Subscription Center
Jan 23, 2009 05:00 PM | 123
The Texas Board of Education has tentatively adopted new teaching standards that would make it more difficult to teach creationism in Lone Star state schools.
Board members voted eight-to-seven last night to drop controversial language in the state's curriculum that requires science teachers to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories.
The move was hailed by Eugenie Scott, executive director of the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education. "There are no weaknesses of evolution," she told us, echoing a comment she made to the Dallas Morning News, which reported yesterday that that panel was mulling the move.
"I don’t know any mainstream scientists who are questioning whether evolution took place," Scott tells ScientificAmerican.com. "That's not to say we understand everything that happened in evolution or the mechanisms that caused evolutionary change. But … arguments about the details aren’t arguments about whether evolution took place. The creationists make that category error."
The vote came in the wake of concern that the board could loosely interpret the phrase to mean that teachers should teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes as a theory on the origin of life. The board, which in the past few years has attracted creationist members, is in charge of purchasing textbooks for the state's schools. And opponents of teaching the religious theory of life in public schools worried that the panel would insist that books and curriculum include common creationist arguments against Charles Darwin's theories.
Among them: that evolution can't explain the Cambrian explosion (a period 540 million years ago when life on Earth rapidly diversified) and that a classic example of natural selection, the peppered moth experiment that showed that the color of moths changed to adapt to pollution, was a fraud.
But the board last night nixed the 20-year-old language and replaced it with the requirement that kids "analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing." The vote was a preliminary one; the final one is expected when the board meets again in late March. A public comment period is scheduled for between now and then.
"It’s outrageous that our highest elected education officials voted to silence teachers and students in science class," said Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs for the Plano nonprofit Free Market Foundation, whose objective is to "protect freedoms and strengthen families."
"This decision shows that science has evolved into a political popularity contest," Saenz said in the statement. "The truth has been expelled from the science classroom."
You can read more about Scott’s perspective in her December 2008 piece for Scientific American. Check out our interactive map of evolution vs. creationism curriculum debates.
Image © iStockphoto/Bulent Ince
Tags:
creationism,
Eugenie Scott,
evolution,
Charles Darwin
More News Blog:
Next: Tougher tailpipe, fuel efficiency standards expected for California under Obama
Previous: Apple's Mac turns 25
See what we're tweeting about
mdichristina The Periodic Table Song: 118 elements in 3 minutes flat (video) http://t.co/DpEdKAuaSD via @brainpicker
BoraZ .@FromTheLabBench hotel it up where? There may be sofas among Triangle friends. BoraZ EXPOSED: The Global Epidemic of TB http://t.co/qlS6zLHlop by @sciencegoddess at #SciAmBlogs
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
123 Comments
Add CommentThis whole issue would disappear entirely if creationists could be helped to understand that in science a theory is not a hypothesis. There's nothing hypothetical about the fossil record, for example. It is quite real, and therefore verifies the theory of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problems is that some people aren't interested in facts, science or proof. They believe what they WANT to believe. Creationists should do a little investigatory work on their source of truth, too. The Bible they read is not even a good translation, let alone a decent source of the absolute truth about the origin of the universe or any of the species on this planet. Moreover, even the good translations are a compilation of books "deemed" appropriate by a group of Catholic church officials, who even excluded the gospel from the "founder" of the Catholic church, St. Peter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough evolution is the foundation of modern biology and is taken for granted by paleontologists, embryologists, and other scientists, most recently in DNA research, it is not accepted by the majority of Americans. The doubters include intelligent and educated people. You figure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello I am a Biology major at GSU and the one thing that common people do not understand is the different the word theory. Most people think that the word theory means "they think it works that way, but cannot be proved" That is wrong, in the scientific meaning of theory. Theory means the same thing as a scientific "Law" theory is a testable thought that anyone else can test and get the same answer. This is where the problem comes in. The "law of Superposition" states that the older something is the deeper in the ground it will be. Most Bible thumping creationists think the the earth is only 6000 years old. The earth in fact is 4.6 billion years old. As a biologist I know that evolution happens all the time. But I also believe in a God. So the best thing for all people to do is attend a class in evolution and see why evolution works and is real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this8 to 7?? That's sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA recent survey showed that 27% of public school teachers are telling their students that the Earth is 6000 years old.
Ancient belief systems do not die easily.
DancerTiffy
People believed that the earth was flat also, but that did not make it true. Please remember that most people are weak minded and cannot deal with the concept of their own death being final, they need to cling to religous dogma to bring them comfort and stability! This too shall pass as did the flat earth!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat many don't seem to realize is that creationism and evolution are not necessarily perpendicular ideas. The bibilical account of the rise of life on Earth, if not taken absolutely literally, has a great deal of support in the scientific explanation theories on the origin of the universe and the evolution of man. Somehow in the west we tend to think that one idea must displace the other. It is often the case that two truths can stand side by side once you learn to translate the semantics of "opposing" sides to see the common truth. While the evolution gaining the respect it deserves is great to see, it is sad to see it come at the expense of time honored wisdom in many people's eyes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's face it religion is like magic, you wave your magic wand and the universe appears. Who created God, and where does he live, and why did he spend his time making a universe where free will exists', only to punish those that did not follow his ideas, lets get real. Religion is a crutch for the masses who can not cope with their own mortality. End of story. Sorry to burst your bubble!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe uncaused first-cause of the universe is "eternal" (self-existent, absolute, and transcendent) - it had no cause and depends on nothing else for its existence. consider, also, that powers (forces) come from an ultimate power source and are never greater than the original source; life only comes from life, and information only comes from intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe fossil record, interpreted correctly, disproves evolution. invertebrates as well as vertebrates have "no" evolutionary ancestors - human beings are vertebrates and have no evolutionary ancestors.
a fossil record of bacteria mutating into people does not exist.
layers of sedimentation, which some "believe" take millions of years to lay down, have been shown to be actual in just a few days. check out mt. st. helen's volcanic aftermath, the sedimentation and the 1/40th scale grand canyon that was cut in such a short period of time; also, spirit lake and the early formation of coal beds with vertical trees stretching through numerous layers of strata.
catastrophism not uniformitar
calling "variation among species" evolution (micro-) is a misnomer. it is not progressive (more complex) and unlimited. it is limited to the info in the gene pool ( no new info is added - only omissions and duplications) ; it is horizontal and bi-directional (back and forth, stasis) and goes nowhere as far as vertical, darwinian evolutionism is concerned.
natural selection is a conservative process, not an innovative one. mutations are harmful, and consequently, weakened "monster" progeny are selected against. it's what keeps dogs, dogs and cats, cats, etc..
s.e.t.i. science:
low probability + specific, objective pattern = intelligence -> information X design
i.d. science:
low probability + specific, objective pattern = intelligence -> information X design
science is science!
all of science is based upon "faith"; the "belief" that the laws of physics (chemistry included) will continue as they have.
we should be encouraging academic freedom and not brain-washing, mind-control!
darwin, himself, proclaimed that both sides of a question should be fairly argued. this is correct, and will encourage students to "think" and to reach their own intelligent conclusions.
if you "choose" to believe that you are a compilation of genetic "mistakes" with no purpose ( a meaningless mutant), having no supernatural creator and no inalienable rights, that's up to you; just remember, all of life is "super"natural in origin - it is "above and beyond" the forces of nature to accomplish.
this is an intractable debate - you cannot use logic and science in dealing with these "religionista." The best we can do is try and keep them in a box and hope that education continues to bring facts out. Maybe with the Obama administration in power, science will re-emerge from the shadows of the Bush Years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisonesmallvoice: "What many don't seem to realize is that creationism and evolution are not necessarily perpendicular ideas." etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd 'what many don't seem to realize' is that they're not 'ideas' in the first place, perpendicular, parallel, or otherwise. Creationism is not an 'ídea'. It is a religious belief (and a fringe minority one at that), and as such is not falsifiable, so lies outside the scientific arena. Neither will it ever be a part of science for this reason. To gain scientific recognition, creationism would have to relinquish the essential elements that make it a belief, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.
And evolution is not an 'idea'. It is a scientific theory which, as zarcon mentions, does not actually have anything to do with it being less true than a fact, as creationists persist in assuming. If the point which onesmallvoice makes is to hold good, then all creation stories from all cultures and histories must be given equal validity, which in the study of cultural mythologies they surely are. But this still does not make them science; just a different subject.
toothful: "the uncaused first-cause of the universe is "eternal" (self-existent, absolute, and transcendent) - it had no cause and depends on nothing else for its existence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless you can empirically establish the existence of such an 'uncaused first-cause', then such a concept is hypothetical, and the rest of what you say remains invalid.
toothful, just because your soory brain is too weak to comprehend that you are only mortal, doesn't mean you can be stupidly logical with incorrect facts. there IS a fossil record of bateris mutating into people, I'll tell you, according to YOUR stupid way of doing logic:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBacteria mutating into eukaryotes (with nuclei and organelles)
Eukaryotes mutating into multicellular organisms
Multicellular organisms evolving distinct structures, becoming invertebrates
Invertebrates evlve into vertebrates...
...into jawed fish...
...into amphibians...
...into reptiles...
...into mammals...
...into placental mammals...
...into primates...
...into hominids...
and finally, muatates into humans
According to your logic, this proves that there is fossil evidence of bacteria mutating into humans you brainwashed idiot!
Religionists can prove anything that is stupid beyond belief "We can talk to Dora the Explorer in the TV because you can't stop us sending thought messages to her!" That is about as stupid as you religious zealots can get, and I must say you are pretty stupid
I apologize to everyone for having to hear what I said to toothful, but It's the truth, the sad sorry truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistoothful, this is a scientific discussion thing, remember: the masses are always right! (even when they're not, and since they were right in the first place, they are even righter now.)
so.... you have abandoned logic and therefore science. evolutionism and creationism are both legitimate theories. both are scientific "models" of origin because neither were observed by us when the universe and life came to be. the best we can do is examine what empirical evidences we have and see into which "model" they best fit with the least amount of explanation (interpretation) and force, and which makes the best predictions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisguardian 54 (where are you?):
invertebrates appeared in their complex completed forms abruptly without any transitional forms; just as did the vertebrates in the same cambrian sediments.
all you have presented are individual species of critters - no observable evidence that they ever turned into anything else. evolutionism is unobservable and based on imagination as darwin, himself, admitted.
Oh yeah...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistoothful?
gotta tell you this:
since all life was created at once (the basic foundation of creationism) then why did organisms appear? Why is it that different organisms appeared at different strata and therefore times? This blows apart the foundation of creationism, that all creatures were created at once.
HAH!
Whoa, there--While I agree each person should form an educated opinion, which I think is the point you're trying to make, be careful you don't demand that your own opinion and arguments form the new orthodoxy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy previous comment was addressed to toothful
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto toothful:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think soft flesh, without the shells or bones, would have been preserved, they would just have rotted on the seabed, only hard tissue is preserved in the sediment.
It never ceases to amaze me how people try to disprove basic scientific facts with poorly contrived pseudo science. It's a classic case of " don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up". Guardian54 there is no need to be so nasty, instead these people are to be pitied for their inability to see passed thier own brain washing. Religion was created for three reasons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1: To give an explanation to that which had no explanation threw science at the time.
2: To put forth a set of rules that govern society with out the need for a police force. All punishment and rewards to be over seen by an omnipotent being. I.E One who sees' all your actions and if your a good boy you get a cookie, and if a bad boy a spank on the tush!
3: To help people cope with death. (The concious mind has trouble dealing with the concept of its' own ending)
All religions follow this basic structure, ( curious isn't it?) except Buddhism in which karma takes the place of the omnipotent being.
Religion was created to help control the masses at a time when it was very difficult to do so.
Brain washing is a necessity because modern science and logic disprove the concept of magic! Which is the basis of religious creation.
Nothing in any religious model can be proven in a scientific way, on the other hand nothing in the evolutionary model can be disproved threw real science. That scares the crap out of all religious instituions because if one part of their doctorine falls it calls into question all the rest. They loose their power and their ability to govern. Not to mention their back to having to face their own mortality. This is what all free thinkers are up against, there will always be weak minded people that are easily lead to believe in magic because it's a comfort to them. Facing their own death is to scary to contemplate, so they must defend their religious dogma in order to preserve their own escape from death!
As much hope as this sort of thing seems to indicate, remember that seven members were against the teaching of science. In wide general terms, most countries are seemingly in the process of entering a New Dark Age -- one in which 10 percent of the population understands science, and the rest watch nonsense TV (such as "Are you smarter than a fifth-grader"). And America is leading the way. Sad but true. Obama and his intellectual "elite" may manage to slow this process down, but not much. Consequently, it might be wise to keep the "decision-making" about science out of the hands of the "flat-earth" people all together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistoothful: "evolutionism and creationism are both legitimate theories."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow! This topic has heated up fast since I commented a few hours ago, and with absurdist claims such as the above, that need come as no surprise. toothful, creationism is not a theory, as I explained in my previous comments. It's not even science. It is a religious belief. If you want it to have scientific legitimacy, then you have to let the religion go, because you can't have it both ways, much as creationists strive to. So choose which path you want to take. Ever hear the expression, 'when you reach out for both, you will end up with neither'?
At least take my suggestion and first establish the efficacy of your 'uncaused first-cause', because until you have done so, you don't even have the key element upon which your whole case hinges. No creator, no creation(ism). So first prove a creator to the satisfaction of science. Good luck with that.
hey guardian54,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishydraulic sorting, habitat local, and fleeing ability during a global catastrophic flood, which RAPIDLY buried the fossilized critters we have found is the best explanation for their location in the strata and FOR the strata.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe-o-ry: n. 1.a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of ASSUMPTIONS, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system distinguished FROM experiment or practice. 2. Abstract reasoning, SPECULATION. 3. Broadly, hypothesis or SUPPOSITION.
both evolutionism and creationism are THEORIES.
neither are SCIENTIFIC THEORIES which are THEORIES that have been supported repeatedly by OBSERVABLE, EXPERIMENTATION.
both are SCIENTIFIC MODELS which examine theories from a scientific perspective. if the theories can be supported by repeated observable experimentation, then they are moved into the "scientific theory" category.
scientific theories, after years and years of proof of their validity are then moved into the SCIENTIFIC LAW category.
as for the establishment of an uncaused first-cause, all you have to do is think and think logically. the universe had a "beginning" and operates by the SCIENTIFIC LAW of cause and effect. therefore, there MUST be an uncaused FIRST-cause. it has to be eternal for it never had a cause to bring it into existence. it was not dependent upon any other cause (it just was) and it had to be the cause of everything else.
"I AM THAT I AM" is the best way such a cause would describe itself.
hey oddy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi guess you haven't recognized that evolutionism IS a religion (i.e., pantheism) requiring "super"natural explanations for life's origin and progression.
as far as comments about "flat earthers", they had no reason to believe otherwise, UNTIL, enough empirical evidence was gathered to disprove it, and when it was, this idea was dropped. but, this does not seem to be the case with "BELIEVER's" in the spontaneous generation of life. they pray that their god-NATURE said the "magic" words: "ABIO - GENESIO, chemicals come to life!", and that it happened; even after pasteur disproved this long ago - they,YET, cling to it.
besides, YOU are governed by LAWS, the laws of the universe, which, by the way, logically demand a LAW-GIVER.
'Hey' toothful: The National Academy of Science's description of what specifically constitutes a scientific theory is as follows: 'A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.' Note, therefore, that a theory can actually contain a law, and certainly no amount of validation changes a theory into a law 'after years and years of proof', as you claim, because a scientific law is a descriptive generalization about some aspect of nature, and is not 'above' a theory, as you wrongly assume. So check your scientific hierarchies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd if your knowledge of such hierarchies is as shaky as your comment confirms, what does that say about the rest of what you claim? Well, I'll tell you: evolutionary theory is a recognized scientific theory. Creationism is, and remains, a religious belief, however much you and your fellow creationists indulge in science envy. Stick to religion. That way you can still play fast and loose with the facts, and only God will be offended.
And by the way: merely thinking logically about something does not amount to a 'case proven', so your hypothetical first cause remains mere hypothesis, and your argument is on the floor. Remember: no proven creator = no creation(ism.)
toothful: "evolutionism IS a religion.. requiring "super"natural explanations for life's origin and progression."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*groan* Surely not that time-worn 'evolution is a religion too' chestnut. That line's so old it's growing whiskers. What's also growing whiskers is the wearily persistent error that creationists make in thinking that evolutionary theory concerns itself with life's origins. It doesn't. It's primarily concerned with speciation. But then, this was said by a creationist, so what can one expect?
The problem is that belief in creationism and belief in evolution are beliefs and are therefore irrelevant when science is the subject under investigation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is that belief in science and belief in creationism are beliefs and are irrelevant when science is under investigation, or as God would be as a
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscientific theory.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSCIENCE is the "search for the knowledge of the truth" - and following wherever it may lead. it is not the definition of the religious philosophy of "naturalism" which evolutionists have attempted to supplant it with.
(check out the web site - pantheism.net - to see what carl sagan had to say)
if you would read the forward to darwin's "on the origin of species", you will see that evolutionism is EXACTLY PARALLEL with creationism; that evolutionism is at least as religious as creationism and creationism is at least as scientific as evolutionism.
if evolutionists would stick to "variation among species", which is what darwin observed, then there would be no problem; but i'm guessing that you have been exposed to teachings and movies in the classroom which are evolutionary explanations for how the universe came to be and how inorganic became organic, right? (i know i was)
see "carl popper" and "falsifiability" for a better understanding of the differences between: theory, scientific model, scientific theory, and scientific law.
by the way, evolutionism has NOT been proven.
i'm glad that you haven't just taken my words for anything and hope you will check out the references i have noted. i hope they help you on YOUR QUEST for the TRUTH.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJUST FOR FUN:
will you tell me how you think life came to be?
@ toothful: The mere fact that you crow that "evolutionism has NOT been proven" is enough to again reveal your ignorance of these matters. Of course evolutionary theory has not been 'proven'! Scientific theories do not deal in 'proof'. It therefore follows that there is no 'proof' for the theory of gravity either. Are you going to disbelieve that as well? Absolute proof is in mathmatics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou want me to do a number of things for you. The only thing I ask of you is that you at least be honest with yourself and admit to yourself that the only reason that you attempt so vigorously to ridicule evolutionary theory is because it conflicts with your precious religious beliefs.
Your objections to the theory have nothing to do with science, otherwise you would be writing papers about your objections and submitting them for scientific peer scrutiny, which I assume that you are not doing. If evolutionary theory actually happened to endorse your religious beliefs, you'd be crowing about how it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. So if you cannot be honest towards science, at least try to be honest towards yourself.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe heart of scientific theory IS "falsifiability"(proof).
the best, so far, evolutionists have offered for the falsifiability of evolutionism is a rabbit, or a car in the precambrian strata.
i.d. science, on the other hand, can be falsified by experiments in a laboratory and observed under a microscope. IF it can be shown that unguided, natural processes can create life from inorganic chemicals, the theory would be effectively falsified, but after decades of attempts to do so, all of these experiments have failed; which is POSITIVE evidence that life was intelligently designed.
gravity has been proven, you can observe it in operation with very simple experiments; you can watch it work.
i was kinda hoping you would "C" that popper's first name begins with "K", that would have yielded some encouraging info to me.
nonetheless, i will only make this small, repeated request: will you tell me how you think life came to be?
my hope for you is that you will come to realize that you are an important character in all of creation and that you do have purpose and meaning, and that your life is not one of pure vanity.
peace
@ toothful: And "my hope for you" is my own "small, repeated request" that you are straight enough to acknowledge that your rejection of evolutionary theory is for religious and not for scientific reasons. If the theory actually endorsed your religious beliefs, you would support it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are several theories for the origin of life on Earth, including the plausible theory that our planet was 'seeded' by comets. The humility of science is to acknowledge where such gaps in human knowledge exist, which in turn allows for the contingency that these gaps could disappear with future new knowledge gained. Creationists tend to misconstrue these lacunae in human knowledge as scientific weaknesses, but as I have noted elsewhere on SciAm, neither are such lacunae usefully plugged with quasi-religious Polyfilla.
So how do you think that life on Earth began?
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi once believed in the evolutionists' theory of darwinian evolutionism, but when i realized that all that had been actually observed and not imagined was "variation among species". when i, then, realized that THAT was a conservative process and not an innovative one, i began doubting it all the more. now, with the revelations in microbiology (information codes, factories, irreducibly complex machinery, and a magnificent cellular CPU) , i am confident that all of life in all of its diversity was intelligently designed.
i believe life was intelligently designed and that this scientific theory is supported by empirical evidence.
i, too, can "imagine" evolution occurring somewhere else in space, but that doesn't make it so. i am just asking you to acknowledge that based on the "EMPIRICAL" evidence that we have, the truth lies in the direction of life being intelligently designed.
do your religious beliefs drive your defense of naturalistic evolutionism which is the basic tenet of the religion of atheism?(belief in "no god")
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi guess i should add that atheism is contradictory because it bases its belief in natural forces performing "SUPERnatural" miracles and NATURE becomes their god. (see pantheism.net)
Do creationists actually read the bible or merely quote from it? If they can accept Psalms 90 v4 and they can accept that growth(say of a foetus into a human) is an accepted natural phenomenon what is their argument against the fact that evolution is merely God's method of growing his animals, including man. If so all we are arguing about is the starting point which will only be a serious issue for science a long way in the future and means that we can get back to educating our children without the fear of needing them to offend anyone .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey adaglish,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is a human being from the moment of conception on. it is a human in his or her (PERSONal pronouns because gender is established at conception) early stages of development and not anything other than a human. it certainly isn't an example of evolutionism.
evolutionism is based upon trial and ERROR because mutations are MISTAKES. this is why, i believe, many people accept evolutionism, because man's creations evolve in this manner; progress by trial and error just seems so natural to us. the DIFFERENCE is, genetic mistakes lead to deterioration, but, intelligent man can learn from his and deliberately CORRECT the ERROR in order to progress.
toothful: "i am just asking you to acknowledge that based on the "EMPIRICAL" evidence that we have, the truth lies in the direction of life being intelligently designed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurious that you keep spasmodically hitting your caps lock key in the way that your comments indicate. Perhaps you imagine that SUDDENLY typing words in CAPITALS makes them in some way more important.
But, no, there is not a scrap of empirical evidence for ID. The reason is simple: as you here acknowledge (your description: '"SUPERnatural" miracles'), ID requires a supernatural agency as its basis. Such an agency cannot be falsified, so lies outside the province of science and remains in the realm of religious belief.
I go along with the thinking that evolution by natural selection as the underlying process behind how we got here (even if the first cell was an accident), is easily the least probable theory ever to take widespread hold in what we loosely call science. There is a difference between the scientific method rigorously applied and popular scientific culture. All the difference in the world. Long live free thought and reasonable questioning of previous conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because the ID hypothesis is not readily provable by our little minds is not sufficient reason to rule it out. Because Darwinism is the most plausible alternative to ID, and one that gives the mind something concrete to work on, is not enough grounds to adopt it as anything other than tentative. For me, detailed examination renders it very unlikely.
Perhaps we need to look, as Berlinski does in Steins film, at the relative veracity of various things accepted by most of the scientific community. Stein is not attacking science. He is attacking highly questionable and unreliable applications of the scientific method.
A rounded and realistic scientific education would include a look at the reliabilty of various conclusions of the scientific method. Ohms Law and Schrodingers eqn and many others are readily proven numerically. The Theory of Evolution relies on lots of stacked, unreliable and unprovable conjecture.
It would do no harm either to attempt to integrate the edges of the scientific method, where it becomes less and less reliable, with other approaches to truth-seeking. In reality, the worldview of a thinking and intelligent person is formed in this sort of way.
The scientific method has achieved astonishing things. Blind worship of the prevailing culture of most of the scientific community is a dangerous thing.
I may post bits of this elsewhere.
@ Simon Guy Packer: please refer to my previous comment to toothful as to why ID is not, and never can or will be, accepted as science. What is so irksome is that those who wish to slide ID under the scientific door are not prepared to take it through the rigors of peer scrutiny that evolutionary theory has undergone for the last century and a half. Instead they go for the easy option and opt for the victim role in which ID is, in some obscure way, championing 'free thought' in the 'prevailing culture'. Hogwash. And dishonest hogwash at that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisambertooth, there are degrees of proof regarding the reliability of a theory. I have spent most of my adult life in engineering. Engineers are usually not interested in applying any theory which cannot be modelled mathematically. You design airplanes on computers and expect them to fly. They all do these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a lot of chat about evolution, some of it I find comically inexact. An article I just read on the Dawkins website about the 'evolution of religion' is just someone making up a story. People really should know better than to call this 'science' in the sense of rigorous application of the scientific method. Sheer bulk of peer reviewed conjecture does not equal proof. Our understanding of microbiology/biochemistry is so limited. An engineer will specify a product so it can be built from digital data anywhere in the world. Conversely, we have zero ability to read the genotype 'blind' into the phenotype. Our understanding is very, very superficial. Yet some evolutionists write unrealistically exact stories about how evolution flowed.
You are right in saying that ID is outside the scope of science i agree. This is because science has a limited scope. To insist you use the scientific method only to get at all knowledge is to have an unreasonably optimistic estimate of it's power in human hands, and to neglect other tools to get at reality. Some of these tools are perfectly logical.
Most evolutionary stuff I've read is really stories spun around a basic faith that evolution happened. To put this stuff (Dawkins is ''good'' at it) in the same category for plausibility/reliability as most theories in say, physics is naive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello Onesmallvoice,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, there is absolutely no scientific support for the Biblical creation myth. For instance, according the the Bible, God created the earth and let the dry land appear on the third day. On the fourth day, God created constellations, then the Sun and Moon and then stars. Scientists have demonstrated that stars came first and second. The Sun came in the third generation of stars followed by Earth and then the Moon.
In the Bible, God claims to have walked upon the face of the waters before creating the firmament. Then he made a firmament to separate the waters above the firmament form the waters below to expose Earth and to create the seas. Scietist haver shown that water is created from hydrogen and oxygen. Although hydrogen was a part of the earliest universe, oxygen was created witihn stars by fusion and released through stellar novae.
In the Bible, God claims to have created light on the first day. He then separated light from darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. Science knows that light is photons. The absence of photons is dark. Dark is not a thing, it is tha absence of a thing. Further, photons are different from Day. Day occurs when the light from the Sun falls upon our half of the rotating planet. Similarly, Dark is not Night. Night is simply the period when the sun's direct rays are blocked by the mass of the planet.
In the Bible, God claims to have made a firmament on the second day, into which he puts lights on the fourth day. But, scientists have looked to the edge of the universe and have not discovered any firmament.
In the Bible, on day two, God creates a firmament, which he calls Heaven. ON day five, God claims that he created birds to fly in the open firmament of heaven. Scientists know that birds cannot fly in the vaccuum of space. In fact, animals cannot survive in space without protection.
On Day 3, God claims to have made Earth, caused the dry lands to appear and created grass, herb yeilding seed and seed-bearing plants. ON the following day, God claims to have made the Sun and the Moon. Scientists know that the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. We know that our Sun is about 5 to 5.5 billion years old. Earth is 4.5 to 5 billion years old. But, angiosperms, that is seed-bearing plants, are only about 100 million years old.
Although I could go on, l won't There is ample scientific evidence that the Biblical creation story is a lie.
Hello Onesmallvoice,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, there is absolutely no scientific support for the Biblical creation myth. For instance, according the the Bible, God created the earth and let the dry land appear on the third day. On the fourth day, God created constellations, then the Sun and Moon and then stars. Scientists have demonstrated that stars came first and second. The Sun came in the third generation of stars followed by Earth and then the Moon.
In the Bible, God claims to have walked upon the face of the waters before creating the firmament. Then he made a firmament to separate the waters above the firmament form the waters below to expose Earth and to create the seas. Scietist haver shown that water is created from hydrogen and oxygen. Although hydrogen was a part of the earliest universe, oxygen was created witihn stars by fusion and released through stellar novae.
In the Bible, God claims to have created light on the first day. He then separated light from darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. Science knows that light is photons. The absence of photons is dark. Dark is not a thing, it is tha absence of a thing. Further, photons are different from Day. Day occurs when the light from the Sun falls upon our half of the rotating planet. Similarly, Dark is not Night. Night is simply the period when the sun's direct rays are blocked by the mass of the planet.
In the Bible, God claims to have made a firmament on the second day, into which he puts lights on the fourth day. But, scientists have looked to the edge of the universe and have not discovered any firmament.
In the Bible, on day two, God creates a firmament, which he calls Heaven. ON day five, God claims that he created birds to fly in the open firmament of heaven. Scientists know that birds cannot fly in the vaccuum of space. In fact, animals cannot survive in space without protection.
On Day 3, God claims to have made Earth, caused the dry lands to appear and created grass, herb yeilding seed and seed-bearing plants. ON the following day, God claims to have made the Sun and the Moon. Scientists know that the Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. We know that our Sun is about 5 to 5.5 billion years old. Earth is 4.5 to 5 billion years old. But, angiosperms, that is seed-bearing plants, are only about 100 million years old.
Although I could go on, l won't There is ample scientific evidence that the Biblical creation story is a lie.
Toothful,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should reexamine your hypotheses. I don't know wher you got the idea of the universe being eternal, but nothing could be futher from the truth. The Universe was 'born' , it is maturing and it will die. Its lifespan is long, but not eternal.
Furher, the idea that life comes only from life is absurd. Scientists created viruses from off-the-shelf chemicals some forty years ago.
Finally, the acheological record is a wide open book which any of us may examine at our leisure. The number of transitional forms is astounding, and the relationships such as those between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals are sufficiently prevalent and understood as to be recongnized by all but the most naive or the most bigotted.
Since I do not believe that you are a bigot, I must assume that you are naive. I would suggest that the recent Dover, PA, trial would provide a broad range of scientific understandings and evidence compared and contrasted with the minimal understanding and non-existent evidence compiled by those who favor views such as those you have professed.
@ Simon Guy Packer: Why do you use the term 'evolutionist'? If you endorse the theory of gravity would I call you a 'gravitationalist'? Physics is a field of science, and 'physicist' is therefore a correct term. Such terms do not apply to exponents of individual theories, and while they might appear in dictionaries, I have never actually heard a scientist in my company use the word. Which is why use of such wayward terms as 'evolutionist' and 'evolutionism' are a dead giveaway that the person who uses them objects to evolutionary theory, not on scientific grounds (which is the impression that you seem anxious to project), but on grounds of religious belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany times I have had such a person object to me that (for example) Archaeopteryx is 'just a bird'. This is the creationist's ploy of 'if you can't change the evidence, then change the definition'. So the undisputed (at least to science) transitional nature of this fossil, according to such goalpost-changing tactics, is ruled out (although of course, in the real world, the usual rules fortunately still apply). You use the same tactic here. You at least acknowledge that ID is outside the scope of science, and then go straight on to make a plea that the borders of science should be expanded, with the implication that if ID does not pass for science as things stand, then let's change them to make that so.
I have no doubt whatever that, as I have said on SciAm before, if evolutionary theory actually happened to support the religious beliefs which you hold, you would robustly be defending the theory against all comers.
It's lazy and ignorant to read one book and accept it's simplistic view. It's another to study biology, geology, physics, chemistry and genetics and see that they all support each other in the understanding of many things including evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is lazy outrageous to read one book and reject evolution in favor of creationism. It's another to study biology, genetics, chemistry, physics and geology to see that they all support each other in the understanding of many things including evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWayne Jones
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi didn't say that i.d. science lays outside of science; i said that it IS a legitimate scientific theory. i said that the theory of creationism is a theory and a scientific "model" of origin.
can you explain s.e.t.i. science apart from i.d. science? if so, please do.
hey critical thinker,
i didn't say the universe was eternal; i said that it had a beginning and that an eternal uncaused first cause CAUSED IT.
you a wrong about viruses being created from inorganic chemicals.
you are right about the universe running DOWN which is contrary to evolution.
one of the defenses given for evolutionism being taught in the public schools when only creationism was, is that it was the height of bigotry to teach only one theory of origins. now, the shoe is on the evolutionists' bigoted foot.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyour repeated statement: "...if evolutionary theory actually happened to support the religious beliefs that you hold, you would robustly be defending the theory against all comers."
isn't that what you are doing?
do you believe in naturalistic evolutionism?
please, tell us how you think life came to be.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi.d. science does not have a supernatural basis, it may lead you to that conclusion, but it is not necessary as far as qualifying it as a scientific theory. it just offers empirical evidence that life exhibits the necessary indicators for something that has been intelligently designed.
ambertooth, I need to clarify.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirstly, I believe the Bible, subject to the paradigms of the times it was written in, is the Word of God. So I am a creationist and therefore an IDer.
Secondly, I believe that the theory of evolution, if looked at dispassionately, always has been the most likely theory suggested for the development of life as we see it if you arbitarily rule out ID. Fourthly, despite the third point, I believe evolution has too many problems to be at all likely to be the correct explanation.
I agree that it is true in this case that worldview probably comes first, science paradigm second. Of course the evo people are trying to suppress the idea that it is reasonable to doubt evolution, but honestly I don't care if someone tries to doubt Ohm's law (I'm a physicist). People can do the experiments any time and make their own minds up. I have a friend who is PhD microbiologist oncologist who became a Christian. He was 100% evolutionist and is now 100% creationist.
On the scope of science, we must define exactly what we mean by science. If we arbitrarily rule something out, like ID, just because it bypasses a whole lot of theorising based on evidence, that does not mean it is untrue, it just means it doesn't give us any science to do. If you desire is to get to the truth, rather than prove that science can always get you nto the truth, so what?
toothful: "your repeated statement: "...if evolutionary theory actually happened to support the religious beliefs that you hold, you would robustly be defending the theory against all comers." isn't that what you are doing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. But since you seem to have some difficulty in grasping this point, for what it's worth, I'll mention that the scientists with whom I have personally worked have been all shades of belief and non-belief: Christians, a Buddhist, even a Wiccan. But these beliefs do not dictate the science that is performed. And this is the difference. With creationists, the findings of science are filtered through their religious beliefs. Wherever science is perceived to contradict those beliefs, then that specific science is vilified. I defy you to deny this.
toothful: "i didn't say that i.d. science lays outside of science"
I didn't say that you did. My comment made it clear that I was replying to Simon Guy Packer.
toothful: "i.d. science does not have a supernatural basis"
There is no ID science. Were that so, then it would be a legitimate part of the body of published science literature. It is not.
toothful: "i said that it IS a legitimate scientific theory. i said that the theory of creationism is a theory and a scientific "model" of origin."
And you can go on saying it. But until ID actually gains wide recognition within the legitimate scientific community, has been published in such outlets as 'Science' or 'Nature' and been subjected to peer review, you saying it here is not going to make it any more true.
toothful, you use a familiar tactic: you fire off more questions than are reasonable to answer, then when not all of those questions receive an answer, the opportunity comes for you to say that an answer could not be provided. So let's turn things around: You are the one here who is making extraordinary claims against a science that has long been accepted, and which daily has wide applications in various fields of science. The onus is therefore upon you, not to disprove evolutionary theory, because theories in science are not disproved but superceded, but to provide a more workable theory. But unless you go through the legitimate channels, as all recognised science must, then you're backing a non-starter. And occupying your time by posting comments, even on a science site such as SciAm, will not, I promise you, bring you any closer to that objective.
Simon Guy Packer: "On the scope of science, we must define exactly what we mean by science." etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI refer you to my previous response to you, whose point you have just confirmed.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou are right, you were addressing someone else, but i failed to realize that until i had posted. sorry.
many theories have been falsified scientifically and dismissed. this is what the scientific method is all about.
the Search for Extra Terrestrial INTELLIGENCE (oops) "is" I.D. science. the same science which can be applied to living cells: low probability plus specific, objective pattern(s) equals intelligence yielding information by design. like four recognizable images cut into the side of a mountain. some may even know that they are particular presidents, but all know that they were intelligently designed and not the result of blind, random, unthinking natural processes.
there is plenty of science to do - by thinking the intelligent designer's thoughts as we catch up to them. check out newton.
do you realize how much of our technology comes and has come from studying the engineering involved with both non-living and living systems?
isn't it great to have opposing views which give us something to "THINK" (i went and did it again) about and to reach our own intelligent conclusions?
THANK YOU for yours!
how do you think life came to be?
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisatheism would "demand" and "dictate" that you "insist" upon naturalistic evolutionism. do you believe that there is "no god"?
Ever taken a course in ecology, evolution, or even basic biology? Ask any evolutionary biologist/chemist/physicist where they feel life originated, and I can guarantee their response will revolve around the chemical emergence of SELF-ORGANIZATION, nothing more, nothing less. Energy, as studied by physicists worldwide, have PROVED that systems tend to function in such a way which allows for the most EFFICIENT transfer of energy; in the argument regarding the origin of life, from an anatomic level, energy transfer is most efficient when organized into molecular systems. If you were to look at the ceolomic development of a human being and an earthworm, early embryonic development would be almost IDENTICAL, with the exception of gene organization. Evolution states that random MUTATIONS are what have driven such a wide array of specialization. You state that MUTATIONS ARE ‘MISTAKES’. Let me remind you that words such as ‘mistake’ connote negativity in human language. Mutations are neither NEGATIVE or POSITIVE; they simply ARE. Nature doesn’t ‘care’ what DNA is doing. Mutations in medicine are seen as mistakes because they normally prevent us from either living ‘normally’ or diminish the quality of life many have grown disturbingly accostummed to. You’ll never hear an evolutionary biologist refer to a mutation as a mistake, if not an evolutionary advantage. Without mutations, biological diversity would be non-existent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific observation is based on a platform of human chauvinism, meaning that that which WE observe is exclusively limited to our own perception of the world. One could have the most advanced ecological understanding of a biological system, yet s/he would only ever be able to perceive it from the HUMAN perspective. What we know about the world around us, while highly complex and intricate in both its formulation and execution, is extremely limited. Because of this, saying life originated from an INTELLIGENT BEING is a moot argument. Nature doesn’t care about intelligence; the world existed with as much fervor before life ever appeared. Intelligence is a word fueled with human exclusivity. Our early ancestors were obviously successful, and they most likely didn’t identify their consciousness with…..anything. They responded to environmental pressures and environmental forces (or natural selection) which favored those who had the traits necessary to adapt to and survive in a dynamic world.
If you think evolution is a bogus argument, do a little reading on the Phasmatodea, or stick insect. Its ancestor had a mutative advantage in that it differed in appearance to others of its kind. It most likely started out with a leaner figure, allowing it to more readily escape avian attacks. Its avoidance of predation led others around it to die out, while it reproduced, passing on its genes (considered paramount to the success of a species). It takes hundreds of thousands of years before one of its descendents appear with a genetic mutation that, say, makes it greener than the rest. From this point of view, one would be hard pressed to call such mutations ‘mistakes’, seeing as they drive speciation and biological success.
Sorry to break it to you, but evolution has become the academic & scholastic foundation for every biological and life science study since its revolutionary introduction. It is so widely accepted by the academic and SCIENTIFIC community that any such argument against it is considered simply ignorant and outdated. CREATIONISM and INTELLECTUAL DESIGN have both been DISPROVEN. Sediment records date back billions of years. Geological/biological records of tree bark/leaves, lichen, bacteria, and various constituents of ancient flora and fauna have been ACCURATELY dated (using decay dating) back to various periods of the Earth’s history: 10,000; 100,000; 1 million, 100 million, 500 million years back, all varying in their place in the record. BECAUSE OF THIS, we can precisely date eras of mass extinction & the emergence of new life. The fact that chimps and humans share a common ancestor on a FAMILIAR level has been PROVEN and RE-PROVEN (by anthropologists, biologists, chemists, evolutionary biologists, geologists, etc.). Science is backed by evidence which has been tested, re-tested, and proven to work. Science aims to approach the unknowns of nature from a holistic POV, one which is disconnected from anthropocentric definitions of the world. ID isn’t even worried about because it is HUMAN centered, and as we’ve been shown lately, humans nowadays are more of a parasite to the global biota than anything else, and because religion typically places humans at the top while blatantly discriminating against all other forms of life, scientists don’t deal with it.
Reading something other than man’s holy narrative would probably provide you with a better defense than blindly following whatever society tells you to follow. Read The Origin of Species, get an education in the subject, then come back. Maybe then you’ll have gained credibility & scientific standing when supporting creationism to a community of actual scientists.
That last comment goes out to toothful, to clarify.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishey daniiikaaa,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thischemical predestination was debunked by its theorist. he admitted he was wrong. amino acids and proteins for "life" are dependent upon dna coding.
you are correct that variation among species "is" a conservative process. there is some leeway in the gene pool (though LIMITED) so as to allow for a critter's survival during small fluctuations in environmental conditions, but, if the change in the environment is too severe, it may lead to extinction for those creatures which have reached their "LIMIT" and cannot adapt.
VARIATION AMONG SPECIES is limited(to info in gene pool), horizontal(no progressive - "upward" - darwinian evolution), and bi- directional(can go back and forth, STASIS). i.e., a finch never becomes anything more than a finch. it may have a differently shaped beak, but that is within the info of the gene pool. no "new" info is added to this pool; only "errors" of omission or duplication. m ssi g inf rmat on and st-st-stuttering are NOT progressively beneficial. there exists NO empirical evidence for one kind of critter changing into another, it has only been "IMAGINED". if evolutionism were true, we would only see a blur of creatures all around us as well as in the fossil record; there would be no science of taxonomy - no ability to determine where one animal stops and another begins.
mutations are "errors" which occur during the duplication process. they are "RARE" and can be lethal, harmful, or nearly neutral.
it has been determined that the skulls, bones, and/or skeletons of primates which have been discovered are either fully ape or fully human with "NO" transitional forms or common ancestor.
the geologic column and the ages ascribed to it are based on the assumption of evolutionism. catastrophism - not uniformitarianism - is the "best" explanation for the strata and the fossils contained therein.
as i have said before, you may choose to believe that the universe is a freak cosmic accident and that you are a collection of genetic errors with no real meaning or purpose and that you will end up in matter/energy heaven when the universe suffers through its coming "heat death" when it and you will "rest in pieces" (chaotic particles of "useless" heat energy dispersed throughout space); BUT, you may be wrong.
p.s. if you read darwin's book, you will realize that "ALL" that he actually observed was variation among species and the rest was imagination as HE, himself, admitted. he, also, states that both sides of a question should be fairly argued to be good science.
peace
@ toothful: Your repeated request to myself to answer something to which I have already provided an answer is one thing. But your response to daniiikaaa's informed comment reveals reason enough why science dismisses creationism with hoots of derisive laughter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let me begin putting questions to you: Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Do you believe in a global Biblical Flood? Do you believe in Noah's Ark? Do you believe that the world and the cosmos were created in just one hundred and forty four hours? And if you believe this, why did it take such an apparently omnipotent creative agency so long in the first place? And if this agency is omnipotent, perhaps more to the point: why did such an agency possessing limitless powers need a whole day to recover afterwards? What, according to your beliefs, is the age of the Earth? Do you believe that an interventionist supernatural agency began life on Earth? (You might prefer terms such as 'designed' or 'created'. My question is the same.) If you insist that mutations are 'mistakes' (which you do), how is it possible that such a perfect interventionist agency that created all life can go on making all those mistakes? Is such an agency therefore, not only less than perfect (read 'not omnipotent'), but downright clumsy in committing so many errors? If you agree (which you do) that these mistakes keep occurring, do you agree (how could you not do so?) that such mutations point to them being just plain badly designed? If you accept the Bible's scriptural authority, why did your loving God commit an act of global genocide in just the first chapter? And why, then, did he create life which, if he is also omniscient, he would have known that he would later destroy? And finally, but certainly no less significantly: Do you believe that religious belief should take precedent over established knowledge? (Hint: replying 'define established knowledge' will not be considered as a reasonable response.)
In the light of the statements being made here, these questions must be considered as being both reasonable and relevant to any debate which includes creationism (although, if you consider that creationism has nothing to do with religion, you can skip the Biblical questions).
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhatever your world view is - that's your religion.
distilled down to the basic two: atheism or theism - you can choose between believing that the universe and everything in it is the result of naturalistic evolutionism or supernaturalistic creationism. some try the compromise of theistic evolutionism and are fraught with frustration from both directions (you have touched upon some of them.)
you can spend your life ever learning about "how" the natural laws of the universe work, but if you omit seeking out the "why", you will NEVER come to the knowledge of the TRUTH. (there are reasons for "why" the universe is in the condition we find it - from the why of thermodynamic laws down to the why of our existence and the whys for mutations, deterioration, suffering, and death.)
if you determine that there is intelligent design in the universe and living systems, then i would recommend seeking out who the designer is. the uncaused first cause of the universe and life as we know it, must possess, in order to have a 1/1 probability of creating it, the attributes of: eternality, infinity, absolute sovereignty, transcendence,omnipotence, omniscience, vitality, and personality. have you heard of any writings concerning such a creator who claims to be in possession of these, if so , that would be the place to BEGIN. perhaps, if you search, you will find answers your questions, too.
scientists are beginning to admit that they have reached the ends of man's brain power (i bet that was hard to admit to - finite, three dimensional minds); the limits to our imagination as to how the universe actually works. quantum physics has taken us to the point that the universe is even stranger than we CAN think - trying to imagine the UNIMAGINABLE! imagine that.
i guess you have no thoughts as to the origin of life.
toothful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAllopatry is the physical separation of one part of a population from the rest. In forest fragmentation (either by man-made or natural means) a population of the same species is separated. Pollen from one plant species can literally be lifted and driven away from its parent population to the other side of a mountain, the other end of a canyon, whatever. After thousands of years, (and this has been observed among several different floral species AND species of reeses monkeys) the populations evolve independently to the point where they become reproductively isolated. This is just one of 4 main types of speciation (the others being sympatric, parapatric and heteropatric speciation) that have been observed, tested, proven, and accepted by ecologists world wide. This is just one observable example of evolution.
Like I said before, the methods people use to study anything regarding the natural world or the universe are extremely limited in their accuracy. We have one perspective due to a lack of vernacular - there is no phrase which could accurately describe the telos of nature to its end. We can say mutations appear as a means to weed out those fit to adapt to or perish in their respective niche, but we can never "know" the reasoning behind it. Evolutionary scientists are well aware of the fact that humans cannot act as the sole proxy of all life, and creationism simply credits all of existence to an intelligent force which, according to many different biblical texts, resembles the thinking pattern of modern man. This sort of anthropocentric, unrestrained, instrumentalist ideology places all people on a pedestal of ultimate superiority, yet it fails at the same time to recognize all of nature's mysterious forces which undeniably govern everything about our lives. Creationism is simply an easy way out. To many studying ecology, evolution and biology, faith lies in the mystery, in the humility of knowing we could never truly understand the way the world works (a curiosity which is enough to propel such scientists to devote their whole lives to the study of natural systems on an atomic, microbial, quantum or cosmic level).
It's easy to see how religion came about. Imagine living before any written record, waking up in the morning to an endless star, a huge (unknown then) ball of fire which appears and disappears every single day. Every once and a while, an annular eclipse, with its corona, dimming the noon sunshine sends a message of omnipotence. How could that terror not connote an all knowing force whose existence
drives yours? Of course, we now have many explanations for the recorded cosmic phenomena such populations witnessed. Without an accepted historical, physical, chemical, or biological narrative to help dissect everything around me, I’d be damned if I didn’t live my life for the sun God. Religion itself is victim to the evolution of early man’s verbal story telling!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine stumbling upon a patch of peyote cacti in the Chihuahuan desert as a native Aztec for the first time. Even now, the effects of hallucinogenic plants & fungi are described, almost exclusively, as “religious”, “life changing”, “clarifying”. I’m not saying that ancient biblical scribes tripped on peyote and ate psilocybin mushrooms and suddenly believed their messiah, but even so, it would have never been recorded or revealed to such a religions cohort of followers. Who’s to say ancient apostles weren’t schizophrenic, bipolar, delusional, depressed, manic or narcissistic? No one living today, that’s for damn sure.
Maybe YOU need a definitive reason for being alive and for the presence of the rest of the world, but for evolutionists and ecologists, the thrill lies in the mystery, in the philosophical enlightenment that comes with one’s conscious realization of the bigger picture. Attesting all of existence to an intelligent creator, an almighty being, belittles existence itself. Reality is so magnificent, precise and bewildering that no creature, especially a lowly human being, could ever act as a proxy for its purpose. Are you really that uncomfortable in maybe thinking there’s more to life than just being there for the sake of an intelligent force’s entertainment? In my opinion, that’s more of a cop-out than anything in the study of evolution. At least there’s room for curiosity, the quest for knowledge and ultimate open-mindedness in evolution.
As E.O. Wilson said, “Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?”
@ toothful: as to your curiously persistent 'origin of life' question: not only have I have already answered it, I have previously told you that I have already answered it. But I guess that in your particular case the information takes some time to percolate inwards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistoothful: "but if you omit seeking out the "why", you will NEVER come to the knowledge of the TRUTH."
Only the moderating rules of this site prevent me from explicitly stating my reaction to the unctuous pomposity of this particular remark of yours. But then, the blindly religious always consider that they have some mystic monopoly on the way to "the 'TRUTH" (I notice that you haven't yet kicked the habit of your compulsive-obsessive caps lock use).
You see (although I have no great expectations of this), these things are largely a matter of semantics and terminology involving the use of presupposition. The use of the term 'creation' presupposes a creator. The use of the term 'design' presupposes a designer, and so on. The trick (and it is a trick) is so-sleight-of-hand that it's easily overlooked. But no, I do not "determine that there is intelligent design in the universe and living systems". But then, I seek my truth in starker, darker, more fearful, and ultimately more mysterious places than you evidently do, and I prefer a truth which is something rather more than a sop against less comfortable realities.
So don't bother explaining your 'designer' to me any more, because if your description of your beliefs is accurate, then I assure you that what passes for religion to you is way too trite and superficial for my tastes.
toothful: "whatever your world view is - that's your religion."
More truth-twisting semantics. So let's strip away the pretence and say things as they actually are: Your religion is your religion. But your world view can be your philosophy, your attitude, your outlook. And while for some their religious beliefs might color these things, they are qualities which themselves are independent of religion, and they in themselves have neither the vestures nor the trappings of religion.
As to the rest: I note that you have not answered a single direct question that I have put to you in my previous comment. And yet you clearly expect others to answer yours. With me at least you have no further quid pro quo in credit.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou said that evolutionism doesn't deal with the origin of life, or much anyway, but i couldn't find your thoughts on how you think life came to be.
if i missed it, will you repeat it once more? or just answer yes or no to this: do you believe in the spontaneous generation of life - abiogenesis?
i will appreciate your kind response.
are you certain that it isn't YOU who fears an alternate reality? i, personally, don't fear either.
teacher: "class, there is one and only one idea, concerning your existence, in the entire universe that you must learn and believe, and that is that you evolved by natural processes. your homework assignment is to stand in front of a full length mirror - look at yourself and say: I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN HERE. - repeat 500 times and that ought to do it!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisstudent the next day, after class, standing in front of and looking the teacher right in the eyes, says: "I don't see any evidence of intelligent design at all, here!", and walks away.
PREDICTION: harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"you can spend your life ever learning about "how" the natural laws of the universe work, but if you omit seeking out the "why", you will NEVER come to the knowledge of the TRUTH."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReasoning behind this claim, please? Sounds a lot like philosophy, which isn't science. Capitalizing an entire word to draw attention to it does nothing to give a statement more validity, by the way.
"PREDICTION: harmful mutations will be the death and extinction of all evolutionary theories which depend upon mutations as their prime mover."
False. Natural selection is the key active factor. Mutations simply provide the variation that selection acts upon. Which variations are selected for or against is determined by the environment at the time, it is not dependent solely on the mutation itself.
"the uncaused first cause of the universe and life as we know it, must possess, in order to have a 1/1 probability of creating it, the attributes of: eternality, infinity, absolute sovereignty, transcendence,omnipotence, omniscience, vitality, and personality."
That's not scientific, because such a claim makes no testable predictions. You're trying to meld science and philosophy, but they are separate concepts.
"whatever your world view is - that's your religion."
Science is not a world view. Science is merely the investigation of the natural world via the scientific method. Religions are based on faith, science is based on empirical evidence and repeatable scientific experiments.
If you exclude either the empirical evidence or the repeatable scientific experiments, or if you manipulate them based on biases, then you no longer have science.
"class, there is one and only one idea, concerning your existence, in the entire universe that you must learn and believe, and that is that you evolved by natural processes."
Incorrect. That wouldn't be an accurate description of evolution. Firstly, it's not "the only one idea", it is the only scientific theory that is supported by all of the evidence. Big (and important) difference. Secondly, science doesn't demand dogmatic belief. Science follows the empirical evidence and what it supports. Personal belief is a non-factor in determining the accuracy of theories.
"do you believe in the spontaneous generation of life - abiogenesis"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbiogenesis is not spontaneous generation.
Spontaneous generation was the old idea that life simply appeared out of nothing under the right circumstances, such as mice appearing out of nothing in a store of grain, simply because the grain was there. Support for spontaneous generation died out hundreds of years ago.
I suggest you learn about what abiogenesis is. As a start you can try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models
ambertooth is questioning how one can believe early Genesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are of course two tricky areas. First, the science. Second, the charge that the revealed God is unreasonable or even evil.
It is obvious that the prevailing worldview derived from the science community, mostly pretty clever and knowledgeable people, favours a view irreconcilable with anything close to a literal reading of early Genesis.
Bible-believers adopt a variety of approaches here, looking for slack in the interpretation of Genesis, and/or looking for possible unreliability in the scientific mainstream concensus. A sincerely held worldview of a logical Christian will be arrived at in this sort of way. My own view includes the belief that though evolution through natural selection happens in some scenarios, and indeed God appears to have seeded humanity and other speciesto diversify (I believe in the Ark) the diversification that has happened was a pre-designed intention of the creator. I do not see a great need to specify 24hr days for the creation, indeed, who can define an absolute time 'datum' anyway? Isometric dating relies on QM, but we are still digging for the underlying factors behind that. Though I have expressed faith in the reliability of physical law, even these usually only apply within certain contexts and boundaries. It is very easy to attempt to stretch even a valid principle so far that it becomes unreliable. Newtonian mechanics for example.
Even if I were to adopt a view similar to daniikaaa I would be left in awe of the One who had set in motion the fundamental laws and particles/energy with such wisdom that they inevitably organised themselves into such wonderful organisms.
ambertooth comments on God's character; there's a fair bit of writing on this sort of thing, CS Lewis, Augustine etc. I don't agree with all of it. But basically, God has created us (and the angelic realm before us) with freewill. We are not deterministic puppets riding the laws of physics. That freewill allows us to run away from the One who is the source of eternal, non-destructing life. If we keep doing so, we will come under judgement for the sake of those who do not. The Bible makes it clear that the judgement scenario that applied in Genesis does not apply in the current age. God is love. But God will not be flouted forever, there will be a penalty.
toothful: "i will appreciate your kind response."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour appreciation is in vain. Since you take no trouble to answer any of my questions, I have no intention of repeating what I have already said for your benefit. I found my answer to your question by checking back on this thread. You may now do likewise.
Pirwzy: "Personal belief is a non-factor in determining the accuracy of theories."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has been my stance here from the beginning. It does seem, however, than one can repeat this critical point to those who support creationism/intelligent design ad infinitum. Any hypothesis which is shaped by a religious belief cannot, and never will be, admissible science. That is why they employ the tactic of protesting that intelligent design "does not have a supernatural basis" (toothful) or alternatively (and also on exhibit on this thread) attempt to redraw the borders of science to accommodate it, as in "we must define exactly what we mean by science" (Simon Guy Packer). So transparant.
Simon Guy Packer: "God will not be flouted forever, there will be a penalty."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuch a statement is of course a tenet of religious faith, and as such only has meaning and purpose if one is an adherent of that faith to begin with.
Simon Guy Packer: "I believe in the Ark"
Ah, where to begin? To take a few things more-or-less at random: perhaps you can explain how Noah managed to acquire a mating pair of Argentinian anteaters (including, of course, their highly-specialized diet, which also applies to the Australian koala, the New Zealand kakapo, etc., etc.). Also: where did all the diseases come from that are in our world? Were Noah and his extended family carriers of onchocerciasis ('river blindness'), dengue fever, syphilis, etc., etc., which they must have been if these did not evolve? Also, one always hears about the animals, but Genesis mentions nothing about plants. So where did the Chilean Araucarias, the Florida sawgrass, the Himalayan rhododendrons, all come from? Also: why do we have different races of Homo sapiens if all humanity stemmed from those aboard the Ark? The gene pool would have been, to say the least, somewhat limited.
Simon Guy Packer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'But basically, God has created us (and the angelic realm before us) with freewill. We are not deterministic puppets riding the laws of physics.'
Because everything in existence flows along physical guidelines & various laws of quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, string theory, whatever (as far as science is concerned thusfar), we are therefore abiding to no one, rather than the intricate melodies which act as the foundation for the fabric of the universe. I feel it is disturbing and perverse that so many believe, as you do, that we are 'puppets riding the laws of physics' when in reality, there is no empirical evidence of any sort supporting the Ark or any such biblical fallacy.........wouldn't that, in turn, make you the puppet? By living life according to scripture without having discovered a physical or any such scientific source behind it, how is any holy dialogue considered truth to so many? Perhaps it is this blind following that unites so many who accept "the authority as truth, rather than the truth as the authority."
I would like to reiterate that I don't feel faith is wrong by any means, as I know many who have devoted their lives to bettering themselves through sincere altruism according to the teachings of various faiths. What I do find truly perverse is the religion itself, as it reinforces a stringent requirement among its members to accept values as their own based on scripture rather than example, while at the same time condemning the sinners, or non-followers. Science is science. Its teachings are backed by a surfeit of physical evidence, spanning hundreds of disciplines. It does not discriminate against the morale (though consequential ethics is a whole other issue in science today) or integrity of its students, it simply is. Faith has done many wonderful, miraculous things in this world, yet it is religion holding back the true potential of faith. Wars ensue because of religious conflicts, while one would be hard pressed to argue against the sincerity & intensity of the beloved faith of either side.
Religion is a man-made enterprise, exploiting and feeding off faith. Science, though being studied by man, is at least being done so as to unveil the world for what it really is, according to the scientists' best abilities to stay objective & separate of human bias (again, hard to do in general, yet an impossible execution when concerning religious affairs).
hey pirwzy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi was just stating a fact. you can learn all you want about how systems might work, but if you never know why the systems are here, what good is it?
you need a mutation before selection. mutations are harmful and natural selection removes the weakened critter. that's why it is a conservative process and not an innovative one. it keeps different kinds of critters healthy and different (dogs - dogs and cats - cats, etc.)
mutations have been documented as the cause of approximately 4,000 diseases. how many documented beneficial mutations do you know of?
variation among species has to do with limited gene recombination which accounts for any variations within kinds of creatures in order to conserve it and give it some range of adaptability. (lighter or darker shades of color; different shapes of beaks; varying sizes, quantities and quality; etc.)
again, i was just stating a fact, of what the necessary requirements are for the uncaused first cause of the universe and life. a universe and life which have beginnings necessitates a cause for them. an eternal uncaused first cause is the logical conclusion. the list of attributes are necessary for these reasons: all energy in the universe had to come from one original source which possessed all power; life only comes from life; information only comes from intelligence; purpose only comes from a person; etc..
naturalistic evolutionism (naturalism is a religious philosophy; see pantheism.net) is a world view and a religion. science is a method of attempting to find the truth. there are contradictory beliefs which govern the way a person views the world and lives life. there can be numerous errors, but only one truth.
what repeatable experiment(s) are there for evolutionism?
there have been repeatable experiments which confirm that unguided, natural processes cannot create life.
the teaching of one and only one scientific model in the classroom and insisting that it is the only correct theory IS dogmatic.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisatheism hypothesizes naturalistic evolutionism.
hey pirwzy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisabiogensis is the hypothetical development of living organisms (single celled or multi-celled) from nonliving matter (inorganic chemicals or substances). it is also called autogenesis or spontaneous generation.
how do you think life came to be?
"abiogensis is the hypothetical development of living organisms (single celled or multi-celled) from nonliving matter (inorganic chemicals or substances). it is also called autogenesis or spontaneous generation."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, it's not called spontaneous generation or autogenesis. All three are very different and your unwillingness to keep them separate shows that you're willing to misconstrue an issue to the point of confusion.
"i was just stating a fact. you can learn all you want about how systems might work, but if you never know why the systems are here, what good is it?"
What you are asking for is a purpose for the universe existing. As if there is some goal to be achieved by the existence of the universe. That is not a question answerable by science, nor is it even relevant to scientific endeavor.
"You need a mutation before selection. mutations are harmful and natural selection removes the weakened critter. that's why it is a conservative process and not an innovative one. it keeps different kinds of critters healthy and different (dogs - dogs and cats - cats, etc.)
mutations have been documented as the cause of approximately 4,000 diseases. how many documented beneficial mutations do you know of?"
Every way that one person can possibly be different than another person boils down to genetic variation, and that means mutation. The vast majority of mutations are neutral; not immediately detrimental nor immediately beneficial. Much of the human genome isn't even any of those three, it's non-functional junk left over from our evolutionary history that does nothing anywhere in our bodies anymore.
Scurvy is a great example of a mutation remaining neutral until the environment changes in such a way as you make it detrimental. Scurvy is caused by vitamin C deficiency. Humans and all of the other primates have the mutated gene that causes us to be unable to synthesize our own vitamin C, so we are forced to get it directly from the foods we eat.
This mutation is neutral until the environment you live in no longer supplies you with it, such as long voyages at sea. Once science found that deficiency in vitamin C caused scurvy, all you have to do is have some lemon, lime, or orange juice every so often, and the mutation becomes neutral again.
Only if the environment you're in causes it to be so does a mutation become detrimental or beneficial. Many of the mutations in all of us can become beneficial at some times in our lives, and others can become detrimental. It's all dependent on the situation.
"again, i was just stating a fact, of what the necessary requirements are for the uncaused first cause of the universe and life. a universe and life which have beginnings necessitates a cause for them. an eternal uncaused first cause is the logical conclusion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, you make a very big mistake scientifically that there even is a "first uncaused cause." You might as well name that cause as a god, because it's just as unapproachable scientifically.
"the list of attributes are necessary for these reasons: all energy in the universe had to come from one original source which possessed all power"
"Possessed all power" is not a term you should use if you want to talk scientifically. "Power" alone has far too many definitions and possible meanings for your use of it to help anyone understand exactly what you're trying to say.
"life only comes from life"
Life is simply an extremely complex chain of chemical interactions. We know that the building blocks of simple pre-protocells can assemble naturally without the intervention of already-existent life. we know that pre-proto cells can form on their own, naturally, because of how the chemistry involved works.
"information only comes from intelligence"
Just like the creationists at the Discovery Institute like to do, you're not defining exactly what you mean by information, and how it is relevant in a discussion about evolution. If you mean new genetic material that wasn't there before and which serves a useful purpose for the living thing, then we already have evidence to support that. Just look at the way blood clots in various species. Through history genetic mutations have caused some species to have the same genes duplicated that are involved, which results in the complex blood clotting system in humans and primates compared to, say, the puffer fish. The genes are the same, we just have the same one duplicated a few times.
"purpose only comes from a person; etc.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou decide the purpose of your life, your goals, sure. When living things create something, they can do so with a specific purpose, sure. But beyond that, beyond living things deciding the purpose for their own creations or for their own lives, the natural world serves no "purpose". There is no "goal" or win-condition.
"naturalistic evolutionism (naturalism is a religious philosophy; see pantheism.net) is a world view and a religion. science is a method of attempting to find the truth. there are contradictory beliefs which govern the way a person views the world and lives life. there can be numerous errors, but only one truth."
First, adding -ism to the end of a word changes how the word is to be interpreted. By adding that to the end of evolution you're trying to cause confusion about the meaning of the word. The theory of biological evolution simply explains all previous and current observations regarding the way living things have changed morphologically and genetically since life began existing.
It is not a religion. Religions are based on faith, not evidence. Scientific theories are based on the evidence. They must explain all observations relating to an area of the natural world, and they must make testable predictions about future observations. Evolution does this. Evolution has been supported by all evidence that existed at the time is was introduced and by all evidence that has come to light since that time.
Biological Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious worldview. If you cannot differentiate the two and know the difference, I really cannot fathom how you intend to argue anything scientific.
"what repeatable experiment(s) are there for evolutionism?
there have been repeatable experiments which confirm that unguided, natural processes cannot create life."
Again with the -ism. And no there have not been experiments, let alone repeatable ones, that confirm empirically that natural processes cannot form living things. If you expect to put chemicals in a beaker, flash a spark of electricity, and then see a fully-fledged modern cell, or even a full proto-cell right off the bat, then you have no idea what the theories say.
"the teaching of one and only one scientific model in the classroom and insisting that it is the only correct theory IS dogmatic."
No, it's called teaching science in science class. Since science is about the evidence and what it supports, then in regards to evolution there is no other scientific theory that is supported by all the evidence.
toothful: "atheism hypothesizes naturalistic evolutionism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou persist in attempts at drawing the science into areas of belief or non-belief. I must assume that you simply do not understand the irrelevance of this, which explains why attempts are all that they are. Plus, of course, your insistence on the use of such a word as 'evolutionism' (unheard within science), or such a phrase as 'first uncaused cause' (mere opaque pseudo-science), betrays the fact that your agenda is religious, and not scientific.
Still, it is rather a feat to commit both of these faux pas in a sentence of just four words, as you have done here.
toothful: "atheism hypothesizes naturalistic evolutionism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf these four words, only the second has any scientific currency.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe point is that the uncaused first cause would have to be a person for there to be purpose in creation. the intelligent designer's purpose.
okay, let's get right to the nitty - gritty.
let's examine darwin's synoptic description of life in a title of his book, "the preservation of favoured races in the STRUGGLE FOR LIFE", according to each scientific model concerned with it.
evolutionary model:
the biota of the world struggles to survive because it is purposeless, meaningless, and void of reason to do so. = NONSENSE
creation model:
the biota of the world struggles to survive because there is a purpose, meaning, and reason to do so. = GOOD SENSE
struggling to survive demands purpose - to survive. purpose demands meaning and reason.
science MUST make good sense or it is of no good use.
it should be obvious that the superior scientific model is the creation one.
not only does it make good sense it makes for good science.
sir isaac newton, the greatest scientist whoever lived, did his science from the creation model perspective.
now, let's act as if this is the first time that the cause of the universe and life was ever argued. one person says: "i think that the universe and all the diversity of life was intelligently designed and created." you say that you disagree and go on to explain how you think it came to be. what would be your explanation? i'm just guessing, but i think you would say that it all came to be by naturalistic evolution, because your "belief" in no creator would demand it. if you have another, please state it.
evolutionism according to the dictionary is BELIEF in darwinian evolution.
hey pirwzy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat came before the second cause? what came before the first cause?
you are confused about recombination of genes and mutations.
do you have an example of a documented beneficial mutation?
you offered an example of a manifested mutation that is HARMFUL.
i got my definition for abiogenesis from the new college edition of the american heritage dictionary of the english language.
where did you get yours?
darwin stated in his "on the origin..." that if we did not find what he IMAGINED (bacteria mutating slowly into people) in the fossil record, his theory was ruined. we have not found the "blur" of transitional fossils which he had hoped for, and devout evolutionists must, yet, fill in the blanks with IMAGINATION which darwin admitted he was doing with living biota.
there has not been one single observation of one critter turning into another or one single repeatable experiment supporting this theory - NO empirical evidence.
darwin also said that if we found an irreducibly complex living system, his theory is debunked. we have found such systems in living cells.
the only alternative is that they are intelligently designed (engineered).
how do you think life came to be?
how's this, the uncaused first cause must possess all ENERGY. the definition for "power" in physics is the rate at which work can be done (i.e., manpower, horsepower, watts, etc.)
an uncaused first cause possessing all energy (power) and putting some of it into motion would result in phenomena such as matter.
think of it, you have seen the power which is contained in the atoms of just a small chunk of matter in a nuclear explosion; consider that all of the energy (power) in all of the atoms in the entire universe combined are not equal to the power possessed by the uncaused first cause!
explain a pre-protocell (an assumption?). are you talking about circles or bubbles?
information: a non-accidental transmission of meaningful data. deliberate communication for a specific purpose containing a recognizable specific pattern(s).
will you explain S.E.T.I. science? how does it work?
TOOTHFUL,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are CLEARLY lacking in any sort of credible scientific education if you cannot see how mutations are BENEFICIAL. Mutations are only seen as detrimental if seen as HOLDING AN INDIVIDUAL BACK, and guess what? Humans have caused so much harm to the natural order of thousands of Earth's ecosystems that it's NO WONDER why diseases are appearing out of nowhere. Yea, if you think diseases are bad for YOU, then I guess they can be negative. But when a new, dangerous bacteria or virus comes along which has NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE, guess who's going to survive? Those with the DIFFERENT, UNIQUE GENES WHICH ACT AS ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSES. Bacterial & viral resistance is almost inevitable alongside the use of artificial medicine; we are not STRENGTHENING our species, we are WEAKENING IT. No, being born with cerebral palsy ISN'T 'beneficial mutation' to the INDIVIDUAL, but it is PARAMOUNT to the success of the species as a whole. Before modern science, those with hereditary predispositions to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. didn't live long enough to reproduce, THEREFORE LEAVING BEHIND THE 'HEALTHY' TO REPRODUCE & FURTHER THE SUCCESS OF THE SPECIES.
You want documentation of a beneficial mutation? What do YOU consider beneficial?? Again, as Pirwzy correctly stated, the goal of evolution, science, or the universe is NONEXISTENT. It is a MAN MADE CONSTRUCT. You are looking through a lens that is, again, anthropogenic, and TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS ARGUMENT. Evolution goes BEYOND people, it goes beyond single species to begin with. Natural selection doesn't weed out those with NO MUTATIONS - it caters to those who are different enough to ADAPT - a process which LEADS TO SPECIATION, OR THE APPEARANCE OF NEW SPECIES. When Darwin made the statement regarding "survival of the FITTEST" he meant "survival of those which can ADAPT." When a species dies off due to environmental pressures, those individuals with 'different' & previously dormant genes which are FAVORED in accordance to such an environmental pressure SURVIVE, REPRODUCE, AND PASS ON THEIR MUTATIVE QUALITIES, THEREFORE ACCOMPLISHING REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS, THE SOLE REQUIREMENT OF THE SUCCESS OF A SPECIES.
You have no credible scientific standing. There are now literally dozens of Undergraduate, Masters & PhD programs which offer degrees in ECOLOGY, a field of study who's foundation is EVOLUTION. Maybe you should just compile all your arguments, march yourself to the Berkeley School of Ecology and present your points of view.
~ "what came before the second cause? what came before the first cause?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're assuming that the second cause is the second, not the third, fourth, fifth, etc. You're assuming the first cause wasn't itself caused by something else, meaning it would no longer be the first cause. You make too many assumptions without giving the reason for making that assumption.
~ "you are confused about recombination of genes and mutations.
do you have an example of a documented beneficial mutation?
you offered an example of a manifested mutation that is HARMFUL."
A helpful mutation? Sure. Mutations in viruses, bacteria, and pests allow them to survive antibiotics and pesticides. The reason they're able to survive is through mutations. These mutations allow them to survive while those of their species without the mutation die off. Everything that makes you different from everyone else is the result of a mutation, and any of them that give you an edge over the rest is a beneficial one. How about a mutation that allows your body to produce a molecule that greatly reduces the amount of bad cholesterol in your blood while maintaining the good cholesterol? It exists in a family in Italy, it's been documented, and is being implemented in clinical trials.
Reference: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20031104/potential-heart-disease-breakthrough
~ "i got my definition for abiogenesis from the new college edition of the american heritage dictionary of the english language.
where did you get yours?"
Wherever you got it, that source isn't being specific enough for scientific discourse. In regards to the origins of life, "spontaneous generation" refers to the outdated and long since unsupported notion that fully-fledged living things appear instantly in full complete form simply due to the presence of an acceptable environment. That is not the current theory of abiogenesis whatsoever.
~ "darwin stated in his "on the origin..." that if we did not find what he IMAGINED (bacteria mutating slowly into people) in the fossil record, his theory was ruined. we have not found the "blur" of transitional fossils which he had hoped for, and devout evolutionists must, yet, fill in the blanks with IMAGINATION which darwin admitted he was doing with living biota.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthere has not been one single observation of one critter turning into another or one single repeatable experiment supporting this theory - NO empirical evidence."
We have the evidence for the evolution of whales, horses, the first land animals from fish, and humans from ancient ape-like creatures. We have many of intermediates for each example, all in exactly the place evolution says it should appear in the fossil record, meaning in the correct time-zone of the geological column. Try to refute all fossils and all subsequent research resulting from their investigation.
~ "darwin also said that if we found an irreducibly complex living system, his theory is debunked. we have found such systems in living cells.
the only alternative is that they are intelligently designed (engineered)."
There is no irreducibly complex system any anti-evolution arguer can put forward that hasn't been thuroughly debunked scientifically for years. They've all been proven to not be irreducibly complex.
~ "how do you think life came to be?"
The current theory of abiogenesis is the best explanation available.
~ "how's this, the uncaused first cause must possess all ENERGY. the definition for "power" in physics is the rate at which work can be done (i.e., manpower, horsepower, watts, etc.)
an uncaused first cause possessing all energy (power) and putting some of it into motion would result in phenomena such as matter.
think of it, you have seen the power which is contained in the atoms of just a small chunk of matter in a nuclear explosion; consider that all of the energy (power) in all of the atoms in the entire universe combined are not equal to the power possessed by the uncaused first cause!"
And what caused the first cause? You cannot provide any reasoning for your assumption that it wasn't caused by anything itself.
~ "explain a pre-protocell (an assumption?). are you talking about circles or bubbles?"
These might be understandable for someone with your obvious lack of knowledge about what the current theories actually talk about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
~ "information: a non-accidental transmission of meaningful data. deliberate communication for a specific purpose containing a recognizable specific pattern(s)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you trying to talk about the genetic code? I'd recommend just calling it the genetic code so as to avoid future confusion. If you're trying to use arguments by Dembski, you're not going to get anywhere.
~ "will you explain S.E.T.I. science? how does it work?"
The SETI project (not a science unto itself, it's just a research project) looks for patterns in signals received from outer space. What's not to understand? This is also irrelevant to biological evolution.
"you are confused about recombination of genes and mutations"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisErrors in copying the genome before cell mitosis is a source of hereditary mutations. Errors in recombining genes after copying out a gene is another source of hereditary mutations (since those errors are passed on in subsequent mitosis).
You are the one getting confused, not me.
toothful: "sir isaac newton, the greatest scientist whoever lived, did his science from the creation model perspective."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd be cautious about dragging Newton into the debate here. Creationists strive to claim Sir Isaac, the 'good Christian' scientist, as one of their own. In fact, his beliefs were heretical even for Christians of today. Not only did he totally reject the Trinity, he even stated that he considered the idea 'blasphemous'. So strictly speaking, he was not actually a Christian at all. And to claim that he was a scientist who used the creationists' model is like saying that Alexander Graham Bell made the first phone call and then sent an email to confirm it. Both statements are equally historically specious, and for the same reason.
As to the rest of what you say, I for one find your maudlin stew of warmed-over pseudo-science and quasi-religious popcorn tiresomely trite. You can have your little platform here courtesy of the SciAm moderators, who, unlike those in your camp, believe in free speech (I have come across enough examples of Biblical and creationists' comment threads who lock down any and all dissenting voices, and know this because I have tried without success to post comments in such places). You go on posing your questions, although you for your part make no attempt to address direct questions which I have put to you. So why should you reasonably expect to have your own questions answered?
toothful: "the uncaused first cause would have to be a person.."
Wow. You think that God is a person? How quaintly anthropocentric. No wonder that your perception of science is so scrambled. Anyway, have your happy little fantasies about those coyly anonymous uncaused first causes (what's the matter; can't you bring yourself to use the word "God"?). Nothing whatever that you could say here, or even could imagine saying here, will have the slightest bearing upon the course of science, whose inbuilt checks and balances expunge such pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo as you propound. Your beliefs as you have described them here are neither true science nor true religion, but an ungainly hybrid with pretensions to both.
toothful: "evolutionism according to the dictionary is BELIEF in darwinian evolution."
This is the kind of statement that makes me seriously wonder if you actually read what is written to you as a response. If you check my original posting, I actually acknowledged that 'evolutionism' was in the dictionary. My point, however, was that it is not a term used within science, and the mere fact that you persist in using it is enough to establish that you yourself do not operate in any scientific arena; a fact that is painfully confirmed by an ignorance of the workings of science in all that you say here.
Whether I bother further to take the time to respond to you now rather depends upon whether you can raise your game above those tedious (and scientifically inadmissible) uncaused first causes and intelligent designers.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy statement concerning sir isaac newton is accurate!
i find it curious that the pro darwinian or neo-darwinian evolutionists are attempting with such vigor to defend his theory, when it is on its way out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is because of the "lack" in the fossil record as well as the observed living biota that the new evolutionists are postulating the "new" theory of evolution called punctuated equilibrium; which isn't really new but a throwback to the old lamarckism, the old saltation theory, the old "hopeful monster theory. they may attempt to rid themselves of a couple of problems, but they will still be faced with harmful mutations and irreducibly complex living structures, and i doubt that they even touch on their, as well as your greatest problem, of abiogenesis; which is life from non-life - no matter how many cells.
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi have said nothing about the bible or christianity. i don't know why you keep trying to convince yourself of something that i haven't discussed.
i could be an orthodox jew or a native american indian as far as you know.
it is obvious that you believe in naturalism and i believe in supernaturalism; that you believe in evolutionism and i believe in creationism.
reasons for believing what i do are based upon empirical evidence and scientific laws which declare that it is "above and beyond" unguided, purposeless, natural processes to bring into existence the obviously, intelligently designed and purposeful universe and life.
i also enjoy having and exercising inalienable rights like life and liberty.
~ "i find it curious that the pro darwinian or neo-darwinian evolutionists are attempting with such vigor to defend his theory, when it is on its way out."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not on it's way out because it continues to be supported by all of the evidence. You're making an incorrect assumption. You also provide no reasoning or information behind the claim that it's on it's way out.
~ "it is because of the "lack" in the fossil record as well as the observed living biota that the new evolutionists are postulating the "new" theory of evolution called punctuated equilibrium; which isn't really new but a throwback to the old lamarckism, the old saltation theory, the old "hopeful monster theory. they may attempt to rid themselves of a couple of problems, but they will still be faced with harmful mutations and irreducibly complex living structures, and i doubt that they even touch on their, as well as your greatest problem, of abiogenesis; which is life from non-life - no matter how many cells."
Wrong. Punctuated equilibrium is simply one of the mechanisms involved in biological evolution. There may be theories involved in explain just P.E. in greater detail, same as with mutation and natural selection, but it is still only part of the entire theory of biological evolution.
Punctuated equilibrium is a change in the speed at which evolution occurs within a species, namely when it speeds up significantly after a species has remained relatively stable for a very long period. This is not separate from biological evolution, it is a part of it.
Change in a species' environment can cause this increase in evolutionary change.
~ "that you believe in evolutionism and i believe in creationism"
Evolution (minus the -ism, it doesn't belong there) is not based on belief or faith. It is based on the evidence. If people stopped believing in gravity, it doesn't go away and neither does the evidence for it.
~ "reasons for believing what i do are based upon empirical evidence and scientific laws which declare that it is "above and beyond" unguided, purposeless, natural processes to bring into existence the obviously, intelligently designed and purposeful universe and life."
If you think evolution is incorrect, then you aren't using the evidence, or you are only using what evidence is favorable to your desired conclusion and excluding the rest altogether. You are also misinterpreting scientific laws of nature if you think they support a special creator.
hey pirwzy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou confirmed what i stated: darwinianism (slow and gradual mutated changes leading to new and improved naturally selected critters ) is being discarded for rapid leaps of evolving creatures (hopeful monsters) which did not leave fossil evidence (it happened so fast that there aren't any transitional forms). the exact opposite of darwin's idea.
it is also because of the conservative STASIS which is what variation among species is (no darwinian evolution (innovation) occurs); only the exhibition of various traits by recombination of the gene pool which is limited, horizontal, and bi-directional (adaptability). any changes to progeny resulting from harmful mutations will be deleterious and natural selection weeds them out to preserve the particular critters and keep them fit, not turn them into something else.
these evolutionists are currently and patiently waiting for another "BURST" of evolution like the cambrian explosion. if this, indeed, does occur, they will have the evidence they need to prove their theory.
so, i guess you will have be a patient, faithful follower of the blind (don't see it yet, but we're hoping to!).
~ "you confirmed what i stated: darwinianism (slow and gradual mutated changes leading to new and improved naturally selected critters ) is being discarded for rapid leaps of evolving creatures (hopeful monsters) which did not leave fossil evidence (it happened so fast that there aren't any transitional forms). the exact opposite of darwin's idea."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. Punctuated equilibrium fits with and is explained by the theory of biological evolution. It doesn't conflict with, refute, or replace it. The theory of evolution doesn't imply some speed limit that punctuated equilibrium breaks. Evolution doesn't predict steady change at a constant pace. Evolution predicts evolutionary change that correlates with the rate of change of the environment.
~ "it is also because of the conservative STASIS which is what variation among species is (no darwinian evolution (innovation) occurs);"
You have very little understanding of what you're trying to talk about. Evolution is not scientifically synonymous to innovation.
~ " only the exhibition of various traits by recombination of the gene pool which is limited, horizontal, and bi-directional (adaptability)."
That was garble.
~ "any changes to progeny resulting from harmful mutations will be deleterious and natural selection weeds them out to preserve the particular critters and keep them fit, not turn them into something else"
Every generation is a transitional form between it's parents and it's own offspring. If you line up enough generations then you'll see the entire evolutionary change. It would be close to impossible to identify a single generation somewhere along the way and say "that one must be the last one of the former species and the next one must be the first of the latter species". It's one seamless process that goes from generation to generation, slowly changing.
Also, natural selection doesn't "keep fit" certain individuals, the genes of those individuals and the environment they're in at the time determine whether or not they are fit at that particular moment.
~ "these evolutionists are currently and patiently waiting for another "BURST" of evolution like the cambrian explosion. if this, indeed, does occur, they will have the evidence they need to prove their theory.
so, i guess you will have be a patient, faithful follower of the blind (don't see it yet, but we're hoping to!)."
No, scientists are not waiting with bated breath for some new Cambrian burst in evolution. I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it's not surprising that you don't try to give a source.
~ "if this, indeed, does occur, they will have the evidence they need to prove their theory."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, it would simply be more evidence in support of the theory. You misunderstand science and they way it works if you think proving theories is what the goal is.
~ "so, i guess you will have be a patient, faithful follower of the blind (don't see it yet, but we're hoping to!)."
Wrong. I'm not following based on blind faith. I'm accepting what the evidence supports. All of the evidence. I'm not excluding any of the evidence. I'm not misconstruing evidence that doesn't support my personal preference. I'm not intentionally keeping myself ignorant of evidence and research that could damage my claims.
I look at all of the evidence, and I make an effort to make sure I'm as knowledgeable about the subject as I can be before I start popping off with claims about it.
Evolution is supported by all (all) of the evidence and research from fields such as molecular biology, genetics, genomics, genealogy, zoology, biochemistry, medicine, paleontology, and more. If you want to refute biological evolution scientifically, then you must present a theory that explains all (all) of the evidence and research in these fields without invoking supernatural intervention.
It easy to ignorantly say that science is science! Well, when scrutinizing the evolutionary idea closely, one can see that there is no direct genetic modifications which create new species. For years, evolution simply fed us with assuming molecular clocks, few questionable and almost irrelevant fossils, and hybrid organisms. Creationism relies on the same logic, here and there, supporting their theory with their own evidence. Evolution is absolutely ridiculous and laughable. Many scientists themselves question whether it has any effect or science behind it. Read UK Times article called "For God's sake, have Charles Darwins' theories made any difference to our lives?" If you look at evolution more open mindedly and with less dogmatic reason, you will see its countless flaws and unproven garbage. Believe me, I'm quiet the skeptic myself, especially when it comes to religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeither can you use unproven idea of evolution to disprove something. It is largely flawed and laughable in many areas. The fossil record is incomplete and largely does not make any sense. The evolution is entirely based on assumed theories; there is no tangible evidence whatsoever. You can not simply say that evolution is science and it is untouchable. If it is questionable, it is not absolute. Then the dogma line is crossed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this~ "It easy to ignorantly say that science is science!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it cannot explain all of the past and present observations regarding a certain natural phenomena, or if it does not make testable predictions about future observations, then it is not a scientific theory. If it not supported by all of the past and present evidence, then it is not a scientific theory.
~ "Well, when scrutinizing the evolutionary idea closely, one can see that there is no direct genetic modifications which create new species."
Of course new species aren't created, that is what creationism claims happens. Evolution is gradual change over time. When a single population gets split into two or more separate populations who are reproductively isolated from each other for enough time in different enough environments, their gene pools will reach a point where sexual reproduction between those populations is no longer possible. At this point the two populations are separate species, and they share common descent with the original single population they split from. Not a difficult concept.
~ "For years, evolution simply fed us with assuming molecular clocks, few questionable and almost irrelevant fossils, and hybrid organisms."
You are confused by "transitional fossils". Every individual is a transitional form. Very, very few living things that die are actually fossilized, and much fewer still are ever found by paleontologists. Even so, we have a plethora of relevant fossils that show the major changes of many interesting areas of the animal kingdom such as from fish to amphibious tetrapods, or small land animals to whales, or reptiles to mammals, or dinosaurs to birds. Mind you these fossils do fall into place topographically where the theory of biological evolution predicts they would. Without the theory of evolution, Tiktaalik would not have been discovered at all.
Transitional fossils also are not hybrids. Hybrids are the offspring of two separate living populations. Transitional fossils show an intermediate between two populations from two different times in history. They are before one and after another. Hybrids are also single-individual links between their respective parent populations. A transitional form is one of thousands or millions of generational links between its distant ancestors millions of years before it and its distant descendants millions of years after it.
You can say they're irrelevant, but then you're either ignoring valid empirical evidence, or else you're misconstruing it intentionally.
~ "Many scientists themselves question whether it has any effect or science behind it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisName one scientist actively involved in scientific research in a field related to biology who doubts evolution.
~ "Read UK Times article called "For God's sake, have Charles Darwins' theories made any difference to our lives?""
That article talks about a few people who don't like the theory, but they provide no empirical evidence that would refute it. They state, in so many words, "we don't like it".
And where the article strays into talk about the holocaust, well that's asinine. Eugenics was based on a racist misrepresentation of the principles behind evolution. Eugenics and the holocaust were about some people being more "perfect". But perfection implies a final goal or aim. Evolution has no goal. If you knew anything about the theory, you'd already understand that. Same for the writer of that article.
~ "If you look at evolution more open mindedly and with less dogmatic reason, you will see its countless flaws and unproven garbage. Believe me, I'm quiet the skeptic myself, especially when it comes to religion."
There are not countless flaws. I ask if you can name three flaws in evolution. I guarantee that if you can name even one, that you'll find that it's not a flaw in evolution but rather a flaw in your understanding of what the theory says or of the evidence. People who claim to know of flaws and who openly profess what those flaws supposedly are soon learn that they were simply ignorant of the theory, that they have an incorrect understanding of it.
~ "Neither can you use unproven idea of evolution to disprove something. It is largely flawed and laughable in many areas. The fossil record is incomplete and largely does not make any sense. The evolution is entirely based on assumed theories; there is no tangible evidence whatsoever."
The fossil record is evidence for evolution. Evolution explains why we found the fossils where we found them. It's also supported by all evidence and research in the fields of medicine, biology, genetics, etc.
~ "You can not simply say that evolution is science and it is untouchable. If it is questionable, it is not absolute. Then the dogma line is crossed."
When you can provide empirical evidence that evolution cannot account for, then you'll have something. Until then, the theory stands. Dogma involves accepting something as valid simply by virtue of the source it comes from, ignoring the validity of the claim itself. I don't do that. I accept what the evidence supports, all of the evidence.
Science is not out to prove or disprove theories. You prove or disprove hypotheses regarding what the theory predicts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the scientific community has pretty well proven beyond any reasonable doubt that gravity exists, but still it's called the Theory of Gravity (and Relativity, General and Special). We know evolution occurs. That is undeniable. What the theory is is an explanation. The how and why, the mechanisms involved.
When you can understand why it's still called "The Theory of Gravity" when it's an undeniable fact that gravity exists, then you'll understand why calling the Theory of Evolution "unproven" makes you look so much less intelligent, and betrays your current ignorance of the subject.
But feel free to keep sticking to fingers in your ears and closing your eyes, if that makes you feel better.
sticking [your] fingers in your ears*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistoothful: "my statement concerning sir isaac newton is accurate!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd mine is historically correct, as you would know had you studied his biographical details. But as usual, my further and more important point is lost on you that Newton clearly could not measure any creationist model against an evolutionary one in any case because his time was before the theory existed. On the same logic which you use, I could say that Newton never had a driver's licence. And by golly, my statement would be 'accurate' as well! Must I spell everything out?
toothful: "i have said nothing about the bible or christianity. i don't know why you keep trying to convince yourself of something that i haven't discussed."
Then how about that you in your turn stop trying to convince yourself of my presumed beliefs or non-beliefs, which I also haven't discussed. In my case, the reason is that I recognise that these are irrelevant to the science. Your religious beliefs, however, are very much integrated into what you imagine to be 'science'. In fact, you actually insist that they are a part of it. Your own religious beliefs are therefore a valid point of discussion.
toothful: "i could be an orthodox jew or a native american indian as far as you know."
I presume that with the latter you are referring to religious beliefs rather than ethnicity, because the two can be different. But you must be a Christian for you to endorse creationism / intelligent design. Or more accurately: a member of a fringe minority Christian group. As I have also said before, but will repeat yet again: if you did not hold the religious beliefs which you do, then your whole attitude to evolutionary theory and science would be different.
toothful: "reasons for believing what i do are based upon empirical evidence and scientific laws"
The reasons for you believing what you do are based upon inadmissible pseudo-science. If your claims were factual, then your beliefs would be established in the body of science. They are not. If, however, you feel confident about your claims, I suggest that you put them all together in a science paper and submit it for peer review, because that's the only way that you'll get any further with it. Good luck with that.
toothful: "i find it curious that the pro darwinian or neo-darwinian evolutionists are attempting with such vigor to defend his theory, when it is on its way out."
Cite an accredited source for this assertion for others to check. I will take a non-citation to mean that you acknowledge that your assertion is unfounded.
toothful: "i also enjoy having and exercising inalienable rights like life and liberty."
I refer you to my remarks about free speech in my previous comment.
hey pirwzy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi said punctuated equilibrium is replacing darwinian evolution (slow and gradual change). it is the exact opposite of what darwin postulated.
darwin's theory said it had to be progressive change in one direction - "new and improved". if it goes back and forth, it will go nowhere - stasis.
gravity was a theory at one time, then, because of observable, repeatable, experimental "proofs" it moved to "scientific" theory status; but it has not remained there, it now is known as newton's universal LAW of gravitation because it has withstood the test of years and years of time.
by the way, what "type" of evolution do you believe brought non-living matter into existence and formed the inorganic structures in the universe, and what was/were the mechanism(s)?
evolutionists DO invoke the supernatural into there explanations:
matter cannot create itself out of nothing by natural processes - 1st law of thermodynamics; matter tends towards decay by natural processes and not towards order - 2nd law of thermodynamics; non-living matter cannot create life from itself by natural processes - law of biogenesis; mutations are harmful and natural selection removes the weakened progeny and is conservative not innovative. therefore, evolutionists must invoke the "super"natural (whether they admit it or not) to do what natural processes can't and what is contrary to them.
creationism predicts that the universe was fully "wound up" (ordered) at the beginning and, if anything, it would be "unwinding" (running down towards disorder); which is what we observe.
creationism predicts that life appeared fully formed and, if anything, would be deteriorating and going extinct; which is what we observe.
creationism predicts that the diversity of life will be static and, if anything, will diminish; which is what we observe.
creationism predicts that the earth's geology would be best explained by catastrophism not uniformitarianism; which is what we observe.
one last question for you for now, if millions and millions (perhaps even more) of transitional forms existed which were "new and improved" - better suited to survive than their predecessors - then, why are so many of them missing and their "supposed" ancestors are not?
Creationists beware! Exactly the same justification and rationale that you use to support your own beliefs is available to other creeds. Scientology derives from one man as well! There is as much evidence for that is there is for your God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that one of the big problems humans have with life, the universe and everything is the determination to believe that everything must have a cause that was premeditated, that the consequence was an intended result. The proposition that some things simply "are" and that some things just happen that way without a guiding hand from someone, just isn't acceptable. The concept of God is an invention of man, something which explains away something we can't understand or grasp. Hence the moon god. The sun god. Gods to rule the sea, the seasons, gods of love, war etc. A God -- or a whole pantheon of gods -- allows us to absolve ourselves from responsibilities and abide by rules that arose hundreds or thousands of years ago to suit the exigencies of the then current rulers of the age. Even Scientology does this!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main one of those imponderables appears to be the concept of eternity. Everything we know and have, everything we are and everybody we know and all the animals on this planet has a beginning and an end. Therefore, we ask questions about how, why, when etc. Our minds have developed a capacity for abstract thought and we have difficulty working through the issues we have conjured up for ourselves. We'll get there but let's not confuse the issue by shoving all the responsibility for everything we can't understand into a responsibility-free universe because we refuse to accept the simple truth that we are in control of us. Nobody else.
A final thought. If creationists and believers would like us to accept their arguments and propositions simply because evolution cannot be "proved" to their satisfaction, would they accept in return, the same proposition -- prove there is God to our satisfaction or concede the argument?
hey ambertooth,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe fact remains:
sir isaac newton did his science from the creation model perspective and did the best science. you presume too much if you think it would have been any better had he done it from any other.
you are arguing FOR naturalistic evolutionism. are you saying you don' t believe it?
here's a short list for you:
s.j. gould & n. eldredge offered the scientific model - gould said that most of his colleagues support it; f. heylighen-defends it; w.r. elsberry-defends it; r.c. broyles-defends it; stanly-defends it; vrba-defends it; d.r. protheio-defends it (good explanation); pbs (public broadcasting system) - "now it (punctuated equilibrium) is widely recognized as a useful model for one kind of evolutionary change."
hey ian timothy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe certainly know that "man" didn't create the universe or life, so that rules one out.
Toothful:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are exactly right. Punctuated equilibrium is recognized as a model for a kind of evolutionary change. But it's still evolution. It more accurately describes an increase in the rate of evolutionary change brought about by a drastic change in the selection pressures of a species environment. The classic example is the extinction of the dinosaurs which opened up a wide variety of niches for mammals to exploit and we see a rapid diversification of mammals from modest mouse-like beginnings to all the major families such as canids, felines, bats, primates etc. And it is fairly well documented in the fossil record.
And I've got to agree with Ian about why things happen. There is no why in science. It is often mixed up with how. We don't ask why evolution happens, we ask how it happens. You cannot prove or disprove why. Things just happen.
~ "i said punctuated equilibrium is replacing darwinian evolution (slow and gradual change). it is the exact opposite of what darwin postulated."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is wrong, as I said. Punctuated equilibrium is a short burst in evolutionary change after a period of relatively slow change. This does not conflict with, but is predicted by the theory of biological evolution.
~ "darwin's theory said it had to be progressive change in one direction - "new and improved". if it goes back and forth, it will go nowhere - stasis."
Wrong. Evolutionary change can yield multiple responses to the same environmental influences. The plethora of methods animals use for locomotion on land is but one example.
~ "gravity was a theory at one time, then, because of observable, repeatable, experimental "proofs" it moved to "scientific" theory status; but it has not remained there, it now is known as newton's universal LAW of gravitation because it has withstood the test of years and years of time."
Wrong. It is still called the Theory of Gravity because the theories explain the phenomena. The law of gravity is just the general statement about it. The theory discusses all of the math and mechanics involved while the law simply states the general nature of the phenomena.
~ "by the way, what "type" of evolution do you believe brought non-living matter into existence and formed the inorganic structures in the universe, and what was/were the mechanism(s)?"
Biological evolution doesn't apply to the issue of life forming from non-life. The theory of abiogenesis applies there.
~ "evolutionists DO invoke the supernatural into there explanations:"
No, science does not invoke the supernatural.
~ "matter cannot create itself out of nothing by natural processes - 1st law of thermodynamics;"
Well duh, however evolution doesn't say matter is created out of nothing.
~ "matter tends towards decay by natural processes and not towards order - 2nd law of thermodynamics;"
You have a gross (yet sadly common) misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. If you think order from disorder through natural processes is not possible, then explain the orderly geological strata, snowflakes, and mineral crystallization.
~ "non-living matter cannot create life from itself by natural processes - law of biogenesis;"
Wrong. The law of biogenesis states that [modern] life cannot spontaneously appear out of nothing. Evolution does not state otherwise. You made a very poor attempt to quote mine. I wouldn't recommend that strategy as it only makes you look worse.
~ "mutations are harmful and natural selection removes the weakened progeny and is conservative not innovative."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMutations are much more often neutral, as opposed to immediately harmful or beneficial. You seem to have a very short memory as we already went over this a few pages ago.
~ "therefore, evolutionists must invoke the "super"natural (whether they admit it or not) to do what natural processes can't and what is contrary to them."
Wrong, as I've explained above in the previous post.
~ "creationism predicts that the universe was fully "wound up" (ordered) at the beginning and, if anything, it would be "unwinding" (running down towards disorder); which is what we observe."
Creationism doesn't predict that. It states it as a requirement for itself, but provides no evidence reasoning for why it must be so. It's an assumption.
~ "creationism predicts that life appeared fully formed and, if anything, would be deteriorating and going extinct; which is what we observe."
But unfortunately for creationism, life did not appear fully formed.
~ "creationism predicts that the diversity of life will be static and, if anything, will diminish; which is what we observe."
Unfortunately for creationism the diversity of life is not static. The fossil record shows that the diversity has changed dramatically over time. After the extinction of the dinosaurs the diversity of life dramatically decreased, but increased afterwards as the surviving species started filling in those niches the dinosaurs left behind.
~ "creationism predicts that the earth's geology would be best explained by catastrophism not uniformitarianism; which is what we observe."
Catastrophism does not explain earth's geology. Read a non-creationist geology text book.
~ "one last question for you for now, if millions and millions (perhaps even more) of transitional forms existed which were "new and improved" - better suited to survive than their predecessors - then, why are so many of them missing and their "supposed" ancestors are not?"
The odds of a creature dying under such circumstances to become a fossil are very, very low. The odds of that fossil being discovered by a paleontologist are also very, very low. Very, very low paired with another very, very low makes for a very small amount of fossils being found compared to the number of creatures that ever lived.
I wonder how many of these points you'll forget about after the next couple pages again. You seem to like bring old points up repeatedly after some pages have gone by.
hey pirwzy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyeah, i've noticed that evolutionists are now attaching punctuated equilibrium to darwinism as a "rider" so as not to administer such a sudden shock to the faithful followers. it is either a means of slowly cooking the frogs as it transforms itself, or it is going to keep "both" models and go the route of trying to cover all the bases and have an "explanation" for everything. this is the same road the pseudo-science of astrology went - so generalized that it "proves" nothing.
i have enjoyed and had fun discussing the two basic, possible explanations for our existence. at least we can "think" about both sides of the argument and reach our own intelligent conclusions and so can others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoh, by the way pirwzy, whether you realize it or not, your postings are another example of "intelligent design" (or would you argue this point?).
i certainly don't think i have been communicating with a blindfolded ape with its keyboard turned around flailing away at it, or any other unintelligent, blind, unguided, random natural process.
i bet that if darwin would have been able to "see" what we have in a living cell, he wouldn't have even bothered with his theory. it isn't the gob of goo he "supposed" it to be. if we could enlarge one big enough to walk inside of and behold its sophistication and higher than our technology, i'm confident none of us would bother ourselves either. (hey, what about constructing a large,working model simulating what the cell (including its fantastic membrane, which isn't just a bubble) actually does for this purpose? wouldn't that be cool?!)
I.D. science is observable, repeatable, GOOD SCIENCE.
truth and peace to mutants and all!
toothful: "the fact remains: sir isaac newton did his science from the creation model perspective and did the best science. you presume too much if you think it would have been any better had he done it from any other."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you presume too much, period. You cannot (and never will be able to) establish the veracity of your claim, because you're dealing in an unknowable supposition. Leonardo might have had a flair for website design, but that must remain mere supposition as well. The more you cling to this Sir Isaac postulation, the more you create the impression that you are grasping at straws.
toothful: "you are arguing FOR naturalistic evolutionism. are you saying you don' t believe it?"
No. I'm saying (or rather, repeating for your exclusive benefit) that the phrase 'naturalistic evolutionism' is unused in science. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or do you genuinely not grasp this point?
'Evolutionism', yes, it's in the dictionary, blah blah blah, no, it's not used in science, blah blah blah. So your insistent use of such wayward terms is sufficient to demonstrate that you are a Christian creationist/ID'er with no qualified career experience of the sciences. Call me wrong.
Which being the case, explains why you keep putting your foot in your mouth and need to have things explained to you serially, and even then you apparently cannot grasp what is being said. So by all means use such terms as 'naturalistic evolutionism', and 'uncaused first cause', and by so doing continue to betray the fact that when it comes to science, you are a mere dabbling amateur (which is crudely apparent from what you say anyway).
I can only guess why you seem to imagine that punctuated equilibrium does anything but support evolutionary theory. In fact, it is an adjunct describing a natural mechanism which endorses and refines the theory (as Justin B. and pirwzy make clear), and not an independent theory in itself, as you seem to think. So as usual, you seem to have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Still, that's the folly of dabbling in science for you.
toothful: "I.D. science is observable, repeatable, GOOD SCIENCE."
Hardly. It is not, and can never be, classified as science for the specific reason that it postulates from a predetermined idea. I wonder if you will ever grasp this. In other words: ID intrinsically excludes itself from the scientific arena by proposing what it does. How ironic is that?
And someone with no professional experience of the sciences is no more qualified to make such a judgement call about what passes for science than I am to make proclamations about the finer points of engineering. So if you would consider it reckless of me to do so, then that is how the various unfounded statements which you have made sound here.
Toothful, your obvious ignorance of the subjects being discussed merits you no more responses from me. If you are this adamant to maintain your ignorance, or else project intentionally misleading information, then your rants are not worth encouraging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEducate yourself, and have a good day.
WORD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this~ "all of science is based upon "faith"; the "belief" that the laws of physics (chemistry included) will continue as they have."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong. Science is based on using the theories which explain the laws to postulate new questions that are empirically testable. There is no faith involved. Faith is belief when in the absence of evidence. Science is all about the evidence. They are quite nearly opposites.
~ "darwin, himself, proclaimed that both sides of a question should be fairly argued. this is correct, and will encourage students to "think" and to reach their own intelligent conclusions."
Please provide the quote and the source where Darwin says that the educational systems should teach creationism and evolution both "because that would be fair." And if we're going to take that step, lets also include the argument that, "it's magic," in physics class, the arguments of alchemy in chemistry class, and teach how to pray for good health in medical school. Oh wait, we don't teach such things in such places for very good reasons. And god willing, we never will put such things where they don't belong.
~ "if you "choose" to believe that you are a compilation of genetic "mistakes" with no purpose ( a meaningless mutant)"
You have a grave misunderstanding if you think biological evolution is based on random chance.
~ "having no supernatural creator and no inalienable rights, that's up to you"
You don't need a supernatural creator to have rights or morals, but then this isn't about the existence of gods.
if you "choose" to believe that you are a creation with a secret purpose (a meaningless existence to you because it is secret), having no ties or responsibilities to the physical world around you because you are a supernatural being and the supernatural can simply snap its fingers and create or recreate, that's up to you; just remember, all of life on earth is dependent on each other. It is perfectly natural that all the good things in the world come from the supernatural and all the bad things in the world are your fault for not believing. Its interesting how for some we cant prove the existence of evolution, but we also cant disprove the existence of evolution. Seems to put creationism and evolution on at least an equal footing therefore it becomes a question of belief. Do you want to believe the same people who arrested Galileo for daring to say the earth revolved around the sun, or the people who brought us the atomic bomb through pure scientific theory? Why would the creator of nature need to use supernatural powers to affect nature while also giving nature effective powers of its own? I think that most people believe that God gave us a self sustaining natural system that uses evolution as a tool to perpetuate itself. Free will is a wonderful thing, but with it comes the responsibility of the fundamentalist clerics to admit they were wrong about Galileo and that they could also be wrong about other things because of their very limited base of presumed facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif you "choose" to “believe” that you are a creation with a secret purpose (a meaningless existence to you because it is secret), having no ties or responsibilities to the physical world around you because you are a supernatural being and the supernatural can simply snap its fingers and create or recreate, that's up to you; just remember, all of life on earth is dependent on each other. It is perfectly “natural” that all the good things in the world come from the supernatural and all the bad things in the world are your fault for not believing. It’s interesting how for some we can’t prove the existence of evolution, but we also can’t disprove the existence of evolution. Seems to put creationism and evolution on at least an equal footing therefore it becomes a question of belief. Do you want to believe the same people who arrested Galileo for daring to say the earth revolved around the sun, or the people who brought us the atomic bomb through pure scientific theory? Why would the creator of nature need to use supernatural powers to affect nature while also giving nature effective powers of its own? I think that most people believe that God gave us a self sustaining natural system that uses evolution as a tool to perpetuate itself. Free will is a wonderful thing, but with it comes the responsibility of the fundamentalist clerics to admit they were wrong about Galileo and that they could also be wrong about other things because of their very limited base of presumed facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a great think to understand the evolution of the earth by a great debate. It makes everyone to obtain some information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.how2carebaby.com">Baby</a>
It is a great idea to get some information about the education topic. It helps to get some information. Thank you for the post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisby
<a href="http://www.how2carebaby.com">baby care</a>