There is proof… it just isn’t universally accepted. What more can you ask?
There are fossils, carbon dating, geological activities, big bang theory and observation of celestial objects. Science is a huge tapestry… the thoughts concerning the passage of time and evolution of the planet can’t just be ripped out for the convenience of various religions.
Complaining about the fact that science has uncovered evidence that points towards evolution may leave you with a crisis of faith. Many religious people don’t have this problem, but some do. Do you have faith or not?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Can a science teacher get in on this?
Science and ID are two VERY different things. ID begins with a belief and tries to find evidence to verify same. Science begins with no assumptions, observes, and attempts to come up with a theory that explains the observations. The best theory is the one that is the simplest, yet explains the observations.
Also, science makes no absolute claims. All you have to do to invalidate a theory is to find a verifiable counterexample (this is called falsifiability). ID makes some kind of absolute claims and attempts to verify by way of example (btw: an example is NEVER a proof).
It therefore follows that ID cannot qualify as ‘scientific’ according to the definition of what science is. The judge ruled correctly.[/quote]
OOOhhh I hate to be on the same side as Headhunter.
But is he not right? Someone prove that ID is science. I have stated that this ID bullshit, philosophically, is how I feel about how the world came about.
But, scientifically prove it to me, that ID is right and should be taught in a science class. Cannot be done, it MUST be an elecitve
There are some peple out there who think the Holocaust never happened as well. Since we force Science techers to read some stupid line about how some religous nuts do not accept eveloutin (in the face of overwhelming proof) should we force History teachers to read a line about how some idiots believe the Holocaust never happened?
Also I think there are still some people who think the earth is flat and the sun revolves areound earth , should we read a disclaimer about that as well?
[quote]vroom wrote:
There are fossils, carbon dating, geological activities, big bang theory and observation of celestial objects. Science is a huge tapestry… [/quote]I see you paid attention in gradeschool Vroom, good for you!
Why not me. Let’s discuss some real details and stop prattling. Care to discuss the magical power of mutations?
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Uhhh, fossil records, different species, differences within species? Evolution has definitely been “observed.”
Actually, I recall reading that scientists were able to force some type of insect to “evolve” in the laboratory. Ever read about how over-prescribing antibiotics has lead to strains of bacteria that have become resistant to the current crop of antibiotics? That’s evolution. Well, not quite - it’s adaptation of an organism to its environment, which is a key component in evolution.[/quote]
no, the existence of fossils and different species do not indicate the validity of the theory of evolution any more than they validate creationism. meaning, they do not validate them whatsoever.
if some scientists forced an insect to change, that would be proof of id, not evolution.
bacteria adapting is not the same as evolution, which is the changing of one species into a completely different, new species.
evolution is an action, and by the theory, would take many millenia to be achieved. because of that, we’re gonna have to wait a few millenia more to be able to observe evolution.
any retorts? please use fact and logic only, as all other replies will be disregarded without comment.
[quote]BigBif wrote:
For the big bang, what caused the bang? Where did the something that ended up as our universe come from? It came from nothing. How many scientific laws does that break?
[/quote]
Ah I get it, it must have been God/Deity of choice that did it, because we currently do not understand everything about the Big Bang.
As someone who is not overtly religious, I could posit creation of the universe as an act of creation brought about by God. It is probably something that will never be fully explained or refutable anyway, as another such event would destroy our entire universe.
However, given that, there is still the fact that whatever the hell created the universe, it happened such that it has developed properties that we can investigate, learn, predict and manipulate. Science is particularly adept at this.
The difficult part is that science does refute some of the more incredible beliefs that people hold. Again, the Earth isn’t the center of the universe and nobody really refutes this. Neither is the Earth flat. There might be whackjobs that don’t agree, but in general religions have had to reconcile themselves with these facts as determined by science.
It will have to do so again… religion is a living and changing tapestry of it’s own. It doesn’t matter whether anyone likes it or wants otherwise. Standing in the way of scientific progress is a good way to have your religion eventually proven wrong. Bend or break, the choice is yours.
[quote]JonP wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Not off the top of my head. My only point was that the theory of gravity isnt what the general populace places its faith in when deciding whether or not to jump off a cliff (at least I dont think about curved space anyways). Rather, its the law of universal gravitation (the what, not the why) that is unarguably true…all objects do in fact exert a gravitational force. Now just what that force is…thats where the theory part comes in. The fact things fall is a law, not a theory.
I think you’re just reading into what I said too much… I used gravity as an example because it’s something everyone’s heard of and nobody spends any time arguing about because it’s labeled a “theory”.[/quote]
Thats my point though. Its not labeled a theory. Earlier, you correctly defined the difference between a law and a theory…what is observed when I drop a penny off a sky scrapper is described by the law of universal gravitation.
Thats because the law of universal gravitation is unarguably true and can be easily observed.
[quote]
People will readily accept anything told to them by science as long as it’s not something they don’t want to hear. Evolution is understand far more well than gravity yet evolution is the one always under attack.[/quote]
Depends on what you mean by “understand.” Do we understand the mechanisms behind gravity? no, not exactly. Do we understand the effects of gravity? yes, we do. Can you tell me how long it takes a new species to develop? Because I can tell you how long it takes an apple, dropped at a given height, to hit the ground.
There is no way, at this point, you can place evolutionary biology at the same level of scientific certainty as gravitational physics. Lets be honest, science can only study the available evidence. In the case of evolution, a large part of the evidence is a matter of history; historical evidence always involves a certain level of “interpretation.”
However, like I said earlier, that doesnt mean its intelectually honest to dismiss the theory of evolution simply because its labeled a theory. Still, IMO, its just as wrong to claim that dismissing the theory of evolution is akin to dismissing gravity. Its simply apples and oranges…
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
I think the problem here is that, in a science class, evolution is taught as fact. No opposing viewpoints are presented to the students, when in fact there are some. Thus, the student leaves the class accepting this “fact” without seeing the alternatives or arguments against it. That’s the slippery slope. Nobody is saying that evolution is not science, and few are saying that ID is. However, when the science of evolution is mandatory curriculum and opposing views are electives, that’s indoctrination.
Shouldn’t we be teaching our students to form their own opinions based on available information?[/quote]
I think I understand where you are coming from - should we not be careful to oversimplify what we teach in schools, and make sure our students get a wide variety of views? I agree with the general idea - the schools’ curricula tend to simplification and stating facts that are, under close scrutiny, not as clear as one would think.
But keep in mind whom you are teaching: average kids aged 6 to 18, in a wide - and especially in the sciences growing - variety of subjects. Each and everyone is simplified (if not dumbed down) to be understandable to an average kid. Even though there might be the occasional deeper discussion on a controversial topic, the volume und width of the knowledge to be transferred does only allow for the most fundamental of scientific theories to be taught. That range of theories has to be chosen wisely. Evolution holds itself well so far, and should be taught. For everything beyond that, there is college, university and postgraduate studies.
An example: my dad (an experimental physisist and expert on radiology) helped me once to come up with a presentation on relativity theory to save me grade. All the class (and the teacher) said was “huh?”. Hell, I didn’t get what I was talking about…
Ask a maths student on how in the first 2 months everything they had learnt about maths in school is … kinda inaccurate, and will be retaught, just a bit more detailed.
Is there is a place for ID in science classes? I think the review on P&P earlier was an interesting example - if it stands the test of time and peer review, it may well be taught there. At the moment it looks rather bad though…
[quote]DB297 wrote:
There are some peple out there who think the Holocaust never happened as well. Since we force Science techers to read some stupid line about how some religous nuts do not accept eveloutin…[/quote]
Behe is a religous nut? He may or may not be right but dismissing his work as the ravings of a religous nut doesnt seem very scientific of you, IMO.
Are you actually saying that the holocaust and evolution are known to be true with equal certainty and that disbelief in evolution is just as nutty as disbelief in the holocaust? Considering there are still people alive who survived Nazi death camps, and last I checked there wasnt any eyewitnesses to abiogenesis, I dont think that’s a valid comparison.
[quote]
Also I think there are still some people who think the earth is flat and the sun revolves areound earth , should we read a disclaimer about that as well? [/quote]
As I said to someone else, not all the sciences were created equal. You can’t compare physics and astronomy to evolutionary biology. As things stand now, anyways.
For those interested here is a page with scientific information that points to ID. The definition of Evolution needs to be agreed on before a serious discussion can take place.
I am going on vacation. I will put more effort into a response on this issue when I get back in week.
Me Solomon Grundy
As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." - Charles Darwin
“Research into how evolution works has been named top science achievement of 2005, a year that also saw fierce debate erupt over “intelligent design”.”
First, It’s called punctuated equilibrium. Second, not everything that that lives leaves a fossil. It is instead a VERY small percentage. and Finally, new fossils are being found all the time. Just because they haven’t all been found (yet) does not mean they aren’t there.
Whenever creationists bring up the “it’s only a theory” debate is when they lose all credibility. Like theories can become facts or laws. A law is an observation, a theory explains why the observation happens. Gravity is a theory, yet nobody runs around yelling “Gravity is ONLY a theory!” and puts stickers on science books saying it’s not a fact.
First thank you for the website. Aside from his insulting statements and dismissive attitude the author feigns the inability to conceive of God. Disturbing behavior for the intellectually superior. Two quotes:
?The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.? (SIC)
?A favorite argument of creationists is that the probability of evolution occurring is about the same as the probability that a tornado blowing through a junkyard could form an airplane. They base this argument on their belief that changes in living things have a very low probability and could not occur without “intelligent design” which overcomes the laws of thermodynamics. This represents a fundamental contradiction in which (they say) evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics because thermodynamics doesn’t permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder, but creationism (in the guise of intelligent design) doesn’t have to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.?
Would that be due to the fact the very definition of a god would place it outside the natural world? You know, as in supernatural?
If you really are reading drivel like this it is no wonder you cannot look outside of the evolutionist box. They have created for you (actually it was created by them for themselves but they will tolerate newcomers as long as you dont rock the boat or ask difficult questions) a world view that says you are smarter than those other people, and you are a better person too because everyone knows what hypocrites religious people are. A comfortable crutch this worldview, I am sure.
[/quote]
I just noticed this thread and this post that you have made is so ridiculous that it demands a response.
You are ranting about evolutionists being so-closed minded and unwilling to “ask difficult questions.” That is ridiculous. The modern evolutionary biology came about precisely because scientifically minded people were willing to investigate and ask questions instead of accepting ancient handed down mythology.
You seem to be offended by the tone of the author of the article. I don’t think that the tone is overly condescending or negative and the article simply attempts to explain the application of the second law to the reader. The fact is, the argument that the evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics is completely fallacious. There is no getting around it, and I am guessing that is what offends you so much. If you notice even the ID proponents (Dembski, Behe, et al) have abandoned this argument because it is completely invalid and worthless.
How does he play bait and switch? He directly addresses why evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The creationists who still use this tired old argument are the ones that inaccurately state the second law of thermodynamics in order to persuade people who are not scientifically educated.
Apparently you are making up your own version of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamic deals with the transfer of heat energy. The energy used by the biological systems on the earth comes from the sun, thus there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics. All of this stuff you are adding about information + energy = complexity has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics. It is also not based upon science period and it is just some crap that either you or some creationist author that you read made up.
You are trying to say that the second law of thermodynamics is some kind of generalized law of disorder. That is incorrect, and scientists don’t accept that as fact. By this modified definition of the second law of thermodynamics the existence of any ordered system in the universe would be impossible and a violation of the second law.
Your ice analogy is amusing, because ice forms an ordered, crystalline structure with a loss of thermodynamic energy in water. That is a good illustration of how you are mixing up two different concepts.
Click on the links below for a good explanation of the second law of thermodynamics. It is obvious that you have several misunderstandings of what the second law entails.
(Both sites are done by the same person but the first is written for the “layperson”)
Now you are suddenly changing the subject. You are going to the old “first cause” argument for the existence of God. The problem is that “God” would require a creator or first cause as well, so the position that “God” has always existed is subject to the same criticism that the position that the universe and matter have just always existed.
But regardless, that argument has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is an observable phenomenon that has occurred since the formation of the earth. Evolution does not deal with whether or not the universe was created by God. So the whole "first cause’ argument that you are using here has nothing to do with evolution.
Well you have once again drifted off of the second law issue. As you already concede, amino acids have been formed under experimental conditions. That is all that is needed to get the process started.
Most biologists are embarrassed to refer to it? You?re talking out your ass again. You really should read up a little on evolutionary biology because you obviously have serious misconceptions of what the concept of punctuated equilibrium" entails. Nobody says that evolution all happened at once and then suddenly stopped. It is also interesting that you like to throw around terms like “faith” and “mysticism” to try to imply that evolutionists are thinking on your level.
I noticed that you have stated in other posts that the fossil record contradicts evolution. If that is so why have such a large number of transitional fossils been discovered? How is it that there are sufficient fossils for paleontologists and taxonomists to recreate the evolutionary lineage of most modern animal species? Why are transitional fossils still being found today? (If you look on yahoo news in the science section you will see that new important fossil finds occur every month or so).
I have another telling question for you. What evidence is there in the fossil record that supports the hypothesis that all animal species were created and that all of these species have existed on the earth since the time of this creation?
{crickets}
Please don’t until you actually educate yourself on those subjects.
That’s an odd statement. If that is the case why has the theory of evolution been modified since its introduction by Darwin? Why do biologists continue to research into evolution, paleontology, and genetics to try and improve knowledge?
Creationists are the ones that have already made up their mind. They believe that the literal interpretation of the bible is the absolute truth. No evidence will influence their opinion. It is very telling that creationist “scientists” do no actual work that attempts to gain knowledge. They don’t want knowledge; all they want to do is try and discredit evolution over theological issues.
To lesser degree the Intelligent Design proponents are also guilty of this. ID theory as it exists right now has little to no predictive value and is more of attack on evolution than a scientific theory in its own right.
I should also point out that the majority of biologists are not atheists either.
Right now the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution. If creationists would actually put forth some scientifically sound arguments they might be taken seriously. Any arguments based upon religion or the supernatural are by nature unscientific and should be kept out of scientific discourse.
This statement is just plain stupid. Again you are trying to associate the failings of your worldview with science. Science has gone to great lengths to explain the process of evolution and gain new knowledge to understand it. I can’t think of a more egregious example of “putting faith in mystical processes” than believing in the literal truth of Genesis.
To bad it is true that what creationists put out is not science. Enough with your religion comparisons. No matter how many times you use religious metaphors to describe scientists, the fact still remain that the creationist side is the one based on religious dogma.
No science is cut and dried, and the scientific community is constantly researching and improving the science of evolutionary biology.
[quote]
To claim otherwise is dishonest and to fail to think or alow others to think about other possible explanations isnt a defense of science, but rather a circling of wagons around mystical dogma by the priests of science and tantamount to declaring new ideas or knowledge to be dangerous.[/quote]
Here you go with the religious metaphors again. The reason that rational people get so upset about this issue is because religious nuts have been trying to ban the teaching of evolution for years. The attempt to push ID into schools is just another attempt to discredit evolution in public schools in a manner that wouldn’t be so easily stopped by the courts. The recent kangaroo court hearings in Kansas have shown the true agenda of the ID folks - bringing back creationism in schools.
I also think your last comment of “declaring ideas dangerous” is very amusing. Every creationist website that I have seen specifically mentions how the idea of evolution must be stopped and how it is leading to the destruction of our society. Which side is really declaring ideas dangerous?
The above post illustrates an important point that creationists would be smart to learn from (and I speak from personal experience). If you want to be taken seriously, please, for the love of God, research evolutionary biology and any other fields you are going to reference (i.e. physics). Dont just rely on what creationist writers have said. Would you think it smart to rely soley on evolutionary biologists for information on creationsism? I didnt think so…
[quote]rawda wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
Uhhh, fossil records, different species, differences within species? Evolution has definitely been “observed.”
Actually, I recall reading that scientists were able to force some type of insect to “evolve” in the laboratory. Ever read about how over-prescribing antibiotics has lead to strains of bacteria that have become resistant to the current crop of antibiotics? That’s evolution. Well, not quite - it’s adaptation of an organism to its environment, which is a key component in evolution.
no, the existence of fossils and different species do not indicate the validity of the theory of evolution any more than they validate creationism. meaning, they do not validate them whatsoever.
[/quote]
Wrong. The fossil record shows common ancestry of different species and demonstrates evolutionary changes that occurred over time. The fossil record provides compelling evidence of common descent.
Additionally, the fossil record does not show all species of animals appearing at once fully formed, as would be predicted by a creationist theory. Therefore, in addition to providing strong evidence for evolution, the fossil record also is completely inconsistent with creationism.
Ii would defend on what you mean by “forcing” an insect to change. If it were done by changing environmental variables it would demonstrate the feasibility of evolution. It wouldn’t prove or disprove ID.
How is it not the same? You do realize that what determines a species is somewhat arbitrarily defined by taxonomists. There are many examples of hybridization in nature. Often the division of species (and even higher taxanomic divisions) are not so well defined.
There have been many observed cases of the formation of new species. Check out the link below for a few examples.
Also if you apply your paradigm that evolution is unscientfic because of the amount of time taken by the process then you would have to throw away the science of geology as well. Additionally, studies of astronomy and biological sciences dealing with ecological systems would have to be discarded.
Great posts Juero. Amazing what a little knowledge and some facts can do, as opposed to using religious rhetoric and wishful thinking in order to disprove evolution.
Can I add a little side note here: The PRC (China) graduated more people in Math and Science last year than the USA did in EVERYTHING. They will soon be producing TEN times as many engineers as will we.
If this trend continues, this does not bode well for us. Imagine a country with 1.5 billion people, many MORE educated people than us. How many of our school children study Mandarin? I had children wanting to practice their English with me when I was there. How many of our children even know what Mandarin is?
We will soon be surpassed and the Chinese will rightly demand continually more influence in world affairs. Is this desireable?
Our children should be learning how to compete and how to speak the language of our competition, not some mystical mumbo-jumbo that serves no purpose.
“Wow, how fascinating that someone designed the bird shit on my windshield?”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Can I add a little side note here: The PRC (China) graduated more people in Math and Science last year than the USA did in EVERYTHING. They will soon be producing TEN times as many engineers as will we.
If this trend continues, this does not bode well for us. Imagine a country with 1.5 billion people, many MORE educated people than us. How many of our school children study Mandarin? I had children wanting to practice their English with me when I was there. How many of our children even know what Mandarin is?
We will soon be surpassed and the Chinese will rightly demand continually more influence in world affairs. Is this desireable?
Our children should be learning how to compete and how to speak the language of our competition, not some mystical mumbo-jumbo that serves no purpose.
“Wow, how fascinating that someone designed the bird shit on my windshield?”
[/quote]
I cringe as I say this, but I agree.
And the Giants are going to go to the super bowl. Its a done deal my man ;}