Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[C1ay]

You have certainly redefined Creationism. Feel free to do so, but it does add to to work of responding to any questions in an articulate fashion from ID advocates.

 

Not at all. Are you claiming the word can only mean one thing, i.e. creation as defined by genesis in the bible?

 

Basically you either believe that life was created or you don't. Any claim that it was can not be proven or even tested scientifically and for that reason it should not be taught as science. Can you somehow make the case that a faith in creation is science?

[TeleMad]

Not at all. Are you claiming the word can only mean one thing, i.e. creation as defined by genesis in the bible?

 

Basically you either believe that life was created or you don't.

 

Do you believe that nature created life? If so, then by using the same stretching-of-definitions method you used, someone could label you a Creationist too. Heck, everyone would be Creationist.

 

Why are you so gung-ho to label Biochemist a Creationist????

[C1ay]

Why are you so gung-ho to label Biochemist a Creationist????

 

I'm not. Biochemist claimed that ID did not rely on creation. I believe that it does. I don't really care if anyone wants to believe in ID and/or creation. My only point is that doing so is philosophy, not science. I believe this thread is about what should or should not be taught in the classroom. All I have said is that the science classroom should be limited to science and these other philosophical beliefs should fall under philosophy.

[Biochemist]

I've been through this with others here just a week or so ago. I started off as a Young-Earth Creationist, then gave up a young-Earth and changed to a hard-core anti-evolutionist, then finally graduated up to being an IDist, which is where I stayed for many years ... before becoming a full-fledged evolutionist. I've got hunderds of posts at ARN and at Infidels, and at other "evolution vs. creation" discussion forums, where I argued for ID. I've watched at least 4 ARN videos on ID and have read at least half a dozen books on ID. I know ID.

...

It is largely agreed that intelligent design is not science. Just because something is based on scientific concepts doesn't make it science (you've got physicists that claim there is scientific evidence of UFOs, but that doesn't make UFOlogy science).

 

I appreciate you taking me through this sequence. There is little doubt that there is a large body of work required to develop ID as a science. The same would have been said for quantum mechanics when relativity was prevailing.

 

It is fair to suggest that ID at present is a mostly set of testable hypotheses. My core argument is that the hypotheses are both credible, and testable. That fact that few have tested them yet does not bother me a lot. It DOES bother me that individuals suggest that untested hypotheses are not science.

 

One could argue that the long list of interesting anomalies in the support for the macro-natural-selection arguments are an argument in favor of ID. I don't think that is valid. However, I also am a little uncomfortable with the use of "evolution" to describe the current state of thought, when it is so far at odds with the thesis as originated by Darwin. Evolutionists tend to revise their theory and not give it a new name. I regard that as disingenuous.

 

All that said, I regard the work related to ID as part of a normal process to patch holes in an existing theory through additional research. Evolution (as a body of thought) is a pretty heterogeneous set of ideas. Certainly more so than relativity (for example). I think the heterogeneity itself causes a problem. There is a degree of richness that we retain by keeping ideas in buckets. We routinely discuss Newtonian physics, relativity and quantum mechanics as related refinements on significant earlier work, even though some of the boundaries between these knowledge sets are vague, and some later developments overturned earlier assumptions. One could argue that the refinement of the issues potentially addressed by ID is worth a new label. ID is as good as any.

 

Take this hypothetical: Imagine if biochemists found a biochemical pathway for DNA replication that showed a naturally occurring process where DNA would automatically create 20 new phyla every 1,000,000 generations. Wild stuff like this happens in cells. 3T3 rat lung fibroblasts stop dividing at 50 generations. It is a pretty complex process, but it stops at 50 generations like clockwork. My hypothetical million-generation-explosion might nicely explain the post Cambrian explosion, but it cranks up the degree of complexity imputed into DNA design by a couple orders of magnitude. Would this discovery be an argument in support of evolution or ID? You could easily argue with way. But we should certainly have the argument.

[Biochemist]

Can you somehow make the case that a faith in creation is science?

 

No, merely that any assumption obout origin (of the universe, of life, of self knowledge, etc.) is a postulate. I do think it is productive to debate the relative merits of separate sets of postulates. I think we might call that philosohy. Within the domain of philosophy, some sets of postulates are theistic. We might call those religion.

 

But a postulate is a postulate. Any assertion that the world was created without a Creator is as "failthful" as an assertion that the Creator was primary.

[Biochemist]

I believe this thread is about what should or should not be taught in the classroom.

 

Thanls C1ay for bringing us back to that actual topic. As I stated above, I think the postualtes underlying evolution are as "faithful" as the postulates underlying ID. These is little doubt that ID needs a lot more work, but it should certainly be taught in the classroom (along with evolution). In this context, ID is a much more rigorous contruct than Creationism for classroom presentation.

[Biochemist]

Also, IDers think the creator is still tweaking the "design" in which case all our scientific theories are wrong.

 

I don't think ID folks are homogeneous, but I don't think this element is commonly held? Other opinions?

[paultrr]

1) the core argument of the Intelligent Design folks is that the numerous examples of irreducible complexity (i.e., complex life-form structures or processes that are not favored incrementally) make the odds of species-to-species variation through serial natural selection implausable. No one is obligated to agree with this, but it is a credible, evaluatable argument. I personally believe that if evolutionists do not respect this line of thinking, they are obviating the scientific method.

2) Per the scientific method, it is not necessary to offer a theoretical alternative in order to refute (or critique) a theory.

 

Actually, in both arguments you use you present a poor understanding of not only all the ends and outs about evolution as well, as what scientific process really is all about. One tends to always use not only observational evidence and experiment under proper scientific methods as well as presenting a solid alternative. In the first case there is so little at present fully understood about the actual time period under which life first evolved and so little actual factual evidence contrary wise to it as far as intelligent design goes or creationism that neither at the present can really be applied under proper scientific methods. At least as far as those methods are generally utilized.

 

By what eactly do you define as crediable? If there is so much proof this universe is designed by intelligence instead of making laughable unsupported statements present the real scientific supported evidence of such in the format normally used within scientific presentations. You started in one point above to do exactly that. Yet, you while making a statement that perhaps there might or might not be actual observational evidence for you simply make the statement and leave out any real evidence for that statement in support of that position. That's not proper science to begin with and seems as close as one can get to the faith based creationsts point of view which in itself lacks anything for support except the Bible and one's own belief.

 

No, evolution is not the only theory out there. It is true that there are those who hold to intelligent design or a first cause who also have the scientific credentials to at least try and present their position which you at the present have not even begun to properly achieve. One thing might also be remember both evolution and intelligent design as normally presented by those of the real scientific community are theories. Neither of these theories can be considered proved in the proper sence of the words.

 

In science of this type we do not prove a theory like one does in math. We decern weither there is experimental and observational or historical evidence out of nature itself and let this be our evidence in either support or rejection of a theory. One trouble with intelligent design is that far enough back one still is left with a theory with no eyewitness trying to fill in the gaps which is the usual problem most creationists raise in objection to older theistic evolution(Modern Intelligent design is the same) and evolution in general. Evolution on the otherhand actually does present its own eyewitness in the record from the earth itself which to properly present would require a lot more space and time than is allowed here. The eyewitness is not some vague God of the gaps, nor some pie in the sky Creator of undefined character and nature, nor is it an unprovable solution offered to answer certain questions that still plague evolutionary theory. Its nature itself we look to for answers, accept as the witness, and even if there was some intelligence that started life or designed this universe there would be observational evidence supporting such. Untill that evidence is forthcoming in a presentation that at the very least is as factually presented as that of evolution then in essence the idea will be rejected by most of the community of scientists.

[paultrr]

And 93% of science professors - in one of the worst possible places for support of evolution ... Ohio - agreed with Freethinker's statement.

 

If you are talking about say grade school and HS teachers or science that's true and not true. There are good ones out there who do try and present not only what's required in the courses, but, also leave room for proper debate. There are also decent higher level professors out there.

[TeleMad]

As I stated above, I think the postualtes underlying evolution are as "faithful" as the postulates underlying ID.

 

What do you mean by that ... that evolution requires as much faith to believe in as ID? If so, are you serious?

 

Biochemist: These is little doubt that ID needs a lot more work, but it should certainly be taught in the classroom (along with evolution).

 

No it shouldn't. Evolution is taught in science class. Until ID becomes a recognized science, if that ever happens, it doesn't belong in science class. If ID is going to be taught, it should be in philosophy and/or religion classes.

[TeleMad]

If you are talking about say grade school and HS teachers...

 

Nope. Go back and read the previous posts.

 

paultrr: There are good ones out there who do try and present not only what's required in the courses, but, also leave room for proper debate.

 

There is no scientific theory that opposes evolution. There is no Creation/ID vs. evolution debate that should be held in a science class.

 

 

PS: Has anyone noticed that IDists write the most long-winded posts?

[Biochemist]

By what eactly do you define as crediable? If there is so much proof this universe is designed by intelligence instead of making laughable unsupported statements present the real scientific supported evidence of such in the format normally used within scientific presentations. .....

That's not proper science to begin with and seems as close as one can get to the faith based creationsts point of view which in itself lacks anything for support except the Bible and one's own belief...

It is true that there are those who hold to intelligent design or a first cause who also have the scientific credentials to at least try and present their position which you at the present have not even begun to properly achieve. One thing might also be remember both evolution and intelligent design as normally presented by those of the real scientific community are theories. Neither of these theories can be considered proved in the proper sence of the words. ...

We decern weither there is experimental and observational or historical evidence out of nature itself and let this be our evidence in either support or rejection of a theory. One trouble with intelligent design is that far enough back one still is left with a theory with no eyewitness trying to fill in the gaps which is the usual problem most creationists raise in objection to older theistic evolution...

Evolution on the otherhand actually does present its own eyewitness in the record from the earth itself which to properly present would require a lot more space and time than is allowed here. ....

Its nature itself we look to for answers, accept as the witness, and even if there was some intelligence that started life or designed this universe there would be observational evidence supporting such....

 

I have to admit that the multiple near-stream-of-consciousness points above have some merit. But I suspect you recall that some of the early assertions of Darwin (like the apparent bilateral symmetry relationships between phyla suggesting that fins evolved into legs) were initially considered obsrvationally sound and yet have been roundly overturned by both the fossil record and the dearth of serial genetic instances that could credibly be regarded at sequential.

 

I also suspect that you are aware that many educators (perhaps most) do not treat evolution as a theory, but as a fact. I think we ought to regard that approach as tendentious at best. A more severe interpretation might be that educators are biased and play to that bias.

 

My point still stands; the prima facie evidence for intelligent design based solely on the massive complexity of biological systems (which was my previous train of thought) is a credible basis for investigation. The crude statistical assertions that I have seen to date are not particularly strong, but they are indicative of the value of further research.

 

The behavior of the scientific community to reject ID as "laughable" merely because the evidence is currently weak is appalling, as is the continued use of discredited examples of natural selection to prove a point in high school text books.

 

It was gracious of you to admit that evolution is not proven. Notably, the "eyewitness record" that you referenced (by which I assume you meant the fossil record) is not a particularly strong endorsement for branching of phyla. If the eyewitness record is weak after 100 years, perhaps it is not "laughable" to consider statistical analysis of biochemical systems to infer intelligent design.

[Biochemist]

What do you mean by that ... that evolution requires as much faith to believe in as ID? If so, are you serious?

 

I am absolutely serious. An even handed review of data would allow for either theistic or a non-theistic interpretation. You can either postulate that the creator was available (and hence might have been involved) or that the creator was not available as part of the process. Either is a postulate and equally based on faith. In fact, you could reasonably argue that the only scientists that could credibly review the facts without bias are the theists, since they have the option (but not an obligation) to include a creator-mediated solution in the assessment.

 

The lack of closure on key points of the evolutionary model (as reflected in 100 years of paleontology) and the attempted incorporation of ideas into the evolutionary model that are fundamentally at odds with the core of the model (e.g., punctuated equilibrium) are scientifically unsound.

 

Add to this the accepted notion of using discredited natural selection examples in academic texts, and we have a model of bias that is much like the middle-age Catholic church.

 

Essentially, the evolution discussion feels a lot like the old saw (Clarence Day, I believe) that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". Or perhaps the Paul Simon version- "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

[Biochemist]

There is no scientific theory that opposes evolution. There is no Creation/ID vs. evolution debate that should be held in a science class.

 

This is certainly not a debate. There are open issues in the data set that is used to support evolution that could be addressed by ID. I am at a loss to understand why exclusion of this discussion is not generally perceived as garden-variety bias. I recognize that the classic Creationist model (e.g., using Genesis 1-2 as a defense) is inconsistent with the scientific method. But offering complementary or conflicting theories (e.g., rudimentary probabilistic analyses in support of irreducible complexity) in the face of inconsistent data is certainly not at odds with the scientific method. What in the world are these folks afraid of? Confusing the students? Give them some credit.

[TeleMad]

TeleMad: What do you mean by that ... that evolution requires as much faith to believe in as ID? If so, are you serious?

 

Biochemist: I am absolutely serious.

 

Good grief. Are you SURE you're not a Creationist? I'm starting to have my doubts too.

 

Biochemist: An even handed review of data would allow for either theistic or a non-theistic interpretation.

 

Nonsense. There is empirical evidence of evolution, natural selection, speciation, etc. There is NO empirical evidence of a God. To try to claim that the scientifically verified process of evolution and the religious, purely faith based beliefs of Creationism/ID should be on a level playing ground in science is laughable. Might as well say that astrology and astronomy should be on the same level and that two-sided debates of 'astronomy vs. astrology' should be held in science class.

[Biochemist]

To try to claim that the scientifically verified process of evolution and the religious, purely faith based beliefs of Creationism/ID should be on a level playing ground in science is laughable.

 

It does not appear that you understand my last post. Contending that God does not exist is as faith centric as contending that he does. How could you rationally suggest otherwise? And we are not trying to prove the existing of God. That would be for another forum. The ID folks are suggesting that certain systems would probabistically have needed a designer to be built so fast or at all.

[TeleMad]

What in the world are these folks afraid of? Confusing the students?

 

No, MISLEADING the students. Oh, and WASTING valuable science class time with religiously motivated "theories".

 

If ID is to be taught, it belongs in philosophy and/or religious classes.