The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[js1138]

And how does he define the church, i wonder?

Certainly not Roman Catholic. They have no official opposition to evolution.

I mean church in a figurative sense. The really odd thing is that physics and chemistry are OK until they comment on the age of the earth or the universe. I presume biology is OK until it talks about the obvious interconnectness of living things.

Reminds me of Bill Clinton's ability to compartmentalize.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So what is the point?  As I have pointed out, antibiotic resistance is not necessarily mutation oriented.  As was stated in the article, scientists don't know why certain resistance genes exist.  Their comments after that about the genes resulting from mutations and evolution are pure speculation, since they admit that they don't really know.

BTW, I believe that there are provable instances where mutation and permutations exist, it's just that it is not proveable, nor likely in all cases.  Nor is mutation a good argument for evolution since, to date, it has not been shown definitively as a causation of speciation.  Furthermore, evolution assumes that higher lifeforms evolve from lower life forms.  I reject that notion on the two-fold score that if it were so, almost all mutations should be benign rather than the opposite (as is the real-world case) and most assuredly Mr. Clinton did not decend from a lower life form.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

Or malaria, or Hepatitis B, or Islamic Fundamentalism, or...

[js1138]

Mr. Clinton did not decend from a lower life form.

I think you'd have a hard time proving that.

[js1138]

almost all mutations should be benign rather than the opposite

Do you have proof that they are not. I thought mutations were just as likely to occur in non-functional sequences as otherwise. Since most DNA is dead code, that would mean most mutations have no effect at all.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I have a question for you: where is the proof that

GOD DID IT!!! GOD DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aw c'mon.  Be honest and use the standards set up by each school of thought for their own testing.

The Creationists never have claimed that their proof was empirical.  Rather it is supernatural.  As such, empirical evidence has only an ancilliary bearing on the case.

OTOH, evolutionists have always claimed empiricism and scientific method as their hallmarks.

Of the two, creationism is far more the honest, because they admit that their belief cannot be proven empirically, whereas the evolutionists make, in many cases, greater leaps of faith than they accuse the creationists of doing.  An honest assessment of evolutionism readily reveals that scientific method doesn't work and that all experiments in the field ultimately show little more than they were accomplished by intelligent design.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Nor is mutation a good argument for evolution since, to date, it has not been shown definitively as a causation of speciation.

Only because there's not universal agreement on what constitutes a species. We make organisms at work all the time that can no longer interbreed with their original species, only among themselves.

Furthermore, evolution assumes that higher life-forms evolve from lower life-forms.

I've never seen a working statement of this anywhere, except from Creationists and ID'ers. I know what you're trying to say (I think), but if you start with biofilms and anything at all happens, you're bound to get something more capable than slime. (I had to work the "slime" angle in.)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I've never seen a working statement of this anywhere, except from Creationists and ID'ers. I know what you're trying to say (I think), but if you start with biofilms and anything at all happens, you're bound to get something more capable than slime. (I had to work the "slime" angle in.)

It is not generally said, but it is heavily implied, and is, in fact assumed generally by evolutionists.  If you don't believe me, just take a look sometime at any chart showing the evolving of Homo-Sapiens.  And this is just one example (charts of almost any type of animal shows the same).  Yeah, and apparently procreation is not necessarily a good indicator of speciation.  I've heard of cases where cross-species pollination has occured.

As far as the slime is concerned, would that also involve those leaving trails of pre-biotic matter in their wake?

[js1138]

An honest assessment of evolutionism readily reveals that scientific method doesn't work and that all experiments in the field ultimately show little more than they were accomplished by intelligent design.

I can see why you believe that chance always begins at ground zero. It is the way you think. The questions I have raised regarding the ratchet mechanism of variation and selection have been ignored and sidestepped, but not discussed.

I would love, for example, to see someone try to prove, using probability theory, how an electron can't move from a lower energy state to a higher energy state without an energy input and without passing through intermediate states.

There's a lot of really cool properties of "mere matter", and a lot of counterintuitive stuff lurking in materialism. This ain't your granddaddy's universe.

[Jeff Gordon]

Your statement might as well read:...

Not my statement. You got the wrong guy.

[Stultis]

I appreciate the straw man. I find it very amusing, really, I do.

Then you need to thank gore3000. This is really about his tactic of demanding absolute demonstrative proof of evolutionary theory (and of anything relating to it), but accepting arm-waving "atom bombs" prove "relativity" type standards of "proof" for any scientific theory he doesn't happen to disagree with. IOW the real problem is goal post shifting in the service of rank dogmatism.

If you use the term "proof" differently than I do, but use it consistently, then I have no real problem with that.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

It is not generally said, but it is heavily implied, and is, in fact assumed generally by evolutionists.

Now that you mention it, I should say that I've heard it said by high school science teachers as well. The folks I work with don't hold that viewpoint. They're mainly PhD's and BS'ers.

As far as the slime is concerned, would that also involve those leaving trails of pre-biotic matter in their wake?

I leave plenty of organic molecules in rest rooms, if that's what you mean. Pre-biotic is a whole another discussion that may, or may not, include prions, viruses and some other stuff that I'm not sure has been formally named yet. The term generally used around here is "crud" or "goop".

[Stultis]

That's not saying much, at least in your case, because earlier you explained that no scientific theory logically entails anything.

I certainly never said anything remotely like that. The following are the claims I was trying to make, which apparently were not clear to you, stated as succintly as I can manage:

1) Scientific theories do not, and cannot, logically entail their own truth.

It is precisely the implicit assertion that "this theory is true" which is empirically tested by means of the many implications regarding natural objects, systems and their behavior which can indeed be deduced from good scientific theories.

2) The fact that scientific theories methodologically disregard the supernatural does not entail any metaphysical or ontological conclusion about the existence of a supernatural realm or entities.

In sum I agree that scientific theories do have entailments, but only with respect to the natural world.

[Stultis]

O.K., to clarify, I am using following definition of proof: "A theory is proven if it can be demonstrated (however you may choose) that it entails its own truth." It is in this sense that I claim that scientific theories are not and cannot be "proven". I am confident that virtually all reflective scientists and philosphers would agree in this. Indeed you seem to agree in this. You are using a different definition of "proof," which is fine insofar as used consistently.