Evolution discussion

[Benko]

Earlier on in this thread people were wondering what use "5% of an eye" might be.
Light detection with very low resolution is nevertheless useful. The way that snakes can "see" heat is an example of a useful sight organ despite it being so crude:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100314/ ... 0.122.html

The point is that for the ear (and the eye) they are both made of many many very complicated parts which work together but the vast majority of which are totally useless by themselves but have an evolutionary cost.  Even the light detection sensor by itself is useless unless there is a part of the brain that knows what to do with the sensory input, but that is only asking for 2 things to develop together which is not unreasonable as opposed to the rest of the auditory chain or optic chain which have many parts which work together and are necessary.  A non-digital watch which has many interlocking parts needed for it to function is probably a good analogy.

[moda0306]

Earlier on in this thread people were wondering what use "5% of an eye" might be.
Light detection with very low resolution is nevertheless useful. The way that snakes can "see" heat is an example of a useful sight organ despite it being so crude:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100314/ ... 0.122.html

The point is that for the ear (and the eye) they are both made of many many very complicated parts which work together but the vast majority of which are totally useless by themselves but have an evolutionary cost.  Even the light detection sensor by itself is useless unless there is a part of the brain that knows what to do with the sensory input, but that is only asking for 2 things to develop together which is not unreasonable as opposed to the rest of the auditory chain or optic chain which have many parts which work together and are necessary.  A non-digital watch which has many interlocking parts needed for it to function is probably a good analogy.

Benko, I agree.  And furthermore, descriptions like "a patch of light-sensitive skin" are often thrown around as if that structure is simple.  Even a single cell is outrageously complex, estimated to include 10^12 bits of information.  To somehow evolve a new "patch" of cells with new capability is not something that can be assumed to be trivial.  Then the answer is, well, it took a lot of time; lots of generations.  Unfortunately for evolution, we see the eye appear on the scene very suddenly, in the fossil record.  So evolutionists scramble about, and then determine that the evolution of the eye was unusually rapid, but they don't know why yet. 

A robust theory tends to not just fit the data, it tends to predict the data.  Evolutionary theory hasn't done that very well.

You can't predict when random mutations will occur and exactly how they will direct life. All you can do is predict that mutations will happen, some will lead to competitive advantage, and those species will survive more readily than their competition.

And to your point about the eye, when you say "evolutionists scramble about," I'm assuming you mean, like scientists have done at dozens of times in history, they see an odd phenomenon and they seek to figure it out on a natural level rather than ASSUMING that God just made the earth in 7 days? 

I've been too busy to find and post more stuff on irreducible complexity, but for the most part I think it's just people seeing something they don't understand and trying to attribute it to God rather than understand it. Just like those other scientists in the Neil Tyson video. They just stopped "figuring it out" and attributed it to "intelligent design."

Of course a patch of light sensitive skin isn't simple.  But it's complexity is very likely reducible to beneficial pre-existing parts plus small changes.  Of course a cell is insanely complex, but that cell is insanely complex whether it is light-sensitive or not.

I certainly hope in all their "scrambling around," evolutionists either discover how the eye came about so quickly, or that God exists.  

Oh and not to make this about religion again, but I find it interesting that you take offense to people saying "scientists believe" when it comes to evolution, but when it comes to God, there is no "I believe" in many of the statements you and Mountaineer (perhaps moreso him) provide. It's all just stated as fact.  We have to assume it is a belief, but your language refers to it as conclusive not due to empirical evidence, but on your subjective ability to interpret spiritual reality.

It is hardly unprofessional to paraphrase the vast majority of the scientific community.  It's actually quite useful.  At least they use the word "believe" or "think."  Now you will sometimes have areas like eugenics, but that was more of a political movement than a scientific one. Stating an ought as its driving force rather than simply trying to explain how things are.  And come on. We are all eugenecists a little bit. Nobody wants the degenerate welfare mother of 7 to keep breeding . All study of evolution is doing, as in all real science, is to understand reality. Perhaps one day we will stumble upon God. Until then, though, we shouldn't assume he exists just because something appears irreducibly complex. If we were to stop there, we'd still think we were the center of the universe.

[Mountaineer]

Since we are on a "randomness" quest to explain evolution, I thought I'd throw a few random things into the mix.

The human body, consists of about 100 trillion cells (I've seen estimates ranging from 15 to over 100 trillion).

There are about 7 billion people in the world.

Planet Earth is home to 8.7 million species, scientists estimate.

Assume each species has 1 trillion cells (1% of an average human).

So, if I did the math correctly, there are give or take, about 8.7 x 10^27 cells on earth at the present time - who knows how many have died over the years.

If you don't care for exponents, that is:  8,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cells currently (assuming I pressed the zero key correctly).

Number of elements = 118

I wonder why man did not evolve a few thousand years earlier so we could have a population of 20 billion now?  Or a few thousand years later so we would only have, say one million or one billion?  Surely the conditions would have been relatively similar given the scientific age of the earth is in the few billions of years range.  I wonder why man has not been able to create a life form, given that much raw material to work with.  I wonder if man is able to create a life form, if he will be able to find the "element" that enables inate knowledge of good and evil, or creativity, or abrasiveness, or thoughtfulness, or love, or hate?  Speaking of that, how do evolutionists explain the origin "good" and "evil" since it seems so cross-culturally universal?  Maybe the ultimate goal of evolutionary science is to make humans that only know "good" - assuming the ones doing the making are not "evil" 

I wonder how many times the genetic "dice" have been thrown in the history of the world?  Seems like we would surely have seen pink elephants or flying pigs by now.  Or maybe even a batch of humans somewhere that only know "good" or a batch that only knows "evil" (I guess the evil batch would have self destructed though).   

... Mountaineer

[Lowe]

Your lack of understanding is proof that god did it all, right.

[Mountaineer]

Your lack of understanding is proof that god did it all, right.

Lowe,

With all due respect, I'm trying to understand where faith in the evolution hypothesis comes from and upon what facts it is grounded.  Your reply is not very helpful.  Although since you did not quote me, you may not be referring to my post.  Either way, I'm trying to be purposeful in the discussion, sorry if you do not perceive my questions as "valid".  I am learning, however, based on your reply, that my stereotype of quack science supporters is based upon at least one truth.

... Mountaineer

[dualstow]

Lowe,

With all due respect, I'm trying to understand where faith in the evolution hypothesis comes from and upon what facts it is grounded. 

Are you really, though?

I like writing back and forth with you, Mt'eer, but in this thread you remind me of a student giving the teacher a hard time,  and not one who really seeks answers. The Bible already contains the answers you want, and that's fine. But, do we need to pretend otherwise?

In Reply #176, I wrote:

There are a million directions in which evolution can go and you guys are picking one direction and saying, Why didn't this happen?

Today you wrote:

I wonder how many times the genetic "dice" have been thrown in the history of the world?  Seems like we would surely have seen pink elephants or flying pigs by now.

It's amusing, but that doesn't sound like someone who is "trying to understand." Just saying.

Also, I think most people who accept evolutionary theory bristle a bit when you talk about "faith in" evolution. At least, I do. I accept the theory of gravity, and based on both observation and experience I accept that every time I let go of a rock it will fall to the ground because of gravity. This is not quite the same as belief in God or Jesus.

[Benko]

Moda,

I have no preconceived notions about god and science and am only looking at the science and seeing what can be explained by the given explanations and what does not appear to be able to be explained.

It is hardly unprofessional to paraphrase the vast majority of the scientific community.  It's actually quite useful.

Of course.  But what actual unbiased scientists know is how often current scientific opinion fails to be true in the long wrong, and fails spectacularly not infrequently harming large numbers of people.  Medicine is filled with such examples. 

All you can do is predict that mutations will happen, some will lead to competitive advantage, and those species will survive more readily than their competition.

Agree.  Totally reasonable and seems to happen.

Of course a patch of light sensitive skin isn't simple.  But it's complexity is very likely reducible to beneficial pre-existing parts plus small changes. Of course a cell is insanely complex, but that cell is insanely complex whether it is light-sensitive or not.

I Disagree with the bolded part.  And sorry but I know what the parts of the eye/ear involve (try looking them up). That is my whole point.  Each part of the eye/ear is super complicated, but in addition has to work together with all the other super complicated parts and most of the parts by themselves do not confer any advantage.  Thus some parts of the theory work well and some would appear to need more time than the age of the universe to e.g. produce an eye by random mutation. 

A robust theory tends to not just fit the data, it tends to predict the data.  Evolutionary theory hasn't done that very well.

The bolded part is a supurb point.  When you have a theory which can make correct predictions (which parts of evolutionary theory do) then at least for that part you can reasonably confident that you understand.  Until you get to that point you are on thinner ice.

PART ON/PART OFF TOPIC:  what strikes me as generally true of people with many of beliefs you have is not realizing how often science has been wrong, spectacularly wrong and overconfidence in current theory.  I could give many examples but will resist the urge.

[stone]

Desert

The fact that the gene related to the eye is the same in the fly and the human does not support evolution.  The finding is interesting, but then there is a philosophical (not scientific) leap to say that the reason for that commonality is evolution.  One could just as easily evaluate that data and conclude that that gene is the optimum means of producing an eye, so it was used over and over again by the designer.

Just as you say,  evidence for evolution comes when incidental, inconsequential things are conserved between living things and not when functional aspects are conserved. After all, there are numerous examples of "convergent evolution" when evolution is thought to have come up with the same good idea independently on different occasions (eg how dolphins and ichthyosaurs both have flippers).
To me the crucial point is that there ARE so many examples of incidental, inconsequential things being conserved across evolution. Gene sequences accumulate incremental changes in a "Chinese whispers" style with changes accumulating as you traverse along the tree of life but with the crucial residues remaining conserved. To go back to the example of the pax6 gene that determines where eyes form. A mouse pax6 gene can function in a fly. Some residues in the sequence remain absolutely conserved between the fly and the mouse (and fish and humans) and it is easy to test that the conserved residues can't be altered without destroying the function whilst the non-conserved residues can be changed without screwing it up.
Imagine if you were a teacher and suspected that your students were copying each others' work because their essays all used the exact same wording. It is just like that when you look under the bonnet at living things.

[stone]

This picture: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 3177-g001/

shows how the sequences of pax6 genes vary between closely related and distantly related fish and humans.

[Mountaineer]

I'm going to insert my comments in red below.

... Mountaineer

Lowe,

With all due respect, I'm trying to understand where faith in the evolution hypothesis comes from and upon what facts it is grounded. 

Are you really, though?  Actually, yes.  That is why I brought up questions about the non-physical things (good, evil, love, kindness, art appreciation, etc.) - where did they come from and why or how did did they evolve?  And where did the first blob of protoplasmic slime come from?  The big-bang has some serious issues, from the last I read on the subject - rapid inflation required and the speed of light exceeded and the like. 

I like writing back and forth with you, Mt'eer, [ Thank you.  Likewise. ] but in this thread you remind me of a student giving the teacher a hard time, [ Guilty as charged, I used to do that in high school and the university too.  My reason was to make sure the teacher knew the subject and was not just parroting some cliff notes on the subject.  That probably is an "evolution" of my tendency to ask "why" about almost everything since I was a year or two old.  I do try to be polite about it though, so if I have not been in this thread, I appologize.  ] and not one who really seeks answers. The Bible already contains the answers you want, and that's fine. But, do we need to pretend otherwise?  [ I could not pretend or prove the Bible is wrong even if I believed it was wrong ... truth is truth. ]

In Reply #176, I wrote:

There are a million directions in which evolution can go and you guys are picking one direction and saying, Why didn't this happen?

Today you wrote:

I wonder how many times the genetic "dice" have been thrown in the history of the world?  Seems like we would surely have seen pink elephants or flying pigs by now.

It's amusing, but that doesn't sound like someone who is "trying to understand." Just saying. [ Guilty again.  That was supposed to be humorous ... but at the same time point out how, dare I say, silly the evolution  "so called science" appears to me.  It appears much more of a stretch in logic than the creation account in the Bible.  I'm waiting for some solid proof from you guys.  And, I am an engineer steeped in science by training, not a country bumpkin that has never been more than 5 miles from home in the deep woods.  For what it's worth, I too used to be a cool-aid drinker (sorry, that was snarky, but it is true) of the evolution hypothesis.  Then I saw the light (possible humor alert). ]

Also, I think most people who accept evolutionary theory bristle a bit when you talk about "faith in" evolution. At least, I do. [ Why?  I certainly don't when the evolutionists say I'm off my rocker for believing in the Biblical account. ] I accept the theory of gravity, and based on both observation and experience I accept that every time I let go of a rock it will fall to the ground because of gravity. This is not quite the same as belief in God or Jesus.  [ A falling rock (or whatever term one wishes to use to describe the phenomena of it falling) is easily provable by the scientific method ... evolution and religion, not so much - my opinion.  I will say though, to me, there is far more evidence for Creation than evolution if one really wishes to be objective about digging up the facts, observations, eye witness accounts, etc. as discussed in the Religion thread.]

[rickb]

Moda, I edited one of your sentences for you.  You're welcome. 

All study of evolution origins is doing, as in all real science, is to understand reality. Perhaps one day we will stumble upon God evolution. Until then, though, we shouldn't assume he it exists just because something appears irreducibly complex it's the only purely naturalistic theory we can think of right now. If we were to stop there, we'd still think we were the center of the universe.

Ah, but the difference is if you follow through with scientific methodology and any actual evidence contradicts the theory of evolution you happily modify it to fit the new evidence or even throw it out.  It seems to me actual evidence has contradicted numerous religious assertions - but still, large segments of the world's population cling to religious beliefs. 

If it can be proven that life (and each individual species) was created by God, I think scientists would be quite happy with that outcome.

However, the converse seems to me entirely improbable.  For example, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for having the temerity to insist the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa and that the stars in the sky were really no different than the sun.

It seems to me science happily, well, evolves - but religious folks go to extreme lengths to protect their dogmatic beliefs.

The issue here is really dogmatism.  In ancient Greek times, Hippasus was allegedly drowned for discovering that the square root of 2 is irrational (upsetting the Pythagoreans, who believed any number could be expressed as a/b where a and b are integers). 

The point here is that if you're dogmatic in your beliefs, then no amount of evidence will cause you to change.  This is the essence of religion, and the antithesis of science.

[stone]

Desert, I also like your analogy of genetic code being like software that gets modified and tinkered with rather than re-written afresh for each task.

You say that you see that as supporting a non-evolutionary creator who chooses to reuse code much like any software engineer would.

Where I struggle with your reasoning is how you explain why changes in the code incrementally build up as you go from closely related to distantly related forms of life. If a creator just had a tool box of code to dip into at will; why would the creator not make  jumps -using some yeast code in a cat or whatever rather than always modifying the code from the most closely related species?

I just saw something on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics

The techniques of cladistics, and sometimes the terminology, have been successfully applied in other disciplines: for example, to determine the relationships between the surviving manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales,[7] or also between 53 manuscripts of the Sanskrit Charaka Samhita.[8]

Would you also refute the evidence that those copies of Canterbury Tales had been copied from each other in the historical sequence that the analysis of the incremental changes implied?

You also say that the Cambrian explosion doesn't make sense in terms of evolution. To me it does because multicellular life had just developed and there were suddenly a myriad of opportunities for lifeforms to occupy. It was a bit like when motor cars were first invented in the late 1800s. Then motor cars rapidly developed all sorts of forms with electric, steam or internal combustion engines and various configurations of wheels and controls. Once a successful design is established, then that occupies the niche and is harder to shift. Before then it is anyone's game and so all sorts of forms get tried out.
You say that the Cambrian explosion happened too rapidly to be explained by evolution. Are you aware of the extremely rapid evolution of cichlid fish in recent years? http://www.news.leiden.edu/news/super-f ... ution.html.
We are all familiar with how antibiotic resistance develops in microbes. Is that not also a case of rapid evolution?

[dualstow]

Desert, I also like your analogy of genetic code being like software that gets modified and tinkered with rather than re-written afresh for each task.

You say that you see that as supporting a non-evolutionary creator who chooses to reuse code much like any software engineer would.

Where I struggle with your reasoning is how you explain why changes in the code incrementally build up as you go from closely related to distantly related forms of life. If a creator just had a tool box of code to dip into at will; why would the creator not make  jumps -using some yeast code in a cat or whatever rather than always modifying the code from the most closely related species?
...

That's a good question. I don't understand why a designer would be the most parsimonious explanation.

[moda0306]

And to your point about the eye, when you say "evolutionists scramble about," I'm assuming you mean, like scientists have done at dozens of times in history, they see an odd phenomenon and they seek to figure it out on a natural level rather than ASSUMING that God just made the earth in 7 days? 

No, that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about uncovering data that does not support a theory, and then trying to force the data to "fit" the theory.

I haven't seen such attempts, yet.  Once we get into the most "sciency" aspect of intelligent design, it all really boils down to assertions of irreducible complexity of certain things (eyes, flagella on a bacteria, etc), and then I've seen people who I deem to have done their homework refute these assertions... the one on flagella being particularly detailed (the eye one less so). 

Obviously, when we layman are trying to determine "the truth," at some point we have to accept the statement of someone.  For all I know, the universe could be twisting around the earth in some sort of divine mystery, but I accept that if this were the case, 99.999999% of people who have an obvious bias towards discovering scientific TRUTH wouldn't all be agreeing that the universe, in fact, does NOT spin around the Earth, and most of it at its PRESENT state is relatively squarely based in math & physics (obvously, the existence of the universe in the first place presents a bit of a quandry, not to mention the gravitatonal expansion question


Here's a couple of links worth reading considering the consensus of scientists on this subject...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... ent_design



And of course, they COULD be wrong.  Science has been wrong before.  But let's see if "intellignet design" is a valid hypothesis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution


A few quotes from both:

In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.

There are an infinite number of cacophony assertions out there.  Anyone can make one of these assertions, but we have to have a SYSTEM of weeding things out, and it usually puts the burden of proof (or at least analysis/evidence) on someone making a positive claim about something.  Science attempts to best-model this process, so we can discover truths rather than simply hear bogus assertions.  We, as NON-scientists (at least in some of these more obscure scientific arenas), have got to decide how we take on that information. 

As far as I can tell, evolutionary science has tried its best given limited ability and resources (it's not exactly profitable in the private sector to understand that we all came from a single-celled organism) to discover the truth, and a lot of anti-evolutionists have asked a lot of loaded questions without actually wanting to hear the answers/theories.  They just don't like having to switch their beliefs (just as I'm sure many atheists cringe at the idea of having to admit that their might be a God.  We seek to be consistent with ourselves and our most-valued peers.)

But we, as individuals, have as much individual ability to parse through theories on evolution as we do theories on relativity or the temp of the center of the sun.  When a science book tells you "scientists believe the center of the sun is 60 billion degrees farenheit (not sure if this is right), we accept it.  But how could they possibly KNOW that!?  We have NO way of knowing much about how they decipher this without also having to read a bunch of unverifiable stuff about science that's even more gibberish to us, and even harder for us to verify.  Simply put, if the scientific community is as corrupt as anti-evolutionists claim, we're in DEEP SHIT.  We have NO way of knowing if most of this stuff is true, and we're trusting groups where 95%-99.9% of people are either too stupid or corrupt to be honest about the scientific process as it applies to their theories.

I have to TAKE ON FAITH that most of their assertions are sound, simply because 1) I can't jump in and analyze data for itself, and 2) the science "industry" has done more than any other "industry" (especially religious industries) to put together a SYSTEM designed to "call out someone's bull$hit" about reality.  Sure, this group probably gets a bit high on itself (probably because it sorta deserves to), and of course they make mistakes, but if they are as corrupt as you guys are asserting, what other theories do I have to try to analyze?  There are thousands of things about biology, physics, chemistry, etc that I don't fully understand how to test myself, and I've trusted the "science industry" to tell me the truth.  Shit, maybe my financial calculator is lying to me, too!  I think I'll abandon the PP and go with the Jim Kramer stock-pick of the week.

Doesn't this scare you guys at all?  Between AGW and evolution, we have scientists borderline LYING to us to prop up their industry!!!  What else do we have to question?

[l82start]

the most difficult and somehow frightening  thought for humans to hold in their head seems to be  [glow=red,2,300]"I DON'T KNOW"[/glow] i wonder why that is? evolution is sound in some parts, needs work in some parts, and may be wrong in some parts. Maybe i have internalized agnosticism/model agnosticism to deeply but i am not in the least bit bothered by "i don't know". AGW, the nature of god, and any number of other aspects of existence and nature of the universe "i don't know" or "i don't know for sure, but at this time it seems to me" is the answer that fits best.
 
I tend to split things up into 4 categories
The unknowable, things i cant possibly know and don't feel any worries or stress about not knowing 
The knowable things i can know or be certain enough about that i can use that knowledge to make my way around in the world.
The unknown things that can be known that i (or possibly everybody) don't know yet. 
The indescribable things that can be known but transcend language symbols and art, the direct experience that language symbols and art point towards but but can never wholly transmit

or to restate, evolution falls into the categories of knowable and unknown, some of it works some of it may be wrong and some may get corrected or improved or discovered..

why is that so hard to accept?

[moda0306]

the most difficult and somehow frightening  thought for humans to hold in their head seems to be  [glow=red,2,300]"I DON'T KNOW"[/glow] i wonder why that is? evolution is sound in some parts, needs work in some parts, and may be wrong in some parts. Maybe i have internalized agnosticism/model agnosticism to deeply but i am not in the least bit bothered by "i don't know". AGW, the nature of god, and any number of other aspects of existence and nature of the universe "i don't know" or "i don't know for sure, but at this time it seems to me" is the answer that fits best.
 
I tend to split things up into 4 categories
The unknowable, things i cant possibly know and don't feel any worries or stress about not knowing 
The knowable things i can know or be certain enough about that i can use that knowledge to make my way around in the world.
The unknown things that can be known that i (or possibly everybody) don't know yet. 
The indescribable things that can be known but transcend language symbols and art, the direct experience that language symbols and art point towards but but can never wholly transmit

or to restate, evolution falls into the categories of knowable and unknown, some of it works some of it may be wrong and some may get corrected or improved or discovered..

why is that so hard to accept?

l82start,

There's plenty of people willing to say "I don't know."  But "I don't know" in a vacuum is just as pointless as "I know, so listen to me," in a vacuum.

There seem to me to be three aspects of knowledge:

- Figuring out what it is we truly know versus don't know, and everything in between (eg, what we THINK is the case but don't know for sure).

- Discovering the best process of developing that knowledge, and weeding out processes that simply don't work (eg, I read it in a book, and therefore it is true)

- Deciding whether or not to continue to develop knowledge in an area, or whether we've tapped some sort of natural extremity of it.  (eg, Newtonian physics used to be "perfect" for what we needed to observe using physics.  Turns out there was more to it, and we needed to dive deeper).


The definition of a scientific theory is this:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.

1) This is inductive.  It is not a perfect proof.  God could have us all strapped into the Matrix.  We could all be multiple personalities of a guy who snorted too much unicorn horn powder.  These would be almost impossible to prove given the natural world that has exposed itself to us so far.  There are areas of science (AGW, evolution, certain astro/particle physics) that are VERY difficult to test.  We can't do numerous controlled experiments on them the same way we can do with gravity.

2) It uses a scientific method.  It attempts to collect data and share every observation and finding with a bunch of other dudes (and women) who take great pride in picking apart other people's work, whether for the sake of their ego, or for "science," or for money, or whatever.

If we are going to go with the "I don't know" attitude on evolution, that's perfectly ok (in fact there's plenty I don't know about it, and certain things certainly DO appear to be irreducibly complex in nature... they appear to be a product of "intelligent design," like a complex machine), but we have to decide what the PROCESS should be once we've stated "I don't know."  We can continue to apply the scientific method, which is superb in its ability to discover physical realities, or we can allow non-scientific hypotheses equal footing in the conversation.  We can allow any assertion in because "science doesn't know."  This is where "intelligent design" is at.  It pretends to be science, but doesn't obey any of the rules that have allowed science to make so many amazing discoveries (unless you think they're lying liars about all those discoveries).  It just says, "look, this is more like a wrist watch than a rock, so it must be designed by a creator."  This is really all they have... the irreducible complexity (and to some degree specified complexity) argument against evolution.  There are some details in there, but it usually boils down to "this is too complex to occur naturally over hundreds of millions of years."  Therefore, they say, it must be the work of a creator.

This is the same anti-knowledge that has been going on for centuries, even WITHIN the scientific community.  I agree that it is up to evolutionists to work their asses off to try to describe how seemingly-complex systems resulted from tiny changes from basic organisms, but because of how difficult it is to look that far back, I'm going to accept that this could take some time.  But the "this doesn't make natural sense, so it must be God" argument can always be used, and has, to the detriment of knowledge.  Things that just didn't seem possible based on the rules of the natural world as we knew them to be at the time, eventually made PERFECT sense given a new, or more nuanced model. 

And even when science is "technically wrong," given a more limited understanding of the natural world (Newtonian physics), it can 1) still be phenomenally useful, and 2) is eventually debunked not by the "intelligent design" community of thinkers, but of other scientists that dug deeper into the natural world that we would/could before.

Sorry to keep dipping into religion on-and-off here.  But I think it's important to juxtapose what science is, and its imperfections, rather than the alternative, which is just either making made-up statements, believing someone else's, or trusting a feeling in your gut that tells you that "X Religion" has it correct.

[Lowe]

I don't know how the universe was formed, but I don't make up stories about it.

You religious guys are, as I understand it, all grown men.  Please act like it.  This does not have to do with your lack of knowledge about mysterious topics.  It has to do with your need to justify your parents.

[moda0306]

I don't know how the universe was formed, but I don't make up stories about it.

You religious guys are, as I understand it, all grown men.  Please act like it.  This does not have to do with your lack of knowledge about mysterious topics.  It has to do with your need to justify your parents.

Lowe,

To be fair, some of the religious dudes here came to their faith completely independent of their parents (or it certainly would appear so).  I'm a lot more skeptical of folks who feel a strong bond to their tight-knit community since birth, and I am pretty confident that this drives religious assertions to a significant degree in this country, but that doesn't mean some of the members here haven't "found God."  It just means that they experienced something that you and I haven't.

And not to throw out a false dichotomy, but that experience could be one of a few things:

1) A delusion (sadly, and a tad disrespectfully (sounding disrespectful... not trying to be), I tend to think this is what it is),

2) A lie,

and

3) An actual connection to our Creator.


If it is the latter, one could assume how difficult this is to describe.  This is why I try to dig into that moreso than the assertions of the Bible, a lot of which I find to be ludicrous, and they're pretty unprovable anyway, so I wish to understand how these folks developed their faith.  Of course, even faith or revelation requires a subjective interpretation of reality, which is the point at which I don't understand how people can be so certain that their interpretation is correct, but they still are left with the near impossible task of trying to describe their connection to a creator, which you and I lack.

So I wouldn't get too hard on them.  Perhaps, to them, this is not "made up," but instead an unbelievable connection between their soul and something so transcendent that we can't even measure it scientifically.  This is possible, and if it is the case, I can understand why they wan't to abandon science on certain topics... it simply can't describe the most important interpretation of reality that they experience.

[l82start]

l82start,

There's plenty of people willing to say "I don't know."  But "I don't know" in a vacuum is just as pointless as "I know, so listen to me," in a vacuum.

There seem to me to be three aspects of knowledge:

- Figuring out what it is we truly know versus don't know, and everything in between (eg, what we THINK is the case but don't know for sure).

- Discovering the best process of developing that knowledge, and weeding out processes that simply don't work (eg, I read it in a book, and therefore it is true)

- Deciding whether or not to continue to develop knowledge in an area, or whether we've tapped some sort of natural extremity of it.  (eg, Newtonian physics used to be "perfect" for what we needed to observe using physics.  Turns out there was more to it, and we needed to dive deeper).


The definition of a scientific theory is this:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.

it hopefully isn't being said in a vacuum,  your quoted post above is what i am trying to describe when i say "known" or "use that knowledge to make my way around in the world." it is predictive. the fact that they can and will dig deeper, some of it could be wrong, is what i mean by "unknown" evolution falls into both categories. but the belief evolution is absolutely right and creationism is absolutely nuts... and the belief creation is absolutely right and evolution is absolutely nuts... seem to stem from some difficulty some people have with things falling into that unknown category, or having to sort out the known from the unknown in complex topics like evolution.

[kka]

Moda, I edited one of your sentences for you.  You're welcome. 

All study of evolution origins is doing, as in all real science, is to understand reality. Perhaps one day we will stumble upon God evolution. Until then, though, we shouldn't assume he it exists just because something appears irreducibly complex it's the only purely naturalistic theory we can think of right now. If we were to stop there, we'd still think we were the center of the universe.

Ah, but the difference is if you follow through with scientific methodology and any actual evidence contradicts the theory of evolution you happily modify it to fit the new evidence or even throw it out.  It seems to me actual evidence has contradicted numerous religious assertions - but still, large segments of the world's population cling to religious beliefs. 

When it comes to the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the explosion of life forms in the Cambrian period, the evidence does contradict the theory of evolution, but it has not been thrown out (yet).  The cutting edge research in these areas is being done by intelligent design theorists. It won't be easy to unseat the entrenched dogma, simply because it has become a religion masquerading as science.

If it can be proven that life (and each individual species) was created by God, I think scientists would be quite happy with that outcome.

That is essentially what the latest scientific discoveries are demonstrating, but rather than acknowledge it or address the merits of the arguments, many scientists instead are all too happy to attempt to destroy the careers of those willing to examine and follow the evidence.

http://tinyurl.com/l8mxloa

However, the converse seems to me entirely improbable.  For example, Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for having the temerity to insist the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa and that the stars in the sky were really no different than the sun.

Not true.  Another myth perpetuated by ostensibly well-informed scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson.

http://tinyurl.com/o6mcejr

It seems to me science happily, well, evolves - but religious folks go to extreme lengths to protect their dogmatic beliefs.

The issue here is really dogmatism.  In ancient Greek times, Hippasus was allegedly drowned for discovering that the square root of 2 is irrational (upsetting the Pythagoreans, who believed any number could be expressed as a/b where a and b are integers). 

The point here is that if you're dogmatic in your beliefs, then no amount of evidence will cause you to change.  This is the essence of religion, and the antithesis of science.

Yes, and now Darwinism has become the entrenched dogma that Must Not Be Questioned.

[moda0306]

Kka,

Darwinism surely can be questioned, but done so using the scientific method, not, as you say, dogma religion masquerading as science, which is exactly what ID is. It's not a scientific theory. It doesn't hold up to the rigor of the scientific method.

If the scientific community is so corrupt as to put a dogmatic view behind evolution, what else do we need to question?  Relativity?  Subatomic physics?  Astronomy?  Have you really parsed through all the data, or simply listened to the rebuttals of ID folks and stopped there?

ID is the astrology of the science world.  It's interesting that you attribute this to evolution. If macro-evolution didn't occur, I wonder, why did God put the skulls of the creatures that likely bridged the gap between other primates and humans in the earth?  To fool with us?

On that note, I wonder if Neanderthals had souls...

[moda0306]

Um... Desert, you do realize that article strongly supports evolution, right?

[Mountaineer]

Um... Desert, you do realize that article strongly supports evolution, right?

I liked the link between tax evaders and Neanderthals myself.  Makes sense, solid as the rock of Gibraltar.  I think I might get me one of those wooly RINOs too  ...

As for moda's comment about souls, do you thing the old Sam & Dave song (1967) would be quite the catchy tune if it were "Neanderthal man"?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Evolution isn't a philosophy. Evolution is a scientific theory recognized by the vast majority of the scientific community as such. Intelligent design is what could be considered a "philosophy."  The philosophy of not wanting to figure out how something could have gotten so complex without an intelligent creator.

And what is this marketing you speak of?  The vast majority of scientists believe that based on obviously limited historical data, it is the best description for the progression of life on earth.  Obviously there are holes in their understanding. My liberal, evolution-believing biology teacher said as much. But what is the actual propaganda you speak of?  What is the actual "false marketing?"

[Xan]

Evolution isn't a philosophy. Evolution is a scientific theory recognized by the vast majority of the scientific community as such. Intelligent design is what could be considered a "philosophy."  The philosophy of not wanting to figure out how something could have gotten so complex without an intelligent creator.

Just interjecting real quick here to say that the sciences are a branch of philosophy.  PhD anyone?  You can't "do science" without a whole host of unprovable assumptions and axioms.