning any idea, theory, speculation or body of guesses. Human history shows us to be far too error-prone to go around eliminating dissent by majority vote of one of the more ignorant classes in our society, namely politicians.
Science has been itching to replace religion in Western culture for some time. You can see for yourself how science assumes the characteristics of religion. There is the priesthood (scientists, or at least those who call themselves scientists) and laity, which is the rest of us. Theory becomes dogma. Dissenters are persecuted. The high priests of science want the government not only to fund them, but to enforce their dogmas with the power of the law.
I believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe in the separation of science and state. In fact, I believe in the separation of practically all aspects of life from the state, which should basically tote the mail and guard the coast.
We, as mortals with short life spans, would not even be concerned about the origins of life, except the evolutionists wish to use their theory to destroy religion, and religious people want to use their theory to defend religion.
True science means simply the search for truth, but a search conducted with an open mind and tolerance for dissent. There is nothing wrong with a person believing that a dinosaur evolved into a canary, but there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that God created the first man and woman. I’ve never seen any physical evidence to support either belief, and one is no more improbable than the other. The only fact is that some beliefs have to be accepted on the basis of faith, and that goes for evolution as well as creationism.
The trouble is that both science and religion provide a person with a worldview, and unconsciously the person begins to evaluate everything he or she sees or hears or thinks up in accordance with the worldview. I see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools. There is a large volume of facts biology students need to learn without wasting their time on theories that have no practical value. It’s like teaching molecular physics to students studying auto mechanics.
There is always more to learn than there is time to learn it, so we should be more practical in designing our school curricula. Not every student needs to read Shakespeare or learn calculus. I’ve had no occasion to solve a quadratic equation since I left high school. Students should be taught only what will be useful to them. Survey courses – giving them a taste of what is on the large menu of learning – are useful. Practical courses, such as personal finance or typing, are useful. Teaching all children a second language would be extremely useful, as would be music and drawing.
We should try to keep ideological and political disputes out of the public schools. We have to recognize that fanatics and ideologues will try to inject their materials into the public schools, and we should guard against that. I truly despise people who try to use children in adult conflicts. We should also guard against the state imposing its views on the students. The best way to do that is to abolish public education, a great idea whose time I hope will come one day.
In the meantime, just remember that facts are scarcer than theories, speculation, assumptions and guesses.
It's not denied. It's just not seen as valid science. The general procedure for formulating a scientific hypothesis or theory is to go with the simplest explanation that fits the evidence at hand. So if you can explain the evidence without a god, then you do so as that is simpler. It doesn't mean God doesn't or cannot exist, but simply that we don't have any direct evidence of his existence.
Imagine for a moment that scientists decided that there was a god. The next thing they would have to study would be the nature of that god. Is it Allah, Jehovah, Krishna or some giant Norseman with a hammer. They'd have to go through and pick apart the different religions, look for factual errors, etc... In any event I think you can see why they'd prefer to use natural rather than supernatural explanations for different phenomena.
I don’t believe yet in evolution, creationism or intelligent design. I can see flaws in all three.
... means that he is promulgating the purely rhetorical conceit that ID is anything different whatsoever than biblical creationism, and identifies him as a propagandist for the creationist cause, ipso facto.
This is a classic false dichotomy. Anyone who opposes acceptance of evolution as science is automatically a creationist. There is absolutely nothing that says the only possible alternative to evolution is creationism, and those of us who oppose what is currently promoted as the “science” of evolution on scientific grounds do because it is very very bad science. I am an atheist, find the ID view nothing more than an attempt to use the flaws of evolution to put over creationism, but know evolutionist are much more dangerous than creationist because they cover their fictions under the banner of science.
Just because a correct view of origins is not yet available is no reason to accept one that is rationally and objectively fallacious. There is not a scintilla of evidence or objective reason verifying Darwinian evolution; to promote it as science is as irrational, and probably less useful in practical terms, than creationism.
Hank
“Yes, it’s taught in schools as a science because it is science. “
It may be science in the strictest sense but there’s no way to actually verify the TOE because it takes so long for the expected changes to take place.
Natural selection can be verified in a lab but not he TOE.
“deliberate misinterpretation of Scripture”
Please explain.
“Just because a correct view of origins is not yet available is no reason to accept one that is rationally and objectively fallacious.”
Good point.
Usually the reason given in these discussions is that the TOE “is the best we have right now”. That’s about the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard for something supposed to be so entirely rational.
How about they just say “we don’t know”, since it’s obvious no one does know with any degree of certainty.
It's a plain documented truth that ID was conceived, in toto, as a rhetorical and legal dodge in the face of the court rulings against teaching creationism, and is nothing more than a banner under which it was hoped that creationism by a different name could be taught in schools.
Read The Dover Decision for an eye-popping account of the brazen, and inept, campaign to execute this ploy by several members of the Dover, Pa. School Board.
I'll buy your (and Schroeder's) relativistic argument -- BUT -- whereas 6,000 years can be applicable for a relativistic reference frame far different from our earth-centered one, it is definitely inappropriate for our local reference frame.
IOW, the "YEC" claim that the Universe is 6,000 earthly years old is pure, willfully ignorant bunk.
INTREP
Ouch! :^P
Beware of the conflicting meanings of the word theory!
The problem with the word theory is that it's popular meaning is just the opposite of its scientific meaning, never the twine should meet. The informal meaning of theory is that an idea is being guessed at, the way that Mr. Reese probably wants it to be understood, not that everybody is going to construe his words that way.
The problem is that the formal, scientific usage of the word theory means that an idea has indeed held up to the rigor of scientific-method based experimentation and is accepted as scientific fact. So regardless that Mr. Reese likely intended to give the impression that evolution is merely guesswork, he has fallen into the trap where his words can be reasonably construed as meaning that evolution ideas are indeed accepted scientific fact.
The reasons that macroevolution ideas, so-called long term evolution processes, are largely no more than science fiction are as follows. The problem with the claim of evolutionists that single-cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, is that the scientific-method experiments that would conclusively verify such claims would themselves take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility. And then there is the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments to verify outcome.
Another reason is that experiments that are said to simulate billions of years of evolution have backfired, showing that harmful mutations are a major obstacle to evolution ideas.
The bottom line is that macroevolution ideas are no more a science than creationism is; evolutionists believe in evolution by faith as much as Christians put their faith into Jesus Christ. But although neither macroevolution or creationism has a place in the science classrooms of public schools, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that either issue cannot be discussed and questioned in public schools.
Finally, is it any wonder, given the conflicting meanings of theory, that creationism versus evolution arguments seemingly go in endless circles?
The following online references indicate the formal and informal usages of theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
The reasons that macroevolution ideas, so-called long term evolution processes, are largely no more than science fiction are as follows. The problem with the claim of evolutionists that single-cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, is that the scientific-method experiments that would conclusively verify such claims would themselves take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility. And then there is the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments to verify outcome.
This is not sufficient to turn the theory of evolution into "science fiction." An accepted scientific theory is the current best explanation for a set of facts. There is nothing in that definition that requires minute-by-minute repeatability in the laboratory. (Cosmology would be in deep trouble if that was the case.) This is an anti-science approach, promulgated largely by creationists, and designed to make the theory of evolution appear unsound.
Another reason is that experiments that are said to simulate billions of years of evolution have backfired, showing that harmful mutations are a major obstacle to evolution ideas.
False. Harmful mutations are dumped from a population quickly; very harmful mutations result in stillbirth or early infant mortality. They are over and done with within months, and they are not passed to other members of the population. This is just another creationist talking point that gets the technical details incorrect.
The bottom line is that macroevolution ideas are no more a science than creationism is; evolutionists believe in evolution by faith as much as Christians put their faith into Jesus Christ.
False conclusion. The theory of evolution follows the scientific method from data to hypotheses, through testing and all the rest to accepted theory. That is the opposite of religion which goes from revelation to scripture and on through faith and dogma. The two concepts are completely opposite.
But although neither macroevolution or creationism has a place in the science classrooms of public schools, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that either issue cannot be discussed and questioned in public schools.
False again. Creationism is religious belief, and that has been prohibited in science classes by the U.S. Supreme Court. You may argue that the constitution does not require this (it is the Bill of Rights, but that's a minor quibble), but the courts are the arbiters of what the constitution says like it or not.
Finally, is it any wonder, given the conflicting meanings of theory, that creationism versus evolution arguments seemingly go in endless circles?
No. The problem is that creationists are unwilling to accept the definition of theory used by science. They want to make it appear that the theory of evolution is just a guess, so they deliberately misuse the term. It is not honest, but they do it anyway no matter how many times they are reminded.
I have a long list of scientific definitions on my FR home page, which I used to post regularly. But some posters here are so anti-science that they continually chewed my tail feathers for posting those definitions even though they are from such scientific websites as CalTech and NASA.
Here are the definitions I have for theory:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws(You know, I have been here long enough that I remember when this wasn't an anti-science website.)Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Perhaps you missed it, but there was a few things, such as fire, domestication of animals, farming technologies and a few other things that predate Jesus.
Thank you the good response. Having said this, in the two key points of the creationists—that they do not believe in evolution as it refers to A. “Life from non-life” or B. Animals or plants having a family tree with dissimilar ancestors—do you think there is any possibility of a potential meeting ground in which the “sides” could sit down, turn off the emotions, and try to objectively look at each others “best evidences” and cite (and admit!) the strengths and weaknesses of each? Or are the sides too polarized?
I think the YEC was invented to support premillennialism, and premillennialism is basically numerology with some Bible verses thrown in. If you believe that God MUST destroy the old earth and create a new earth after 7 thousand years, and you believe that we are on the verge of Christ's 1,000-year reign before the earth is destroyed, then you will seek to prove that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. So premillennialism and YEC fit together into one neat system.
A lot of good people believe in this system, but there are a lot of branches of Christianity that do not accept the millennialist view and do not feel pressed to "prove" how old the earth is. And I am not talking about liberal churches that have thrown out the Bible. There are conservative churches that don't see millennialism in the Bible. I don't know which is worse - Christians who use numerlogical tricks to "prove" that God exists (and here is His timetable to the last minute) or athiests who profess to "scientifically" disprove that God exists.
The reasons that macroevolution ideas, so-called long term evolution processes, are largely no more than science fiction are as follows. The problem with the claim of evolutionists that single-cell organisms evolved into humans over the course of billions of years, for example, is that the scientific-method experiments that would conclusively verify such claims would themselves take billions of years to conduct; an impossibility. And then there is the "minor" problem of repeating such time-consuming experiments to verify outcome.You are overlooking that landing a man on the moon, for example, was necessarily regarded as science fiction before scientists actually showed that it could be done; no green cheese. And being able to do so was the result of acquired knowledge based on the consistent results of years of scientific-method experimentation, experimentation which explored the behavior of gravity, the development of rocket fuel, etc.This is not sufficient to turn the theory of evolution into "science fiction." An accepted scientific theory is the current best explanation for a set of facts. There is nothing in that definition that requires minute-by-minute repeatability in the laboratory. (Cosmology would be in deep trouble if that was the case.) This is an anti-science approach, promulgated largely by creationists, and designed to make the theory of evolution appear unsound.
On the other hand, in stark contrast to doing the "impossible," like landing a man on the moon, evolution "scientists" have never taken a single-cell organism and evolved it into a human. The reason that scientists have never done so is because, unlike having the knowledge necessary to land a man on the moon, evolutionists don't have a solid understanding of DNA mutations, an understanding based on the consistent results of repeatable, scientific-method based experiments, which would enable them to do so. In other words, evolution ideas have never evolved out of the conjecture stage.
Again, macroevolution ideas are largely no more than fact-based science fiction; macroevolution is based on faith as much as Jesus is.
It remains that evolution "scientists" have never backed up their claim that single-cell organisms evolved into humans by actually substantiating such a claim with the consistent, "show me," results of scientific-method based experiments.
The bottom line is that using their God-given imaginations to visualize a fish growing legs and crawling out of the water is good enough "scientific" proof of macroevolution ideas for anti-Christian evolutionists.
Well, if we are looking for a reason for a perceived evolution of life, the notion that all the millions of mutations necessary mostly occurred in some sort of positive way (observable mutations being almost always negative), seems to me to be quite a leap of faith.
The evidence for a designer seems apparent to me, given the diversity of species, the interconnectedness of all living things, even the symmetry - let alone that life has occurred at all (there being no evidence of spontaneous generation) (there being no missing links of any kind whatsoever).
As for science deciding who the designer is, science could remain silent. To admit the overwhelming obviousness that this earth and its billions of creatures are not just accidents of random circumstances does not mean you must identify the designer.
See the amusing and disarming solution proposed in Science Made Stupid, by Tom Weller. By some miracle, it's available online.
I don't think you're paying attention. Nature is profligate. Any number of deletorious mutations may occur and lead to immediate death, but when some small fraction of all mutations occur which are advantageous, they will be preserved by natural selection.
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.