Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian

[Samiam]

Originally posted by bustr
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.

OK. Once again, by definition there's no faith involved in the scientific method.

From Websters:

faith:  Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Whereas science is exclusively concerned with material evidence and logical proof. You don't have faith in science. You rely on science because it is proven to be able to provide the food you eat, the safe water you drink and the computer networks you play on.

And there are plenty of scientists (real scientists, not ID poseurs) who do not declare religeous faith as hoowey. But they understand that religeous faith is just that and has no business being brought into the science classroom.

As for SETI, Seagoon, you are off base on about a dozen levels. First, there are a lot of scientists who consider SETI as pseudo-science. It is not majorly funded and struggles to stay afloat. Even those who support SETI will be the first to tell you that there's no scientific method in play - it's a hopefull search. (thus the S in SETI). It's not an experiment to test a hypothesis. (Words mean specific things in science and are chosen carefully - like the common misunderstanding of the word "theory" when applied to evolution).

Then you go on to assume what science might make of some message that SETI might receive and draw parallels to real science surrounding DNA. Since you don't have a grasp of what science is about in the first place, your analogy is faulty from the get-go.

[Simaril]

I'm asking this in all honesty, not as a setup for anything else or to make a point---




Doesnt extrapolation entail increased risk of error, and in that sense require "faith"?

We see a great deal of evidence for natural selection and changes in traits. WE have seen development of variations that scientists have called new species, though  our "research definition" of a species may play some role in what is or is not distinct enough speciation.

From this we extrapolate that complete changes in metabolic systems (cold blooded to warm blooded, etc), and some instances changes in teh actual material of inheritance could take place.

That seems to be a very big jump, and when extrapolating there is intrinsic increase in error the farther we get from observed data points.

I'm wondering of that's what some are saying becomes a matter of scientific faith -- that materialists (for want of a better term) are "committed" enough to their belief in mechanistic explanations that other options are immediately discounted.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Simaril
I'm asking this in all honesty, not as a setup for anything else or to make a point---




Doesnt extrapolation entail increased risk of error, and in that sense require "faith"?

We see a great deal of evidence for natural selection and changes in traits. WE have seen development of variations that scientists have called new species, though  our "research definition" of a species may play some role in what is or is not distinct enough speciation.

From this we extrapolate that complete changes in metabolic systems (cold blooded to warm blooded, etc), and some instances changes in teh actual material of inheritance could take place.

That seems to be a very big jump, and when extrapolating there is intrinsic increase in error the farther we get from observed data points.

I'm wondering of that's what some are saying becomes a matter of scientific faith -- that materialists (for want of a better term) are "committed" enough to their belief in mechanistic explanations that other options are immediately discounted.

Science does not extrapolate and then declare a truth. This is exactly what ID consists of and is why it is not science.

A scientist may extrpolate to form a hypothesis. It is then incumbent on the scientist to test the hypothesis, and if he thinks he has shown the hypothesis to be true to submit the results of his test for peer review where the test can be validated and replicated. Only after withstanding this rigor can what was once a hypothesis be generally accepted as true and therefore be introduced into science texts.

As an aside, this is where the media really screws with the public, giving the impression that science is shady. When results of a test that appear to substantiate a particular hypothesis are published, some media pick it up and make it front page news. When peer review and attempts to reproduce the result uncover problems that either disprove the hypothesis or at least bring it into question, we either never hear about it (leaving everybody with the wrong, original belief - eg. silicon breast implants causing disease), or the new result is heavily publicised leaving the impression that some grand mistake was made.

ID is a hypothesis that by its very nature excludes any ability to test it and also by its very nature declares that any desire to test it is contrary to the hypothesis itself. Thus it is NOT science. It's not a matter of opinion. By the long established definition of the scientific method, ID does NOT qualify.

BEWARE: When this ID attempt at pretending that creationism can be cast as science fails, the logical next step is for creationists to attempt to REDEFINE science such that ID (or whatever they are calling it then) fits within a science curriculum.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Samiam

BEWARE: When this ID attempt at pretending that creationism can be cast as science fails, the logical next step is for creationists to attempt to REDEFINE science such that ID (or whatever they are calling it then) fits within a science curriculum.

That has actually happenned in at least 1 state already. Cant remember want to say kansas or something but will have to look it up later. BUt agreed with your post. Its futile to explain pure science to some people. ID/Creationists only proof in their "theory" is that their are some inconsistencies in Evolution. That does not constitute anything. We don't know why mass causes gravity so maybe we should also start teaching God created Gravity too

[Simaril]

Sam, thanks for the reply -- but it honestly sounds like you used my comment as more of a starting point than a question to be answered.


What modern study can you do to avoid unverifiable extrapolation back in time?

[Holden McGroin]

Extrapolation is a prediction of results outside of a data set based upon behavior within the data set.

The farther outside the data set, the more we are prone to error.

Faith is a belief based upon no evidence.  

There is evidence of behavior within the data set, so extrapolation is based upon evidence.  When one extrapolates, one accepts and notes the error, and says, "these bones are dated to the jurassic period." not "these bones are 63,542,873 years old, the dinosaur died in the spring that year."

[Raider179]

I think that risk of extermination of the planet by Large Comets, and Meteors certainly undermines if not disproves ID. What kind of intelligent creator makes the universe with Billions and Billions of Loose rocks  hurtling around/toward us??? Well there is the  flaw in ID/Creationism so it must not be true.

[Shuckins]

It might interest you Mr. Black wanna-bes to know that the possibility of the creation of the universe by intelligent design has been acknowledge by no less a personage than Dr. Allen Guth, University of California at Berkeley.  He is the formulator of the almost "universally" accepted "inflationary universe theory" which details the forces that led to the big bang.

In essence, Guth states that the universe sprang into existence from a point in space one-billionth the size of an electron.  Guth also postulates that this was not a one time event.  The presence of the current universe would set in motion events leading to the creation of succeeding universes.  Here's the kicker...Guth also speculates that since the amount of space needed to create a universe is so small, it might be possible for an advanced civilization to artificially create the conditions leading to another bing bang.

So you see, you twits, that there are prominent scientists and physicists who will entertain thoughts of intelligent design.  Guth is, if memory serves, an agnostic.  His thoughts on the possible intelligent design of the universe do not automatically refer to a deity.

In addition, some scientists have come to wonder if perhaps the Cambrian explosion might have been due to the Earth's biosphere having been seeded by outside, read "alien", forces.

Your arguments and protestations to the contrary, you do not appear to be truly open to new ideas.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Shuckins
It might interest you Mr. Black wanna-bes to know that the possibility of the creation of the universe by intelligent design has been acknowledge by no less a personage than Dr. Allen Guth, University of California at Berkeley.  He is the formulator of the almost "universally" accepted "inflationary universe theory" which details the forces that led to the big bang.

In essence, Guth states that the universe sprang into existence from a point in space one-billionth the size of an electron.  Guth also postulates that this was not a one time event.  The presence of the current universe would set in motion events leading to the creation of succeeding universes.  Here's the kicker...Guth also speculates that since the amount of space needed to create a universe is so small, it might be possible for an advanced civilization to artificially create the conditions leading to another bing bang.

So you see, you twits, that there are prominent scientists and physicists who will entertain thoughts of intelligent design.  Guth is, if memory serves, an agnostic.  His thoughts on the possible intelligent design of the universe do not automatically refer to a deity.

In addition, some scientists have come to wonder if perhaps the Cambrian explosion might have been due to the Earth's biosphere having been seeded by outside, read "alien", forces.

Your arguments and protestations to the contrary, you do not appear to be truly open to new ideas.

lol "leaving open the posssibility" and "entertaining thoughts" are a just a tad short of what is required by the scientific method. try try again.

[Shuckins]

A true scientist would be open-minded about, and investigate, all possibilities.

The tone of your posts suggests that you have completely written off this theory.  

Sooo...I take it that your field is not in science?


Hmmmmm.....it seems we have a long way to go before we become the type of advance civilization that Guth speculated about.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Shuckins
A true scientist would be open-minded about, and investigate, all possibilities.

Again, how do you "investigate" a theory of intelligent design?  Please inform us.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Shuckins
A true scientist would be open-minded about, and investigate, all possibilities.

Absolutely.

Has anyone investigated ID scientifically?  I would like to see the evidence.  The measurable, verifiable evidence.

The arguments I see talk of inadequacies of Darwin's theory.  This is not evidence of ID.  This is an argument about inadequacy.

I'm all for evidence.   I have no problem discussing evidence in the classroom.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Shuckins
A true scientist would be open-minded about, and investigate, all possibilities.

The tone of your posts suggests that you have completely written off this theory.  

Sooo...I take it that your field is not in science?


Hmmmmm.....it seems we have a long way to go before we become the type of advance civilization that Guth speculated about.

Ok lets assume that your position is correct. (which it is not) What evidence do you suggest the scientist experiments with to prove or disprove the concept of ID? How do you suggest they go about investigating ID? Without evidence of a method to test this supposed "theory" you do not have science. You have history and you have religion and you shouldn't confuse them with science.


ID IS NOT A THEORY. It is Creationism re-worded.

Actually I have experience in a lot of fields, science being one of them. I just finished a minor in anthropology and am finishing up my history major. Read my post or Holden's on the Scientific method and explain to me how ID can be a theory. It meets none of the requirements.

I asked this before and I will ask again, What would you want the teacher to say about ID in the classroom? Do you want the public schools teaching your kids about religion? You might trust them that much to not screw it up but I know I don't.

[Samiam]

Dr. Guth's musings on the origin of the universe, however fascinating they may be, don't have a lot of bearing on the validity of ID as an alternative to evolution.

Evolution is the scientific theory that best explains how the myriad of complex life forms that exist on planet earth came to be how they are today. This is primarily biology, anthropology and other life sciences. It is something we understand pretty well, to the point where we can contemplate cloning and creating disease resistent crops, and identifying species from their bone fragments.

The origin of the universe is in the realm of astrophysics and deals with many phenomena we can only observe from afar or indirectly through patterns in radiation eminating from space. Speculating about what forces - intelligent or not - brought the universe into being is quite different from having scientific evidence that the story of Gensis is factual as applied to how man came into being.

[Shuckins]

Leviathan,

You raised an interesting question.

How would one go about investigating such a thing?

Surely there would be clues somewhere.  What would they be and how would scientists go about searching for them?

A very valid point.


How about this one?  Has there ever been a concerted effort made to find such clues?  And if there hasn't been a study made...why not?