Author Topic: Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian  (Read 6754 times)

Offline Silat

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2536
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #210 on: August 22, 2005, 05:46:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by bustr
In turn your statement saying Faith leaves out all other possibilites, but, science as the alter to it sees all possibilites, is a limiting statement of your definition of science, in that it is limiting "one" possiblility - Faith. After all it is your Faith in the scientific method that you are basing the fact of your statement.

Half of you folks in this thread get down right preachy and protaganistic over this faith thingy. You sure your antagonism isn't giving you a blind spot in your self proclaimed "open" minds? You almost give the impression that you are willing to persecute what, beleivers in Faith? Christians? You guys BBQ'd any christians lately? I bet by now Seagoon is smelling kinda hickory like.....:)


ID is religion no matter how you slice it.

Seagoon is best smoked with apple wood as hickory gives him a bitter taste.
+Silat
"The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them." — Maya Angelou
"Conservatism offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." B. Disraeli
"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason."

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #211 on: August 22, 2005, 05:49:52 PM »
Bustr:

The scientific method requires logical proof.  One needs to back up hypothesis with evidence and experiment in order to achieve validity.

The whole basis of ID is that there is a larger cosmic omnipresence pushing things in a certain direction, intellegently. Intellegent Design assumes that there is a Designer.

Presently there is no logical proof of this concept.  The best that Neo-Creationists can neo-come up with is that they cannot concieve of a way that the Neo-Darwinian theory of neo-natural selection can neo-explain it.

The lack of a neo-explanation is their neo-proof.  This is not evidence or even neo-evidence that ID is a vaild explanation of neo-physical neo-phenomenon.

I have no faith in science, faith is a special concept.  I trust that science is showing the way to a better understanding of the way our neo-world neo-works.

Faith is an illogical belief.  A belief based entirely without evidence. "Blessed are those who have faith yet do not see"
Jesus himself knew the difference between faith and belief based on experment.  

I trust science because I have seen evidence, I have measured results.  I have no faith in science, as I needed evidence in order to accept concepts neo-revealed.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2005, 05:52:46 PM by Holden McGroin »
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Samiam

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #212 on: August 22, 2005, 05:50:57 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by bustr
After all it is your Faith in the scientific method that you are basing the fact of your statement.


There's no faith involved in the scientific method, which is driven by demonstrable, repeatable results.

You can't have faith in science. You can observe that something works or behaves in a manner that you predict -  demonstrating an understanding of it - or that it does not, demonstrating a lack of understanding.

If every time I prayed there was a predictable and demonstrable outcome (other than my own satisfaction), I could apply some science to my religion. As it is, the best I have is that God works in ways impossible for a human understand - eg. Faith.

When we put a satellite into orbit, there's no faith involved. No point where we simply must trust  that some mysterious forces we don't understand will get the bugger into space. Through science we know precisely what must happen in order to achieve orbit, and conversely we know exactly the specific orbit that will be achieved by applying a certain ammount of thrust to an eathbound object pointed in a certain direction.

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #213 on: August 22, 2005, 07:31:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Raider,

 My superintendent asked me to stick to the adopted curriculum - which does not include intelligent design theory - and I've done so. However, I have retained the freedom to mention intelligent design theory to curious students as another viewpoint used to explain life and its diversity.

The superintendent reminded me to remain neutral in my presentation, and gave me her backing.

We were on firm legal footing. Constitutional law allows this approach:

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is permissible to teach students about alternative scientific viewpoints and scientific criticism of prevailing theories.

And a June 2001Senate addendum to The No Child Left Behind Act states, "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of views that exist ...."

That, in my opinion, is what science is all about."

Doug Cowan is a veteran science teacher at Curtis Senior High School in University Place, Wash., where he teaches biology, physiology, and human anatomy.
------------------

- SEAGOON


1) They already have a process for proving theories wrong and it does not take place in a courtroom  or with legislation!

2)Its called the Theory of Evolution for a reason.

3)LoL See the part where he says "My superintendent asked me to stick to the adopted curriculum - which does not include intelligent design theory - and I've done so." He doesnt teach it. He only offers it if students ask...Big difference...

4)ID is not science and is in no shape or form a "theory". Point to me 1 peice of factual science in ID....

5)No child left behind just got hit with a constitutionality lawsuit in CT. Might be the end of that waste of money.

6)No problem with what this guy is teaching, because he IS NOT teaching intelligent design, he is however teaching the "flaws" of evolution and darwinism which is no problem. What I have a problem with is conjecture and the absolute lack of any proof that ID is anywhere close to a valid subject in science class.

Offline cpxxx

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #214 on: August 22, 2005, 08:18:08 PM »
Seagoon is obviously highly intelligent. The arguments he puts forward are cogent and plausible. Some of his criticism of evolutionary thought hits home. I can readily admit that evolution has flaws which reputable scientists and others have noted. It is even possible that at some time in the future the 'fact' of evolution will be overturned and replaced with something else.
So it is true of many creationists. Brilliant arguments, clever points and plausible explanations.

I've debated with creationists in other forums and found much the same thing. Highly intelligent people with brilliantly crafted arguments.

BUT

All they can offer as an alternative to evolution is a chapter from a book written thousands of years ago. This book says God created the world in six days. QED.

No argument, no dispute. There is no debate in creationist circles about whether fish were created on the first day or the third. No dispute about which came first horse or donkeys or just how all those cows avoided being eaten by the dinosaurs.


Seagoon, what I want from you is this without sophistry or waffle.
Just how can you with all your intelligence give so much credence to a story which quite obviously was written as a fable by someone who had absolutely no idea how the Earth or the universe came into being?

Would God cease to exist if only one chapter of the bible is proved to be inaccurate?

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #215 on: August 23, 2005, 12:04:02 PM »
Hi SamIam,

Quote
Originally posted by Samiam
There's no faith involved in the scientific method, which is driven by demonstrable, repeatable results.

You can't have faith in science. You can observe that something works or behaves in a manner that you predict -  demonstrating an understanding of it - or that it does not, demonstrating a lack of understanding.


Actually, many aspects of science rely on unprovable presupositions and inference.

Let me give you one minor example, the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program.

Seti uses radio telescopes to receive and then analyze electromagnetic signals to determine if any of them contain information. They assume that if they can find this information embedded in radio waves coming to the earth from space, that this would be evidence of intelligent life in the universe. No one in the scientifc community considers this to be a major leap of faith. However, there are actually hundreds of assumptions, presuppositions, and leaps of faith bound up in this program. I'll only discuss a few, first it presupposes that extraterrestrial life is possible on other planets and that biological life-forms would be similar enough to humans to be capable of communicating with them in an intelligible fashion, and so on. But aside from these presuppositions there is the critical assumption that if we received an information bearing message that the most likely explanation for it would be that it had been created by an intelligent life form.

In other words if we received a message which clearly said "Greetings Earth People" we wouldn't immediately dismiss the possibility that an alien intelligence had created it and set about determining how the radio waves formed themselves into such interesting patterns. In other words, we would begin by assuming that it was the result of Intelligent design unless and until it was proved otherwise.

Now in the case of DNA we have infinitely more information encoded than the simple "Greetings Earth People" we have literally millions of pieces of information stored in specifically arranged sequences of nucleotides. The arangement of these nucleotides into complex specific information bearing structures cannot be explained by an appeal to blind chance - even spread over millions of years - as the probability of that is so close to zero as to be statistically irrelevant.

Additionally, chemistry provides us with no "self-ordering properties" that explain it, especially as there are no chemical bonds between the helix and the genetic instructions in the DNA molecule. Any such self-ordering principle would also produce uniformity, as it does in inorganic chemicals, and such uniformity would be disastrous in the DNA molecule which depends on asymetrical and irregular ordering of (A)denine, (T)hymine, (C)ytosine, and (G)uanine in order to produce the vast number of variations that are found in organic life. To use an analogy, just like the message "Greetings Earth People" depends upon specific, non-random and deliberate, ordering in order to convey information so too the DNA molecule depends upon the same factors in order to convey information, and defies a materialistic explanation for this ordering.

The way evolutionism or materialism as faith affects the search for the origin of life is in its blind insistence that an intelligent pattern cannot be the result of intelligent design, because of its faith in the fact that there is no creator. It would be rather like digging up a pocketwatch and then being forced to exert all one's energy on creating hypotheses for the creation of the pocket watch, but never being allowed to even consider that it was the product   of a watchmaker (because watchmakers are impossible). So even though we cannot posit a materialistic explanation for the existence of highly organized information in DNA strands, we must continue to search for one endlessly since we take it on faith that Intelligent Design is impossible.

The SETI researchers should consider themselves blessed that they don't have to operate under the same rules, or their ability to establish the existence of Extraterrestial Intelligence would be rendered absolutely impossible.

- SEAGOON
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #216 on: August 23, 2005, 12:30:15 PM »
Seagoon,

Go bone up on the scientific method. "Presupposing" is called a "Hypothesis". It is a requirement of science not a drawback.

Offline Siaf__csf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #217 on: August 23, 2005, 01:04:55 PM »
The SETI program is nothing but a search, literally. Creationism is not comparable to it by far as it does not search or study, it teaches a highly naive model which repeats in several native cultures on earth. Based on blind faith with no scientific backing whatsoever. Creationists do try to use science like 'devil the bible' by digging up convenient holes in the theories. At the same time they completely ignore the thousandfold amount of data which directly speaks against creationism.

If I had to find a convenient way to explain the beginning of the world to a 3-year old it would be 'Then God created...' :rolleyes:

Of course I'd never do such a damage to my own child.

The assumption that DNA structures would be formed randomly is false. They formed due to smaller, much more probable combinations which linked together as larger structures. The combinations that were not good got killed. Survival of the fittest as is found in nature also today.

Even today genetic alterations create people with different intelligence. It also creates autistic, retarded, down, elephantitis etc. children who generally speaking have a very low chance of reproducing and thus eliminating them from the gene pool. Once in a while the genetic alterations can also hit a jackpot by altering the species in some beneficial way. One such alteration could be a specific resistance to a virus such as bird influenza which currently threatens the lives of billions of people.

Human kind is degrading itself by nurturing genetic disability, let alone let it breed - but that's another discussion.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2005, 01:13:52 PM by Siaf__csf »

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #218 on: August 23, 2005, 01:11:41 PM »
Seagoon,

The faith in the scientific method is, if we plug away long enough on DNA a quantifyable rational explanation will be discovered to the current inexplicable sequences. The scientific method stands us at the threshold of becomeing God ourselves. Why else is SciFi so seductive?

The common dream is a future where we command the forces of the universe ourselves as the result of conquering its secrets via the scientific method. But after all is said on done, what will we have really accomplished?

Being human we will tinker with everything. Possibley extend our physical bodies life span by milleniums. Cure all known diaseses, build transporters, star drives, augment our mental functions by 1000x with implants. But here I am demonstrating faith in the scientific method's eventual conquest of the universe.

In the present using the known and proven methods it is beleif in the scientific method. Beleiving the scientific method will grant us the secrets to the universe in the future is faith in the scientific method.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #219 on: August 23, 2005, 01:13:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
The way evolutionism or materialism as faith affects the search for the origin of life is in its blind insistence that an intelligent pattern cannot be the result of intelligent design, because of its faith in the fact that there is no creator.  


How can you justify this critique of Evolution or more importantly of science in general?    

Quote
The concluding words of "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.


If one makes an outstanding claim, one better have outstanding proof.

In March of 1989, the prospect of table top fusion of deuterium was put forward by respectable scientists of the University of Utah. (Fleishmann and Pons) It was supported by reports from other respectable scientists that they had been able to replicate those findings.

These initial claims, however, were soon met by counterclaims from equally respectable labs and investigators, to the effect that the initial findings could not be replicated.

SETI makes some assumptions, but if they ever get what they think would be a signal, the scientific community (if it behaves scientifically) would attempt to shoot as many holes in it as possible, looking for another explanation.
 
As an example, there was some speculation that Pulsars were a signal from intellegent life, but with peer review it was ruled out and further investigation showed it to be a natural phenomenon from rotating neutron stars.

Science is seperate from faith.  If one mixes faith and science, you screw up both.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #220 on: August 23, 2005, 02:05:27 PM »
Because gentelmen you hold your positions on faith that they are the correct position because you each have defined your personal beleif system on your faith in your position.

The scientist who declaires religious faith as so much hoowey because it cannot pass the scientific method test is taking the easy way out. Science has not proven or disproven God. The scientific method is relying on evidence over time to make the final proof. That is faith in the "method" because its a future expectation.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline Holden McGroin

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8591
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #221 on: August 23, 2005, 02:29:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by bustr
Science has not proven or disproven God. The scientific method is relying on evidence over time to make the final proof. That is faith in the "method" because its a future expectation.


Science cannot 'disprove' God.  You are getting closer to understanding.

The trust (not faith) in the method is based on evidence of it working so far and in so many differing applications.

Future expectation is in the behavior of the human practicing the science: the method corrects the behavior because the 'proof' needs to be corroborated by independent scientists who may have conflicting expectations.
Holden McGroin LLC makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information. Since humor, irony, and keen insight may be foreign to some readers, no warranty, expressed or implied is offered. Re-writing this disclaimer cost me big bucks at the lawyer’s office!

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #222 on: August 23, 2005, 02:32:11 PM »
And now, even Gravity is under attack  :rolleyes:

Quote

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

TOPEKA, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

Offline ChickenHawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #223 on: August 23, 2005, 03:26:27 PM »
Not sure if you serious or not but it's funny either way.

The Onion cracks me up.
Do not attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence, fear, ignorance or stupidity, because there are millions more garden variety idiots walking around in the world than there are blackhearted Machiavellis.

Offline Raider179

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2036
Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian
« Reply #224 on: August 23, 2005, 03:49:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Science cannot 'disprove' God.  You are getting closer to understanding.

The trust (not faith) in the method is based on evidence of it working so far and in so many differing applications.

Future expectation is in the behavior of the human practicing the science: the method corrects the behavior because the 'proof' needs to be corroborated by independent scientists who may have conflicting expectations.


I doubt you will ever convinvce ID/Creationist people about the need for testable evidence and science.