Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian

[Hangtime]

Godzilla, the facts ain't in. Darwin's theory is trash since disproven in 1952. Yes, he was the first to postulate evolution but his version of the theory ain't the working model science is wrestling with today.

Now despite the 'evolution' of the THEORY of evolution there remains significantly less evidence for ID than evolution (without the 'darwin' attached, thanks).

Now, scientists are realizing that the current version of evolution theory doesn't seem to fit the model... which implys more questions, requiring more research to get the answers. Just like they did 50 years ago when DNA chucked out darwins version.

Which absolutely does NOT prove creationists are right and evolutionists are wrong.

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Which absolutely does NOT prove creationists are right and evolutionists are wrong.

Yeah, they just bar any idea of ID from being taught as a possibility, even though it is every bit as logical as Darwinism.

[Holden McGroin]

It is not as logical as Darwinism as it requires an element of faith. Darwinism has a fossilized record... Try to explain Neanderthal man and Lucy without evolution. There are examples in the insect world of species change during man's industrial era. That natural selection occurs is not in question, it is a verifiable scientific fact.

The big bang is a completely logical extrapolation of general relativity umtil the universe gets so small relativity crashes into Quantum theory. The last few (first few) moments cannot be extrapolated as theory breaks down. Science accepts that until someone can push back the logical barrier with reason.

However, like closing the patent office in 1890, closing arguments and declaring anything as the ultimate truth is a mistake and science allows for that too.

[Sparks]

To me ID is a kind of laziness.

When confronted with a situation where the questions are growing faster and more complex than our current knowledge and technology allow us to answer, we give up and say "well someone cleverer than us did all this and so we'll leave it at that" .

We seem to have developed an arrogance that we have all the information we need to develop a final answer in our lifetimes when in fact we don't even know the basic facts.

We cannot control gravity or time - two of the basic elements of our universe. We theorise about spacetime without even the basic tools to explore the concept.

But evidently some in the scientific community find the idea of thousands more years of questioning too hard to deal with and are going to leave it at the Great Designer level.

Faith is what people develop to counter the fear of the unknown and, with a cognitive lifespan of maybe 60-80 years for most of us, most things in life will remain unknowns.  We travel a short individual journey in a vast barely explored universe. The idea of Design implies a purpose for every item in the design - an implication that each of our existances has a part in the design - an implication of pre-destiny. That is faith.

The knowledge base that the human race has now has been collected from tiny peices over thousands of years and hundreds of thousands of individual lives.  To stop the process of searching now and meerly seek to prove the existance of an Intelligent Designer is in my mind wasting that history.  To accept ID is to assume we have reached the limit of human learning in my mind - to say "this is more than we can understand and so all we can do is to look for evidence there is a greater intelligence"

For me there is not anough information to make any descision in any direction - we simply do not know enough. Maybe I can add a tiny piece to human knowledge, maybe not but we shouldn't stop looking for pieces and stop our children is irresponsible. I'm glad our ancestors didn't do that.

[LLv34_Snefens]

You should all just realize that you are living in a Computer Simulation

[Dead Man Flying]

You cannot falsify a theory of intelligent design.  As such, we may not study it scientifically, and subsequently it is not a scientific theory.  If you cannot test something empirically using the scientific method as a process, then what you're doing is something other than science.  Pseudo-science maybe.

The scientific method, be it in natural sciences, social sciences, economics, medicine, or whatever area, depends on the falsifiability of results.  We posit theories that we may prove wrong through testing and measurement.  I'm not clear on how we could ever possibly disprove intelligent design through testing.  Maybe someone with a more thorough knowledge of this "theory" can enlighten us.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[myelo]

Hang, I’m curious as to why you think the discovery of DNA was not consistent with biologic evolution?

[cpxxx]

As ever with the creationist/evolution and now intelligent design debate. We are not comparing like with like.

First off, Seagoon admits himself that he is a biblical creationist. Thus it is in his interest to cast doubt on Darwinian evolution. If ID does this so much the better. Later he and his faithful can see off ID and the field will be theirs.

But to be honest biblical creation should not even be mentioned in the same breath as evolution or for that matter ID. Quite simply it is a religious viewpoint has no evidence to support it or for that matter any basis in reality. It's just a story in an old book.
Every religion has it's own variation.

The problem with ID is that it implies a form of God figure who intervenes at some point to boost some process of change in life.
That simply make no sense either.

If evolution hasn't explained every possible event or process that is only because the scientists themselves haven't evolved their thinking to the point where they can explain it. ID doesn't do that because in effect the individuals who propagate the theory have found sudden changes, (sudden here can mean tens of thousands of years), which do not fit the usual explanation.  Their solution is to add in an outside influence.
That would be to ignore latent abilities or changes which are useless to us now but added to odd mutation could mean the difference between survival of the species or extinction. Like Bustrs Norwegian fetching cat. A useless trait now but perhaps sometime in the future add another mutation and it becomes the difference between survival and extinction.
If global warming becomes fact the species likely to survive will be those who cope with heat. Like immunity to anti malaria drugs. When no one treated malaria immunity to Quinine was useless. Now the only surviving malaria bugs are immune and so it goes on for each anti malaria drug introduced.
Then there was the moth extant in the North of England. They were camoflaged to blend with tree bark. Mostly light coloured. The occasional dark mutation did not last long because birds could see it on a light coloured tree. Then the industrial revolution came and blackened the tree with soot. Guess which coloured moth survived?

If that does not of itself prove actual evolution. Then nothing will.

[Simaril]

Late to the party, and definitely not able to (or interested in) giving final words. Gotta say I'm pretty impressed with the thread's tone, given the inflammatory topic and, well, OClub tradition.

Just a couple thoughts for consideration...using cpxxx's post as a summary for convenenience only....

Originally posted by cpxxx
As ever with the creationist/evolution and now intelligent design debate. We are not comparing like with like.

First off, Seagoon admits himself that he is a biblical creationist. Thus it is in his interest to cast doubt on Darwinian evolution. If ID does this so much the better. Later he and his faithful can see off ID and the field will be theirs.

I suspect both sides in the creationist vs evolutionist debate are used to keeping a steady eye on how stuff affects their opponents' arguments.

But just because an idea is useful to one side or another does not have any impact on the idea's truth. In this situation, Seagoon's beliefs are irrelevant to the truth of the ID concept. When a man in the desert sees an oasis, it's naturally in his interest for it to be real -- but that doesnt prove it's a mirage. The situation needs to be analyzed on its own merits.

Originally posted by cpxxx
But to be honest biblical creation should not even be mentioned in the same breath as evolution or for that matter ID. Quite simply it is a religious viewpoint has no evidence to support it or for that matter any basis in reality. It's just a story in an old book

....snip.....

The problem with ID is that it implies a form of God figure who intervenes at some point to boost some process of change in life.
That simply make no sense either.

....snip.....

If evolution hasn't explained every possible event or process that is only because the scientists themselves haven't evolved their thinking to the point where they can explain it.

Both religionists and non-religionists have preconceptions and biases. When trying to actively think -- as opposed to cruising on assumptions, which adherents on both sides are wont to do -- at the very least we should be aware of our assumptions, try to minimize their impact. Again, are we looking at ID or fghting about world views?
 

Originally posted by cpxxx


....snip....

Then there was the moth extant in the North of England. They were camoflaged to blend with tree bark. Mostly light coloured. The occasional dark mutation did not last long because birds could see it on a light coloured tree. Then the industrial revolution came and blackened the tree with soot. Guess which coloured moth survived?

If that does not of itself prove actual evolution. Then nothing will.

This touches on a key, often overlooked issue in the evolution discussion. There is a distinct difference between the natural selection componenets of evolutionary theory, and the question of evolutionary origins.

I've yet to meet a creationist who disputes the existance of natural selection. When the creationists I've talked to say "evolution", they're referring to either life origins or speciation. There is a very long step between selective advantages of TP fetching cat behavior and the evolution of new life forms.


Evolutionary originists believe that the step can be bridged by randomness and NATURAL selection (ie without outside intervention), plus time.

Creationists believe that step was bridged by God.

And (pure, non factional) intelligent design theorists suggest that there must be another, nonrandom factor to explain what we see. They say that in effect there is either not enough time since the formation of earth as determined by science to account for the complexities seen; or, that some structures are too complex to have originated as a unit by chance alone.


The word "intelligent" is the flash point. First, it is necessary in the idea. I cant think of another term to describe the (undefined !!!) force that would be able to both introduce nonrandomness and explain massive doses of complexity like DNA. I'm open to suggestions, though. Second, it is highly charged for both sides, becasue it's equally hard to imagine a force capable of introducing that complexity without it looking a lot like a god.

So, the partisans on both sides line up predicatbly for and aginst the concept based on its implictions rather than its correctness or inaccuracy.


Is that what we're doing too?

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
You cannot falsify a theory of intelligent design.  As such, we may not study it scientifically, and subsequently it is not a scientific theory.  If you cannot test something empirically using the scientific method as a process, then what you're doing is something other than science.  Pseudo-science maybe.

The scientific method, be it in natural sciences, social sciences, economics, medicine, or whatever area, depends on the falsifiability of results.  We posit theories that we may prove wrong through testing and measurement.  I'm not clear on how we could ever possibly disprove intelligent design through testing.  Maybe someone with a more thorough knowledge of this "theory" can enlighten us.

-- Todd/Leviathn

By your definition of science, can any theory of origins be scientific? Using your definition, can one time events like the origin of matter, or time, or life be tested by reproducable, disprovable processes?

I have trouble imagining any theory of origins being tested, except by observation of current findings (like an expanding universe), and extrapolation backwards.

I sense that's exactly what ID theorists are doing -- observing the nature and frequency of current mutations, extrapolating backwards, and finding things dont add up with randomness alone.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Simaril
So, the partisans on both sides line up predicatbly for and aginst the concept based on its implictions rather than its correctness or inaccuracy.  

See, that's the thing. Science is a method. ID is a concept.

School is about teaching people how to learn. Science class ultimately isn't there to teach you its concept of evolution, it's there to teach you how to perhaps one day, even prove the theory false.

With ID, you'd basically be taking over the class and barking dogma at them. That isn't what school should be about in my opinion.

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by myelo
Hang, I’m curious as to why you think the discovery of DNA was not consistent with biologic evolution?

DNA does not disprove evolution, it did force a huge revision of Darwins theory. Simply put, DNA evidence suggests that dogs cannot evolve into cats via natural selection. This crushed the Darwinian Model which proposed that all life evolved from one common ancestor.

There's a big crowd that insists that gene mutation can supply new information to DNA. Unfortunately, no examples have yet been discovered where gene mutation has resulted in a whole new species. We have plenty of examples of in-species mutation from cat and dog breeding to moths... but no leaps from cat to dog from moths.

This is nothin 'new', the formal scrapping of Darwins 'Origins' in the scientific community happened better than 50 years ago. We're STILL hearing the wailing from the religionist crowd, which has decided that since Darwins Model is defunct then their model must be the correct one.

Why on earth 'Creationists' would find the emperical update to the theory of evolution (vis a vis, scrapping Darwin's take on it) to be 'proof of intelligent design' makes very little sense.. science has traced the human species back four million years, with not a shred of evidence for 'Adam or Eve'.

[XrightyX]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
You cannot falsify a theory of intelligent design.  As such, we may not study it scientifically, and subsequently it is not a scientific theory.  If you cannot test something empirically using the scientific method as a process, then what you're doing is something other than science.  Pseudo-science maybe.

The scientific method, be it in natural sciences, social sciences, economics, medicine, or whatever area, depends on the falsifiability of results.  We posit theories that we may prove wrong through testing and measurement.  I'm not clear on how we could ever possibly disprove intelligent design through testing.  Maybe someone with a more thorough knowledge of this "theory" can enlighten us.

-- Todd/Leviathn

You cannot falsify the theory of evolution...without being ridiculed by a 'scientist' or anyone who deems their education/reading more credible.  By the same token, you cannot disprove creationism or ID.  Creationists could just say:  You weren't there on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd day.  ID is not a theory in the same sense.  I don't think anyone who promotes ID is putting on the same level as Darwinian Evolution.  It is more like an attempt to say "we don't know all the answers, yet...".

The theory of evolution cannot exactly be tested like the theory of gravity.  You drop a ball, it falls to the ground.  But how do you test for evolution?  It takes hundreds of thousands of years for a species to be selected.  We don't have the time to run the experiments. Soooooo...we look to the fossil record.  That's not testing a theory in the true sense.  

Originally posted by Sparks
To me ID is a kind of laziness.

I disagree.  ID speaks more to a scientist's honesty and willingness to say "we don't know all the answers".

Edit:  forgot an important 'not'

[mora]

I can't believe that anyone even cares to debate about this issue in this century. They could aswell argue that the world is flat.

[Holden McGroin]

But Einstein showed that the world is indeed flat.  

The spacetime in which the world exists is warped due to gravity which makes the flat surface of the earth appear a spheroid.