Is your experience with a small number of people who accept the theory of evolution sufficient to judge everyone with the same inclination?
Like any religion, there are fanatics, true believers, faithful followers, lukewarm accepters, agnostics and athiests. The level of "faith" required to accept evolution as the "best scientific explanation" is similar to the faith of a regigious devotee.
An objective scientist, when properly applying the scientific method, accepts or rejects a theory based on the evidence he or she has. Of course, scientists are people too, and they aren't necessarily objective 100% of the time. If you're arguing that not one person has ever accepted evolution based on an objective judgement, however, that claim is unsupportable.
One of the scientists I mentioned earlier - I believe it was William Demski - has established that the probability of life as we know it occuring through evolution to be so minute that it could accurately be considered a mathematical impossibility.
LOL! He's "established" it? That's awesome! In order to make an accurate estimate of that probability in the first place, here's a sampling of just a few of the things I would first need to know:
But let's ignore the above, and assume that his estimate of an extremely small probability for the creation of life is accurate. Here's a mathematical summary of this logic:
0.0000000000....00000001 = 0
Now, I think we can all agree that this much money deposited into our bank accounts wouldn't be something to get excited about. That doesn't make the above statement true, however, and the fact that this man happens to be a scientist makes the statement no less inaccurate. Here is a more accurate statement:
Any event with a non-zero probability is sure to occur, given enough time.
If what you've said is true, then Dr. Demski has already demonstrated that the probability of evolution occurring "by chance" (Who says this assumption is accurate? Maybe a higher power set the process in motion :) is non-zero. That implies then implies that it's just a matter of time.
Except - the scientists I mention, almost all began with the assumption that evolution was true. It was through their pursuit of evidence and mathematical probabilities that they became convinced that macro-evolution could not possible be true.
Who they are or how they came to a particular conclusion is wholly irrelevant - That doesn't make the conclusion any more or less valid or supportable.
In my experience, the evolutionist begins with an assumption that creation cannot be true, so an alternate theory is required. The former follows the method of the scientist, the later the path of the true-believer.
I'm sorry you've had that experience! I must return to my initial question, however: Is your experience with a small number of people who accept the theory of evolution sufficient to judge everyone with the same inclination?
Regardless of the method used by the intelligent designer - the presence of "designer" and "design" runs contrary to the foundational premises of evolution.
What, in your view, are these foundational premises of evolution? Just so I can be clear with respect to what we're talking about here.
Such a wedding of creation and evolution - the designer used evolution to achieve the desired end - is used only to satisfy those who are uncomfortable declaring either to be untrue.
...someone, for instance, who believes in God and the Bible, and who has also looked at the scientific evidence for evolution, made an objective judgement of it, and accepted the theory? You're absolutely right :)
But they are the accomodation of one who believes first that there was a creator.
...and never the other way around? Never ever ever? Can you be completely sure? :)
This was not intended by me to prove evolution wrong, only to show the passion and commitment of mainstream evolutionists to their faith.
I agree that many scientists act with passion and commitment to the goal of helping mankind, and that they can sometimes overdo it and lose their objectivity. But science, by definition, precludes faith. Faith among scientists, therefore, is mostly restricted to the religious variety, with some admittedly unfortunate exceptions.
These discredited "proofs" continue to be used today by most jr. high and high school textbooks to bolster the theory.
When and where have they been discredited? "Even" in the scientific community, there are plenty of religious people; if it was so obvious that the theory was completely wrong, why would there be any debate at all?
This is quite different from the odd crackpot promoting false evidence. This is the evolution establishment continuing to promote false evidence as true.
Let's be clear, I'm not arguing for the _absolute_ truth of the evidence, because such a concept is alien to science - But what evidence do you find to be demonstrably false, to the best of our scientific understanding?
I refer you to these several articles by Dembski (I confess, I have not read his articles in their entirety - but I have read several excepts and synopses) http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/menus/articles.html
Thanks! But there are 38 articles here, not all of which appear to pertain to the issue at hand. Is there anything in particular that you could recommend, that best sums things up? It's not that I'm unwilling, but this becomes a rather sizeable project :)
Also you might find the following of interest - some is more "God" focused, but there are several articles and discussions of evolution and design. http://www.origins.org/menus/debates.html
Again, thanks for the links! Along the same lines as before, though, if you could recommend some that pertain specifically to the matters at hand, that would be really helpful - I'm not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, and in fact I don't think you can do either of those things (hence faith). I just want to ensure that, between these readings and "real life", I can come back and respond in a timely fashion.
The situation of a Catholic school, established and maintained for the specific purpose of educating and training Catholic scholars is clearly different than that of of a typical university.
I agree - But that would of course depend on what one takes the role of a typical university to be. Hypothetically speaking, if a well-respect university had a very, very strong program in evolutionary biology that lots of people wanted to be part of and that had a major influence on the course of scientific debate in the field, depending on their methods, that could blur the lines a bit, don't you think?
This is a complete mischaracterization of my position - I contend that evolution is religion. Evolution and Science are NOT equivilant terms. If I have used "science" instead of "evolution" it was in error.
Thanks for clarifying - Sorry for the misunderstanding! I'm definitely glad to hear you do not characterize the whole of science in this fashion.
Now, to the idea that evolution is a religion - I think we agree (though by all means correct me if I'm wrong) that evolutionary biology, anthropolgy, etc. are parts of science - Branches, fields, whatever you like. And we clearly agree that science and religion are two different things. Therefore, since evolutionary biology or anthropology or whatever is a field of scientific inquiry (even if not everyone treats it as such), it must not be a religion. That is not to say that some people do not abuse the conclusions this or any other field of science, by proclaiming their results to be "fact" or "truth" - This, sadly, is human nature, and scientists are less susceptible to arrogance than the rest of us - But hopefully we can agree that the scientific study of evolution is not a religion. What do you think?
Training in and teaching of the theory is one thing, demanding BELIEF in the theory is another thing entirely.
I agree! Demanding unquestioning belief (i.e. faith) in any scientific theory is not science - Rather, it attempts to turn the theory into a religion, which is both unscientific and improper.
You will find that I have never objected to the teaching of the theory.
Excellent! I'm also really glad to hear that. I think we're making some progress! I at least feel like I understand where you're coming from a lot more now, which is good.
My objection is the teaching of the theory of evolution as fact and as the ONLY acceptable, scientific explanation of the origins of life.
Fair enough. What other testable and supportable scientific explanations should we include?
Whatever your answer is, if it is both scientifically testable and supportable, we will be in absolute agreement - It should be included. This is actually true not just of evolution but of a lot of other subjects, taught at many levels, sadly - Not to in any way downplay the matter at hand, which is of clear importance - But it's the state of things, I fear :(
We really need to work a lot harder, in general, on good texts from which to teach, especially when it comes to teaching children, because they are still in the process of developing critical thinking skills, and therefore they are much less able to question what is being taught to them. This means we must be really careful to make sure that what we are teaching is as good an explanation as we have. This becomes more difficult when trying to teach something controversial, of course, because the explanation may not be settled upon - To be honest, I don't know what the best way to handle this is.
Again, you mischaracterize my position.
Sorry!
The evolution establishment (if I can use that term)
:) Only if you want to hear terms like "the Creationism establishment" or "the Christian establishment" - The choice is yours. I'd like to think that it's fairer to consider that people within such a large and vague category would be subject to variances in opinion - Not all Christians think alike, for instance - But if you disagree, that's OK too.
routinely rejects the idea of intelligent design, not because of its science or lack there-of, but because of its conclusions.
Honestly, I have not seen examples of this - Though again, I am sorry you've had this experience! I am certainly open to any evidence that you may have, specifically relevant to the idea of a pervasive bias, rather than individual bias. What I am uncomfortable with, however, is the idea that the entire scientific community, within a single area of study, has uniformly and completely lost its objectivity on this issue - Especially since I think it's fair to say that the majority of the scientists involved in such work, i.e. in the US and Europe, are Christians. I'm not even saying that it's impossible - But I'll need some significant evidence before I accept the idea.
My assumption that this professor will reject such a belief on it's face, is an assumption - but I am certain that it is accurate. Given his statement and position.
Well, now, let's be scientific :) You can't really be "certain". But with that said, I have a feeling you're probably right. The point is that, until that happens, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty...
Re: "false criteria". It is false in that it is sophistry. When the debate should include all theories of origin, and they should be rejected on the basis of the evidence
Absolutely.
- certain positions are rejected by definition - "not science" - instead of by evidence. THIS, the unsupported rejection of a theory, is the use of a false criteria - not any theory in itsself.
Also true. Now, here is the problem: If we have an evolutionary biologist, and he or she evaluates what scientific evidence we have, and comes to accept the theory of evolution as reasonable, how do we know that they have done so based on an objective judgement, versus a simple dismissal of the idea as being "unscientific"?
To look at it another way: Should we ask science to endorse the idea of a Creator, when the existence of God (Christian or otherwise - We must remember that not everyone agrees on this, either) can be neither proved nor disproved? While science cannot deny things outside the scope of scientific inquiry, neither can it endorse them... Similarly, we should not look to science, Dr. Demski or no Dr. Demski, to "prove" or somehow validate the idea of Creation. It is not in the power of science to do this, nor is it all relevant to religious faith - The word itself implies that no proof or validation is needed except on the part of the believer! We must ensure that the religious do not look to science for validation of their faith (because it is not there that faith will be validated), just as we must ensure that scientists do not look to their own field as a means of addressing religious ideas.
This is another straw man argument. The concept of "micro-evolution" is not, and has not been the basis of our disagreement - it is "macro-evolution", which is at issue.
Actually, our disagreement has been over an until recently vague term we refer to as "evolution" :) I would argue that the micro/macro distinction is an artificial one, in any case, due to our necessarily human perceptions of time and space. Consider this hypothetical: The existence of beings who live to be 100 million years old and are 6 million feet tall (this is approximately how we would look to a bacterium). If these gigantic and extremely long-lived beings were observing us, how do you suppose they would make that distinction? To them, over their lifespan, the (alleged) evolution of humans would look to be just as fast, and just as insignificant, as the evolution of a single bacterium does to us.
I know that there's more to it than that, that people draw the distinction not only by size, but by the generation of new species, versus genetically heritable adaptations within a species, but again I would argue that a lot of this also stems from our perceptions - The (alleged) generation of a new species would be a much, much slower process, from our standpoint, and therefore much less obvious to us, if it were happening.
That aside, however, I'll go with your distinction. Would you be comfortable with a criterion requiring the student to accept the idea of microevolution? I think I know your answer, and it's good to be explicit and pare down the argument to its essentials, but I don't want to assume anything on your part, either.
Do you assume that a belief in creation and an acceptance of the theory of evolution are mutually exclusive?"
Yes - of course, unless you are speaking of the theory of creation by use of evolution or intelligent design using evolution as a tool...which denies the "accidental" feature of evolution which is central to the theory. Claiming that a creator used evolution to achieve his ultimate creation is denying the driving force of the evolution position.
I'm going to quote you a passage from Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (which you can all read, here):
Now, let's talk about what you just said :)
"...and I think it would be a mistake, and an insult to doctors everywhere, and a second-guessing of the Hippocratic oath, to imply that acceptance of the theory of evolution in any way dilutes how much a doctor values human life. It seems like this is what you are saying, but I hope I am mistaken."
You are not mistaken. That is exactly what I mean, and intend to mean. It is a consideration, not an ultimate criterion.
It must be neither, or we discriminate against people based solely on their beliefs, which is not only immoral but illegal.
I believe that the majority of abortionist and euthenasiaists are "evolutionists", not "creationists".
Even if that is true (there's no way we can know), does that mean that acceptance of the theory of evolution causes euthanesia and abortion? That'd be like saying that the internet creates pedophiles...
Furthermore, I believe that I have a better chance of being "compassionately terminated" by the ministrations of an evolutionist than by those of a practicing Christian (to name a specific type of Creationist) doctor. THAT is why it is important to me, and relevant.
So you think than a doctor who accepts the theory of evolution will, all religious beliefs and the Hippocratic Oath aside, be more likely to kill you against your will?
"Maybe, maybe not - What if they take their Biology degree and go into, well, Evolutionary Biology?"
Now you are being silly. If they go into micro-biology, this is an irrelevant criterium,
On the contrary, this is quite relevant - It comes down to the seperability of the term "evolution" into macroevolution and microevolution. This is not only important because Dr. Dini is clearly mixing the two, but because, all assumptions aside, you and I have not yet reached an agreement on the nature of this separation. The "micro-" aspects, if you want to term things that way, are certainly relevant to microbiology, and that acceptance of at least that part of the theory of evolution would therefore be relevant. In other words, this is only silly if I make the same assumptions you do :)
if they go into macro-biology they will develope their understanding and belief in the theory through that course of study. It is not necessary to believe in evolution as the origin of life in order to study Evolutionary Biology.
I'm talking about an acceptance of the theory of evolution as the best current explanation, based on the evidence at hand - Not a belief in evolution. If evolutionary biology is a bad example, we can try anthropology, for instance. But let's be more general. Is the theory of evolution relevant to some field of scientific inquiry?
"...if he rejects a well-supported alternative theory, then we can bring him to task, but not before."
His very statement "chills" alternate presentations.
We agree that his presentation is not the best - And we're certainly free to dislike the man as a result - But again, we have to go with "Innocent until proven guilty". To the best of our knowledge, he has never rejected an alternate, scientific explanation for the origins of man that is both testable and supportable.
In response to your friends statements I only offer this: Is the professor acting in his capacity as a professor of a public institution when he recommends for graduate work - I submit that he is.
No. He is giving his private recommendation - Neither the public nor all of his students are granted such a recommendation automatically. If he gave no recommendations at all (some professors don't), he would still be fulfilling his obligations as a professor.
If he is acting as a private citizen, he has the luxury of using whatever criteria he chooses for whatever purposes he wants.
Exactly!
As an employee of a public institution,
Irrelevant, for the aforementioned reasons - The recommendation is by definition private.
and as a gatekeeper to further advancement, he is bound by honor and ethics, if not law, to use only relevant criteria to deny advancement.
Here we agree. But not having his recommendation does not constitute denying advancement. Giving the student a bad grade would. We cannot talk about him "depriving" a student of something he's neither willing nor obligated to give them in the first place.
Using another professor for this recommendation may not be possible. When faced with this situation, there are usually a small group of recommendors available - their selection being made much earlier in the shaping of one's course of study. It is not necessarily possible to get the recommendation of another biology professor - if most of one's study and research has been done under a single professor...this is the one who should give a recommendation. A not unlikely occurance.
All true! Should the number of other professors able to give the student a recommendation have any relevance at all, with respect to a professor's decision to give his own?
Thanks for taking the time - That was a long one!
DFS