An Australian response to Intelligent Design

[revelator]

The argument is not that ID should be eliminated from a school's curriculum. Just that it should not be taught as science.

 

[ZapperZ]

Given our contentious past, how about we start out assuming the other has legitimate points to make?
My standards for making sense, I believe, are the same as yours. If not, then how did we each get certified in our respective fields of study? Where we likely differ is what we accept as evidence. Review my logic, and how I consistently attempt to support my assertions with evidence, and I would think you’d appreciate my devotion to scholarship and logic despite the fact that we don’t agree on the underlying nature of the universe.

I claim I am not committed to any sort of description of reality other than making sense. But I also contend that most around here, including you, are pre-committed. I claim, and please correct me if I am wrong, that some people are only willing to accept and propose physical factors as the basis of reality. Also, they are so committed to physical-only descriptions they propose theories as “most likely” which are both unsupported by sufficient evidence and don’t really make sense.

And that is the ONLY thing I asked you about. How are you able to pre-decided that ONLY things that make sense TO YOU is a valid measuring stick? Isn't the ability to "make sense" evolving based on how much knowledge one has? It isn't something innate that you or anyone else is born with!

What if I show you things or occurences that make NO SENSE to you (or to a lot of people), would you buy it? Does that mean those things or occurences are not valid just because it doesn't fit into YOUR understanding? I really would like this to be answered, please, rather than being avoided directly.

My objective isn’t to undermine faith in what science actually has achieved, and can achieve. I challenge claims that aren’t supported by evidence. It seems to me that, as a scientist, you would appreciate that.

And I claim that based on what it has and can achieved, those are LEGITIMATE proofs that it works and has more than a sufficient leg to stand on when a definite claim is made. Show another field of study that can make a similar claim with the same degree of accuracy.

If you are claiming that science cannot explain everything about the universe, and things like ID can, then ID must NOT be a science (pure logic, no?). Thus, why insist that ID is also a science and must be taught as a science? Teach it as... oh, I don't know... Faith with no evidence maybe? ID is being advertized NOT on its own merrit, but simply by claiming so-called inconsistencies in the evolution theory. In other words, they have zilch as evidence. So here's a scientific method for you in case you don't realize it. when one theory has an abundance of clear evidence and descriptions, while the other does nothing but whines about the other, call us crazy but we tend to adopt the first one, at least till a better one shows up. It is THE logical thing to do.

Hey, but then again, you dismiss science's ability to describe everything and seems to think something else can (any evidence for this?). So maybe describing to you a bit of a scientific method is a waste of time. Maybe this whole post a waste of time.

Adios!

Zz.

 

[Moonbear]

What's that Moonbear, might makes right?

Huh? Is that supposed to mean something? You started out this dispute by remarking that scientists were being condescending. Perhaps some self-introspection is needed.

I've been disputing scientism excesses long before you got here, so why not just make your case rather than refer me to some non-science site.

You're kidding, right? What case am I making? You're the one making claims here and trying to put words in my mouth, claiming I say things that I haven't, and have a point of view that I don't. But let me see if I have this right...just becauase you've had some grudge about science longer than I've been at PF, that makes it okay for you to rant on about it, and attribute claims to me that I have not made? Surely you can see the flaw in that reasoning for yourself. Just because you've been doing something a long time doesn't make it right; it's not an endurance contest.

You get to insist on that in biology or some other science forum, not here. Where do you get off demanding the world talks science in every setting? Again, you are proving my claim that you assume a priori that science is the only epistomologically viable avenue.

What do you mean by "not here?" This is still Physics Forums in case you lost sight of that. We often relax the rules in General Discussion, but this is still a science site. I do not demand the world talks science in every setting; that again seems to be your unjustified assumption. In fact, I told you there are plenty of non-science sites in which it is perfectly acceptable to discuss non-science ideas. I am not proving your claim at all, because you are attributing statements to me that I have never said. All I have REPEATEDLY said here is that THIS, meaning PF, is a science forum, and that the topic of this discussion is science classes.

Also, did we EVER say that any other subject should not be taught and that science was the ONLY subject worthy of teaching in schools? I'll answer that for you: no, we haven't. Again, this seems to be some assumption you're making, and I don't even know where you got it from. Did we say people couldn't teach their children their own religious beliefs? No. Did the original article say ID would be eliminated entirely from the curriculum? No. Did anyone say children should be sheltered from alternative beliefs or approaches? No. Did anyone say everyone should become a scientist? No. Did anyone say science has all the answers? No. Indeed, if we had all the answers, we wouldn't have or need science. Science is about asking questions and seeking answers, and a methodology for doing so.

That's right, but you also didn't acknowlege my objection did you? It is that the science gurus scream like stuck pigs that someone isn't obeying their rules. Yet, they haven't yet made their case that science has the right to offer the "most likely" theory to our kids! So you are outraged at ID's lack of proof, but you don't mind physicalist theorists pushing their theories as most likely.

I can't even figure out what objection you're claiming at this point. You seem to be ranting more than objecting. Science doesn't have the right to offer the most likely theory? Huh? What on Earth are you getting on about? IN SCIENCE CLASS, evolution is the best theory we have. Do you have an alternative theory that you think is better? We have an Independent Research forum where you are welcome to present it.

My resistance is to the attitude of this thread. It is like science has the better answer. Yet, science doesn't yet have the answer. What happens is, the science types assert in textbooks to our kids that natural selection-genetic variation is the "most likely" cause of all evolution, yet the only thing that can actually be observed is superficial adjustments through those mechanisms.

Again, this is simply a gross misunderstanding of the theory of evolution and the process of natural selection. Natural selection is not genetic variation and is not the "most likely cause of all evolution." What do you mean the only thing that can be observed are superficial adjustments? Evolution is observed at every level, from morphological to genetic changes.

I have nothing to say about the validity of ID in this thread. I am objecting to the hypocracy of ridiculing the lack of evidence behind ID, while scientism devotees do EXACTLY the same thing when they push their unproven theories.

First, we were not actually even ridiculing ID in this thread (though yes, I would say it is worthy of ridicule, if for no other reason than that its proponents think they've so cleverly disguised creationism with a new name and a few minor tweaks to their wording), what we were expressing was relief that it will be taught in a more appropriate setting, religious studies, rather than in a science class. The proponents of ID are trying to push their belief as science. If anything, perhaps it is telling that they think it is so important to have ID recognized as science. Why, when they have wholesale rejected scientific methodology in formulating ID, do they seek endorsement of it as scientific? If it is founded on religious teachings or beliefs, or just faith not connected to a specific religion, why are they not content to have it taught that way? Why do they need to inject it into the science curriculum? Do you see scientists running around trying to force their subject into religion classes?

Perhaps despite all your protestations to the contrary, you do value scientific method as having strong merits. Why else would you be so upset that something is deemed non-scientific and rejected from the science curriculum, or that scientists should be glad it has finally been made clear it is not science and that it will be taught in a more appropriate subject area? Why do you assume that implies a value judgement on the material to say it is not science?

 

[cronxeh]

All this ranting and you guys ignore the data

Lets just say this: we have about a thousand data points on our plot - some of it is fossil records, some of it is DNA, some of it is natural selection, adaptation, etc. Then there is the DNA, the central dogma of biology, and all the applicable conclusions one can draw. Now imagine all of this is on our x/y axis. Surely you'd like to throw in the z, but let's take it slow. What science is, is trying to connect the dots or find a common formula - either a linear fit, or a curve fit - finding that general equation be it linear or nonlinear. If you can come up with an intelligent design that fits all those points and incorporates the "unknowns" and really "spooky" things in science today (S-chirality, prochirality, quantum mechanics, etc) then you have a theory that [CAN] compete with scientific thinking on the same level. A bonus perk if you have some conclusions that draw more and more points into your equation, drawing conclusions, interconnecting different concepts and theories

Does ID even connect 2 points? No. Until there is a sound theory that does, it should be ignored - we've come this far and we know its real to simply throw it out and teach garbage to our progeny

 

[ZapperZ]

All this ranting and you guys ignore the data

You see it, Moonbie sees it, I see it, almost everyone else sees it. But you are facing someone who claims that there's just some things that simple "data" isn't enough, that there's something BEYOND science what science can do that is as VALID, if not more, than what science does. The data and method you described isn't sufficient.

Where is the proof for this, I have no clue since all we have are just rhetorics. My point is all of this is that if someone truly believe that things such as ID can do stuff what science cannot do, this means that they are NOT science and shouldn't be taught as one! I mean, they are already claiming these things can do what science can't, so it is automatically outside of science. After all, if it follows the scientific method and rigor, it would already be called... horrors... SCIENCE! So since these people are claiming it is beyond science, then why they they whinning that these things are not taught as science?! Somehow, they want their cake and eat their contradiction. They dismiss science, yet when we call what they believe not a science, they get insulted and defensive. What gives!

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

I don't want ID taught as science.

Then what's the problem? Everyone here agrees with that.

Les, you are making absolutely no sense in this thread. When you made your "might makes right" and "only avenue to truth" comments, you were talking straight past the other people with canned rhetoric that doesn't even come close to addressing what was said.

Seriously Les, it looks like a room full of people are having a conversation and that you are off in the corner talking to yourself about something else entirely.

 

[Son Goku]

But what justifies science being taught as able to answer everything?

Probably nothing justifies that claim.
Luckily the Australian government didn't rule in favour of "Science will now answer all questions".

And despite the denials everyone makes, that is exactly what the scientism devotees are doing. That hypocrisy (finally spelled it right) is nauseating.

Where?
Who, but extremists, are saying that?
I don't think science is able to answer everything, but I damn well think that something that isn't science shouldn't be taught in a science class.
Imagine a group of people who want Geography to replace or stand beside the poetry section in the English curriculum.
If English professors object to that, does that amount to them saying that English is the answer to everything?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Then what's the problem? Everyone here agrees with that.
Les, you are making absolutely no sense in this thread. When you made your "might makes right" and "only avenue to truth" comments, you were talking straight past the other people with canned rhetoric that doesn't even come close to addressing what was said.
Seriously Les, it looks like a room full of people are having a conversation and that you are off in the corner talking to yourself about something else entirely.

Tom, you've been a fair opponent in debates so I want to answer your points, though belatedly.

I agree I didn't properly preface my objections so everybody here could understand them. That's because of built-up frustration in other debates. It doesn't absolve me from failing to communicate, but that's the reason anyway.

Do you remember at the old PF the threads dedicated to ridiculing religious belief? Although I myself am not religious, and think most religious theories are nonsense, I still was critical of the ridicule because it seemed ridiculers could see the nonsense in religious theory, but not the nonsense in science theories.

These threads where the blessed, annointed seekers of truth call to arms the faithful to fight science heresy . . . it reeks of hypocrisy to me. Why? Because to be so "holier than than thou" you have to be pure yourself.

The point of this thread I thought boiled down to if ID (of the Bilblical variety) should be taught in the classrooms as science. I say no because Biblical ID hasn't practiced science to reach the theories they offer. So far we agree, right?

Okay. So here you have a thread, not the first, where someone is rallying the science troops to either cheer or speak against that nasty old ID because it is unscientific.

Yet, if you study what Darwinists offer as evidence, they have also unscientifically loaded their theories with improbabilities. It isn't easy to ferret out the exaggerations, but I say they are barely less bullsh*t than creationist theories. I've defended that claim extensively too (check out my posts in other threads).

So while I agree I didn't explain my complaints very well in this thread, I do stand by my revulsion of scientism devotees whining about IDers trying to get equal time in classrooms because, they claim, that ID isn't science. To me that is such hypocrisy when one is stuffing one's own pet theory with unconfirmed improbabilities.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Is it that anti-IDers will take this as a victory against ID in general, rather than ID being taught as a science specifically, or that evolution theory isn't a science and shouldn't be taught as such that bothers you?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is it that anti-IDers will take this as a victory against ID in general, rather than ID being taught as a science specifically, or that evolution theory isn't a science and shouldn't be taught as such that bothers you?

Neither really. I agree that if ID is an attempt to intellectually satisfy the precepts, descriptions, or predictions of religious dogma’ then it should not be taught as science. I shouldn’t have said anything since I wasn’t prepared to repeat my arguments, and I know the effort in GD seems to be to generally keep things agreeable (politics excepted of course). If you are interested, my arguments can be found in detail in the thread that starts here . . .

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93364

I didn't jump in until the fourth page here . . .

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93364&page=4

 

[russ_watters]

Just started reading this thread, but when I see things like this I have to respond:

It isn't that I think intelligent design is right! It's that I don't think anyone knows the answer, yet the mechanists incessantly condescend around here.

If you were someone like me, who really doesn't care what the answer turns out to be as long as it makes sense, then you might see how hypocritical it seems for the science side to be outraged at ID's attempts to get in the creation-theory game.

Indeed: you are completely missing the point. Whether or not a theory or belief is correct has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is science or faith. What determines whether it is science or faith is the method by which it is investigated (or not investigated).

Ie, if you read in the Bible that the Earth was round and you believed it, you'd be right, but that would be faith. If I saw a ship disappearing over the horizon and concluded that the Earth was round, I'd also be right, but I'd be a scientist. It's the method that matters, not the conclusion. I will say, however, that one method is far more likely to result in correct answers than the other...

However, we do know, as certainly as anything can ever be known, that intelligent design isn't just faith, it is wrong. Direct evidence contradicts it.

Because, afterall, if anyone ever found a single science type practicing any sort of blind faith whatsoever, then that would TOTALLY discredit the entire field of science (right?).

Then that individual would be wrong to call himself a scientist - that doesn't make science wrong. That's a logical fallacy that is akin to saying that if you find a flat tire, then all tires must be flat.

edit: Another big point you are missing (and I almost did) - even if you were right that religious faith or pure reason or whatever were acceptable/viable ways to investigate the natural world, it still would have no place in a science classroom. You can bash science all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that science is science and religion is religion and only science belongs in science class.

edit2: I guess that means you also are missing the point of the ID "theorist" - they claim that ID is science. You, at least, seem to accept that it is not.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Indeed: you are completely missing the point. Whether or not a theory or belief is correct has nothing at all to do with whether or not it is science or faith. What determines whether it is science or faith is the method by which it is investigated (or not investigated).

Well, I'd rather debate this in philosophy but since you insist . . .

I haven't missed the point at all if you say "What determines whether it is science or faith is the method by which it is investigated." It is you my friend who have missed my objections because they aren't about the correctness of a belief system. They are about claiming you are devotedly practicing a method, and then sticking articles of faith (dogma) into gaps in theories and pretending you have the evidence to warrant "most likely" status for those theories.

And the purpose of this, I claim, is to convince the world's population that science really does have all the evidence needed to pronounce reality physical/mechanical. Is it mere coincidence that if reality is only physical/mechanical, then scientists would be the gurus of all knowing?

It's the method that matters, not the conclusion. I will say, however, that one method is far more likely to result in correct answers than the other...

Look, there's no dispute about what science does do well. The dispute, for me anyway, is some scientism devotees’ ontological and epistemological claims.

However, we do know, as certainly as anything can ever be known, that intelligent design isn't just faith, it is wrong. Direct evidence contradicts it.

That's right Russ, but direct evidence contradicts abiogenesis and natural selection-accidental genetic variation being promoted as the "mostly likely" origin and development of life. That was the basis of my little hissy fit in this thread . . . that scientists are doing exactly what they are outraged at IDer's for doing.

Another big point you are missing (and I almost did) - even if you were right that religious faith or pure reason or whatever were acceptable/viable ways to investigate the natural world, it still would have no place in a science classroom. You can bash science all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that science is science and religion is religion and only science belongs in science class.
edit2: I guess that means you also are missing the point of the ID "theorist" - they claim that ID is science. You, at least, seem to accept that it is not.

Again, you misunderstand me. I don't think religious faith or pure reason are viable ways to investigate the natural world (and I assume by "natural" you mean physical because it hasn't been established that all that's natural has to be physical). I think science is the proper way to investigate the physical world.

BUT . . . when in the science classroom the teachers and textbooks offer improbable physicalistic explanations for gaps in "natural" theories, then they themselves have opened the door to a non-scientific competitor coming in and saying “wait a damn minute.” If they were sticking to what science has actually discovered, that would be different. But that isn't the case.

In this thread . . .
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93364

I started challenging the dubious tactics of scientism here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93364&page=4

There the discussion broadened from religious ID to whether or not there might be benefits from adding some sort of universal intelligence to origin of life and evolution models. I suggested calling that concept intelligence assisted (IA). IA is relevant to teaching science for only one reason; I claim that what is being taught as science is not “pure” science, but incessantly includes physicalist ontology where there are significant gaps in a scientific theory. I’ve generalized the physicalist ontologizing as when the most significant gaps are filled by hypothesized physical behaviors which are both utterly uncharacteristic of physicalness, and there’s no observation that physicalness can behave in such uncharacteristic ways.

The problem is, scientists, of whom 90% are atheists, and acting like their theories for the gaps are all but proven, and they are putting that in textbooks. Yet there is no proper evidence to indicate the level of certainty they claim. For example (I will take comments from the above thread):

Yes, there are Biblical creationists trying sneak their silly beliefs in. But here's the other side of it. You know that anti-materialist effort you are critical of? Well, materialists have been using the cloak of "science" to sneak their beliefs in, and one thing they are doing is exaggerating the evidence they have for evolution. I don’t know if you have followed this thread, but the bald truth is, the mechanisms science claims can account for the evolution of all life (genetic variation and natural selection) have never been observed doing anything more than making superficial adjustments to an organism. So tell me, why is every textbook on the planet packed with descriptions like what I took from a UC Berkeley website describing "lifting functional constraints through duplication":

"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated. For example, globin is a truly ancient protein. Billions of years old, it was present in the common ancestor of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi. Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

Now tell me, how does the author know natural selection achieved that? Natural selection has never been observed achieving such sophistication, so it is an unproven assumption which rather than being taught as theory is presented as fact. The student reading that doesn't know it is an unconfirmed assumption, and so universities are turning out all sorts of "believers" who think when they talk evolution their beliefs are supported by the facts (as I once did).

. . . on the one hand you have certain (not all) holier-than-thou scientists banding together to fight the evil IDers, while they themselves pretend to have evidence they really don’t in order to propagate physicalism in the guise of science. Further, they employ McCarthyish tactics to, as Tisthammerw points out, demonize one side, and then wrap themselves in the scientific flag so they can force their theory down the world’s throat.


Here is how I characterized the evidence science actually has in a post to Evo (edited for clarity):

Let’s say you went to a planet that was so hot you had to have an air conditioner to survive. Once there you meet air conditioner repairmen who have an evolutionary theory to account for all the air conditioners found around the planet. That is, they claim air conditioners originated by organizing themselves into a functioning system, and then evolved by adapting to temperature conditions.

Their evidence that the air conditioners evolved is that all contain thermostats, which do cause air conditioners to adapt. They say, “see, there is an adaptive mechanism, so that’s what is most likely the cause of evolution.” And then to explain how the first air conditioner got organized, they throw parts of the conditioner in a box and observe a magnet and a spring hooking up, and then say, “see, the magnet and spring have self-organized, and since they are part of the building blocks of an air conditioner, that is most likely how the first air conditioner got organized.”

Next the repairmen say "the evidence is overwhelming." However, what they mean by overwhelming is that a thermostat can be found in millions and millions of air conditioners. Since they've not shown that thermostats alone can evolve an air conditioner, what "overwhelming" amounts to is huge pile of exactly the same unsubstantiated claim.

Now air conditioner repairmen are geniuses at working with air conditioners, and the whole planet depends on them. So when they claim they have all the evidence needed to explain the origin and development of air conditioners, a great many people accept it as true based repairmen’s demonstrated ability overall. What people don’t realize is that the repairmen, enthralled with their own profession, have elevated air conditionerism to lofty heights, and are now preaching it as a religion, not as a fact.

There Evo is a ruse worthy of the Con Job Hall of Fame, far better than the Piltdown man. You know, this is REALLY stupid on part of the science community. . . . What is going to happen is the exaggerations are going to be found out, fully exposed, for all the world to see. Science is going to take a blow to its credibility, and then what do you think the next development will be? Yep, opportunistic creationists are going to use that to get more of a foothold. . . . What [the science side] should do is back off from their claims that evolutionary theory is all but proven and admit where every, single solitary gap and problem is with the theory. It’s like the trial lawyer who knows his client has credibility issues and so brings them out before the opposing side can.

(continued in next post)

 

[Les Sleeth]

(continued from the last post)

My next objection is that science assumes its epistemology can sit in judgment of all other epistemologies, at least one of which they know absolutely nothing about:

Who is going to judge what's allowed as evidence, those who believe only sense experience is epistemologically sound? The argument that non-empirical evidence is beyond science might work IF the scientism side stops filling theory gaps with improbable theories and allows that something nonphysical might be at work in those gaps. But if the scientism side is going to sit in judgment wearing a physicalistic filter, and disallowing, dismissing, and generally dissing all that doesn't fit their epistemology, then this fight is only going to get worse.

That isn't so for scientism devotees however. They have their blinders on to everything which isn't mechanistic in nature or revealed by empirical epistemologies. Yes, there are mechanical aspects to the universe, and yes the senses and intellect work well together to reveal them. But it's the exclusionary belief system that leads scientism devotees to both ignore what their epistemology can't fathom, and to offer strictly mechanistic models.

And then when it comes time to teach evolution, they manage to convince courts they have enough evidence to teach our children that genetic variation and natural selection alone have brought about all life forms when in fact they don't have that evidence. To keep any sort of theory of intelligence-assisted evolution out of the discussion, they demonize the opposition and respond to the other side's complaints as though they have absolutely, positively no reason for objecting to Darwinist theory.

While there is reason to resist the ID that is Biblical creationism-light (as some have called it, and I agree), that doesn't mean the scientism side isn't propagating their own unproven belief system as "truth" (and for all intents and purposes, that is how Darwinist evolution is presented to the public). Why is that okay? I mean really, bullsh*t is bullsh*t, why is it any more acceptable when your team does it?

Finally, I summed up my objections:

Here’s how I would boil down the issue.

The theories of abiogenesis and evolution by genetic variation-natural selection both depend on pure mechanics which theorists claim can achieve high-functioning organizational systems. Since a very advanced level of complex functional organization is achieved, and no outside force is allowed, then for these theories to hold water mechanics/physicalness alone must possesses a very high self-organizing potential.

Question: Can physical substances and principles be manipulated to create high-functioning organizational systems?

Answer: Yes. This is proven since high-functioning organizational systems exist.

Question: Can scientists use physical substances and principles to create certain high-functioning organizational systems?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Does the fact that scientists can use physical substances and principles to create high-functioning organizational systems mean they understand physical substances and principles?

Answer: Yes, at least better than any other class of thinkers.


Okay, so we know physical substances and principles can be used to create high-functioning organizational systems, and we know scientists understand how to work with and even create such systems. Next set of questions.

Question: Can physical substances and principles organize themselves into high-functioning organizational systems?

Answer: No one knows.

Question: Are many scientists claiming physical substances and principles can and have organized themselves into high-functioning organizational systems?

Answer: Yes, emphatically so.

Question: Does scientists’ ability to use physical substances and principles to create certain high-functioning organizational systems justify making unsupported self-organizing claims?

Answer: No because self-organization is an entirely different issue from organization, and organization is all they proven they can either understand or create. They have shown absolutely no ability to recreate self-organizing systems with mechanics and physicalness alone.

Question: What justifies scientists’ physical self-organizing claims if they cannot support them properly with evidence?

Answer (mine anyway, feel free to offer your own): To the extent natural selection and genetic variation are being unmitigatingly taught as responsible for the development of entire organisms, it isn’t science but rather the belief system of a class of thinkers (and I do not mean all scientists) who believe their mechanical abilities make them RIGHT about the universe's entire ontology, and that those of us who don’t (or aren't yet ready to) agree are merely uninformed, stupid or creationist zealots. They therefore feel justified both in not having to properly make their case to the vulgar classes, and in running roughshod over all disputants.

 

[Moonbear]

That's right Russ, but direct evidence contradicts abiogenesis and natural selection-accidental genetic variation being promoted as the "mostly likely" origin and development of life.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, it is a separate line of research, and certainly does have a good deal of controversy surrounding it. It really can best be described as "one way" life could have started, but we have no direct evidence it is correct. Anyone promoting it as part of evolutionary theory is just plain wrong. Natural selection is more related to population genetics and is not a way that evolution happens. Natural selection can only act on existing traits/genes, it doesn't make new ones develop; this is very commonly misunderstood and taught wrongly. Again, it doesn't mean evolution is wrong, it means it is being taught wrong. Believe me, I have a big problem with that too and wish I could smack a few thousand high school teachers and tell them to just not teach it if they don't understand it themselves; they only make it worse.

BUT . . . when in the science classroom the teachers and textbooks offer improbable physicalistic explanations for gaps in "natural" theories, then they themselves have opened the door to a non-scientific competitor coming in and saying “wait a damn minute.” If they were sticking to what science has actually discovered, that would be different. But that isn't the case.

That's not a flaw in the science, that's a flaw in having non-scientists trying to teach science. This is a problem with the educational system, not evolutionary theory or science.

So tell me, why is every textbook on the planet packed with descriptions like what I took from a UC Berkeley website describing "lifting functional constraints through duplication":
"Even when a feature is absolutely necessary for survival it can be modified by natural selection for a different function if it is duplicated. For example, globin is a truly ancient protein. Billions of years old, it was present in the common ancestor of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungi. Globin performed an essential job: binding and carrying oxygen. You might imagine that natural selection would lock globin into that one job; however, through duplication and divergence, different copies of the globin molecule were adapted for different roles."

I found that site (it wasn't too hard using the phrase "lifting functional constraints through duplication"), because I had to find out who was writing that. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html It's wrong, just plain wrong. And it's funded by agencies that should know better and make it sound like it's an authority for teachers. Les, this isn't a problem with evolutionary theory, it's a huge problem with the education being provided about it. That site has really saddened me. No wonder kids are being taught such wrong, improbable sounding material...that's not even just a over-simplification for a lay audience, it's just wrong, wrong, wrong, and being provided to teachers to pass on that misinformation to students. How can we ever teach this properly to the public when there's just so much misinformation floating around and coming from authoritative sounding sources? Sorry, I think I just need to cry some more. I'm starting to grasp the source of your frustration.

 

[ZapperZ]

Then you shouldn't read this, Moonbie. It'll make you more depressed. Or angry.

http://www.aps.org/apsnews/1005/100518.cfm

Zz.

 

[Danger]

I had to quit reading that, ZZ. My lunch was starting to come back.

 

[ZapperZ]

I had to quit reading that, ZZ. My lunch was starting to come back.

Then maybe you could hang on to your lunch by reading this next...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_sc/vatican_science

Zz.

 

[Danger]

That was quite refreshing, Zapper. Of course the 'creator' thing still implies supernatural intervention, but at least they're trying to strike a balance.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Abiogenesis is not part of evolutionary theory, it is a separate line of research, and certainly does have a good deal of controversy surrounding it. It really can best be described as "one way" life could have started, but we have no direct evidence it is correct. Anyone promoting it as part of evolutionary theory is just plain wrong.

I know. I simply pasted that part of another debate here. The relevance I see is that mechanistic principles start with abiogenesis, so it's also the basis of the natural selection-genetic variation theory. Can mechanics alone achieve all biological forms, and that includes consciousness? That is the bottom-line question I've been saying the science side says "absolutely, positively YES!" when addressing the public and in textbooks. Yet that isn't what's indicated when you demand to see the evidence that supports all that enthusiastic optimism.

. . . Sorry, I think I just need to cry some more. I'm starting to grasp the source of your frustration.

I suspect our tears are for different reasons, but I would like to hear your reasons.

 

[Moonbear]

Then maybe you could hang on to your lunch by reading this next...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_sc/vatican_science
Zz.

What's interesting is that the stage for this was set back in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. At the time, while the Vatican's position was that evolution was still an hypothesis, and it was certainly greeted with much suspicion, he made it clear that dialogue between theologians and scientists should occur...he wasn't really saying theologians should believe science though, more that they need to know what science is teaching. However, he also made it clear that as long as science didn't contradict scripture, and as long as it was viewed cautiously, Catholics could view it as God revealing His truths. It's nice to see the Vatican has kept a more open mind than even the writings of Pope Pius XII ever hinted at.

Fromumani Generis: Encyclical of Pope Pius XII
August 12, 1950

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this Earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]
...
43. Let them strive with every force and effort to further the progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for the protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard to new questions, which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging in a false "irenism," that the dissident and the erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution.

The full text is available at: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p.../hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Disclaimer: Inclusion of the above is not intended to be an endorsement of any religion or religious teaching, it is included to illustrate an historical perspective of one religion's teachings regarding evolutionary theory in order to demonstrate the difference in what the current Vatican is saying compared with that of over 50 years ago. If anyone finds this offensive to their religion, or lack thereof, please send me a PM and I will delete it.

 

[Moonbear]

I know. I simply pasted that part of another debate here. The relevance I see is that mechanistic principles start with abiogenesis, so it's also the basis of the natural selection-genetic variation theory. Can mechanics alone achieve all biological forms, and that includes consciousness? That is the bottom-line question I've been saying the science side says "absolutely, positively YES!" when addressing the public and in textbooks. Yet that isn't what's indicated when you demand to see the evidence that supports all that enthusiastic optimism.

Actually, that evolution happens, yes, we know. How it has happened, especially speciation events, and all the ways it can happen, that is the area of active research. Unfortunately, I think there is too much reaction to the Creationists and ID proponents and fear that expressing uncertainty will undermine the public's confidence in science that spur scientists to make stronger claims than they should (or to not argue when newspaper headlines say things that aren't quite right).

Just an example, from a recent issue of the journal Evolution:
Arndt Telschow, Peter Hammerstein, and John H. Werren. THE EFFECT OF WOLBACHIA VERSUS GENETIC INCOMPATIBILITIES ON REINFORCEMENT AND SPECIATION. 59: 1607–1619, 2005

ABSTRACT

Wolbachia is a widespread group of intracellular bacteria commonly found in arthropods. In many insect species, Wolbachia induce a cytoplasmic mating incompatibility (CI). If different Wolbachia infections occur in the same host species, bidirectional CI is often induced. Bidirectional CI acts as a postzygotic isolation mechanism if parapatric host populations are infected with different Wolbachia strains. Therefore, it has been suggested that Wolbachia could promote speciation in their hosts. In this article we investigate theoretically whether Wolbachia-induced bidirectional CI selects for premating isolation and therefore reinforces genetic divergence between parapatric host populations. To achieve this we combined models for Wolbachia dynamics with a well-studied reinforcement model. This new model allows us to compare the effect of bidirectional CI on the evolution of female mating preferences with a situation in which postzygotic isolation is caused by nuclear genetic incompatibilities (NI). We distinguish between nuclear incompatibilities caused by two loci with epistatic interactions, and a single locus with incompatibility among heterozygotes in the diploid phase. Our main findings are: (1) bidirectional CI and single locus NI select for premating isolation with a higher speed and for a wider parameter range than epistatic NI; (2) under certain parameter values, runaway sexual selection leads to the increase of an introduced female preference allele and fixation of its preferred male trait allele in both populations, whereas under others it leads to divergence in the two populations in preference and trait alleles; and (3) bidirectional CI and single locus NI can stably persist up to migration rates that are two times higher than seen for epistatic NI. The latter finding is important because the speed with which mutants at the preference locus spread increases exponentially with the migration rate. In summary, our results show that bidirectional CI selects for rapid premating isolation and so generally support the view that Wolbachia can promote speciation in their hosts.

As you can hopefully see from this, neither natural selection nor random mutations are being attributed as the actual causational event of evolution in this case, but instead, a bacterial infection that alters the compatibility of arthropods to mate.

I suspect our tears are for different reasons, but I would like to hear your reasons.

Yes, probably for different reasons, but I can see that a reason you're taking such an anti-science position is that you've been bombarded by incorrect information from people claiming to have the authority to speak on behalf evolutionary biology without fully understanding it themselves. I can see where you're getting the impression that it's more religion than science...when people speak of absolute truths, that's not science and they are not scientists, no matter what their degree states or what they claim. Absolute truths are for religion, evidence and an open-mind about alternative interpretations are required for good science.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Neither really. I agree that if ID is an attempt to intellectually satisfy the precepts, descriptions, or predictions of religious dogma’ then it should not be taught as science. I shouldn’t have said anything since I wasn’t prepared to repeat my arguments, and I know the effort in GD seems to be to generally keep things agreeable (politics excepted of course). If you are interested, my arguments can be found in detail in the thread that starts here . . .
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93364
I didn't jump in until the fourth page here . . .
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93364&page=4

If I understand your point, you are saying that since science does not explain EVERYTHING that has ever happened, we should entertain religious ideas as much as theoretical, but unproven, ideas based on emperical evidence. If you mean 'we' as people, it comes down to personal choice and since people will do that if they wish with or without your say-so, I hardly see it as a relevant point. If you mean "we" as in scientists and/or students of science, you are so gravely mistaken it's not funny. Non-scientific ideas are not the quarry of the scientific community, otherwise it wouldn't be the scientific community would it?

I also think you misunderstand the point of teaching science to children. It is not to fill their heads with what we believe to be truth. Children are mistaught other things. Children are taught that electrons live in shells around atoms. Children are taught that p = mv. Why are they taught these things? As an entry into science academia, if they should so choose. They are taught the best model they can understand. They are taught that these things are 'theories' not facts. Anything of evolution theory they are taught will aid them should they go on to study evolution. It isn't like French. It isn't like Home Ec. These are things that are taught as they are. Science is taught as something to be.

What is the raison d'etre of evolution? To explain the diversity of life and the commonality of traits. What is the raison d'etre of ID? To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies and to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God. No-one is saying either are proven 100% - we are saying that one is science and one is not.

Besides, I see no relevance of any of your points to the OP. ID isn't science. It shouldn't be taught as science. You seem to agree. Rejoice.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't know if one can read or get this without site-wide subscription, but if you can, here's another essay one should read.

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/globalvoices/

Zz.

 

[Norman]

I don't know if one can read or get this without site-wide subscription, but if you can, here's another essay one should read.

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/globalvoices/

Zz.

Zz- that is a great article- thanks for posting it- you don't need a subscription (unless my school has one that I don't know about).
I should brush up on my spanish and live in Mexico- Seems to be much more open minded then our "ever superior" United States (please read with sarcasm so I don't get flamed). Though, Mexico doesn't have a space program, so I am out of a job...

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz- that is a great article- thanks for posting it- you don't need a subscription (unless my school has one that I don't know about).
I should brush up on my spanish and live in Mexico- Seems to be much more open minded then our "ever superior" United States (please read with sarcasm so I don't get flamed).

Yeah, but wait till you see the traffic and the smog in Mexico City!

:)

Zz.

 

[adrenaline]

The argument is not that ID should be eliminated from a school's curriculum. Just that it should not be taught as science.

This is the crux, who cares if ID is right.
Wether to teach intelligent design next to evolution as a "science" is completely fallacious .
Science is a process by which laws and theories are testable, but it does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as we all know. In fact, there is very little science that does that as El Hombre reiterated.
In other words, science is not a list of laws and/or theories that have been proven. Rather, the requirement is that they are testable. To test an idea, we need to be able to utilize the idea to make a prediction. Many times, the prediction is specified in terms of what will happen if one does a particular experiment. However it can also be that the prediction needs to be specified in terms of an observation that has yet to be made. For example, this prediction could deal with what we might find if we dig in a certain location.
Is the theory of evolution, testable? Yes.
(this prediction could deal with what we might find if we dig in a certain location If macro-evolution has occurred, then we might expect to find certain fossils in certain locations (e.g., fossils would be found in strata from similar dates). If the actual observations match the predicted observations we have evidence in support for the theory. Evolution makes testable predictions regarding that the DNA of related species should be more similar than those that "look" the same but don't have any fossil evidence linking the two. As such, it is testable. Similarly, if the Earth was so old, then we might expect to observe certain values from dating techniques in certain locations. As such, it is testable.)
Thus, what makes evolution scientific is not whether it has been adequately tested but rather whether it is testable. In other words, if the question is whether the theory of evolution is science, then the debate is not over whether the theory of evolution has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather whether it is falsifiable. And the answer to the latter is "yes". The theory of evolution is science.
Advocates for intelligent design being taught in the classroom assert that their criticism of evolution is scientific, not religious.
But the intelligent design theory have not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate and most importantly, it is not testable. Does it provide a better and easier explanation of of life! Well hell yeah but that does not make it science!
No research supporting the claims of intelligent design has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Therefore, question of whether there is an intelligent designer is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim and should not be taught in classrooms.
For the record, I believe in Intelligent Design but it needs to remain in the realm of faith and religion, not science.
And to requote El Hombre

Besides, I see no relevance of any of your points to the OP. ID isn't science. It shouldn't be taught as science. You seem to agree. Rejoice

 

[Phobos]

No research supporting the claims of intelligent design has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Aside from 1 article a few months ago in a small scientific publication which the editors later said was in error.

 

[Moonbear]

Wait, wait, I can't resist the irony any longer...irrefutable evidence of evolution occurring via intelligent design: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97201
Just who expected the intelligent designer to be...human.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is the crux, who cares if ID is right.
Wether to teach intelligent design next to evolution as a "science" is completely fallacious .
Science is a process by which laws and theories are testable, but it does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as we all know. In fact, there is very little science that does that as El Hombre reiterated.
In other words, science is not a list of laws and/or theories that have been proven. Rather, the requirement is that they are testable. To test an idea, we need to be able to utilize the idea to make a prediction. Many times, the prediction is specified in terms of what will happen if one does a particular experiment. However it can also be that the prediction needs to be specified in terms of an observation that has yet to be made. For example, this prediction could deal with what we might find if we dig in a certain location.
Is the theory of evolution, testable? Yes.
(this prediction could deal with what we might find if we dig in a certain location If macro-evolution has occurred, then we might expect to find certain fossils in certain locations (e.g., fossils would be found in strata from similar dates). If the actual observations match the predicted observations we have evidence in support for the theory. Evolution makes testable predictions regarding that the DNA of related species should be more similar than those that "look" the same but don't have any fossil evidence linking the two. As such, it is testable. Similarly, if the Earth was so old, then we might expect to observe certain values from dating techniques in certain locations. As such, it is testable.)
Thus, what makes evolution scientific is not whether it has been adequately tested but rather whether it is testable. In other words, if the question is whether the theory of evolution is science, then the debate is not over whether the theory of evolution has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" but rather whether it is falsifiable. And the answer to the latter is "yes". The theory of evolution is science.
Advocates for intelligent design being taught in the classroom assert that their criticism of evolution is scientific, not religious.
But the intelligent design theory have not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate and most importantly, it is not testable. Does it provide a better and easier explanation of of life! Well hell yeah but that does not make it science!
No research supporting the claims of intelligent design has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Therefore, question of whether there is an intelligent designer is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim and should not be taught in classrooms.
For the record, I believe in Intelligent Design but it needs to remain in the realm of faith and religion, not science.
And to requote El Hombre

Nice post.

I also believe that life was intellegently designed... to evolve.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Actually, that evolution happens, yes, we know. How it has happened, especially speciation events, and all the ways it can happen, that is the area of active research.

I'll take the blame if I must for not communicating properly. But just from my side of it, I am frustrated that not one single person posting has responded to my objections. I am saying one thing, and you guys answer as though I said something completely different.

There is no question speciation occurs via bacterial infection or natural selection-genetic variation or whatever other influence might cause change. I've never said anything different. What I have said is that there is not enough evidence in any observed adaptive process to warrant the conclusion that adaptiveness can create organs and organisms. Speciation, just like the example you cited, is a breeze to achieve. But how do you conclude from that something as high functioning as a liver could come about through simple adaptation?

The standard answer is, given hundreds of millions of years of gradual changes . . . However, how do you explain the huge numbers of new organs/organisms developed in the 5 to 10 million years of the Cambrian explosion? But I am claiming even if there was enough time there is a more basic problem.

The problem with the purely Darwinistic proposal is exactly the same problem with abiogenesis theory (which is why I included it earlier). In the case of abiogenesis, self-organizing ability is attributed to chemistry which has never been observed. In the case of evolution, simple adaptation hasn't been shown it can build organs. For the most part it has only been shown to help critters with getting laid or not being eaten.

So my point is the quality of the adaptive mechanisms we know haven't been shown anywhere near what they need to be in order to be teaching children that any known adaptive mechanisms have alone "most likely" produced all aspects of all life forms.

Wait, wait, I can't resist the irony any longer...irrefutable evidence of evolution occurring via intelligent design: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=97201 Just who expected the intelligent designer to be...human.

It's interesting that you cited genetic engineering because if some sort of universal consciousness has participated in evolution, it almost certainly would had to have done so through an organism's genetics. I've made the point before that just in terms of finding anything in our universe which we know actually has been observed organizing things into high-functioning systems, it is consciousness. Nothing mechanical, however, has ever been observed doing that, yet when the abiogenesis and Darwinist believers site the "most likely' cause of either, guess what they stick in the gap . . . mechanics/physicalness.

If I understand your point, you are saying that since science does not explain EVERYTHING that has ever happened, we should entertain religious ideas as much as theoretical, but unproven, ideas based on emperical evidence. If you mean 'we' as people, it comes down to personal choice and since people will do that if they wish with or without your say-so, I hardly see it as a relevant point. If you mean "we" as in scientists and/or students of science, you are so gravely mistaken it's not funny. Non-scientific ideas are not the quarry of the scientific community, otherwise it wouldn't be the scientific community would it?

That is NOT my point.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll take the blame if I must for not communicating properly. But just from my side of it, I am frustrated that not one single person posting has responded to my objections. I am saying one thing, and you guys answer as though I said something completely different.

Frankly, it's not that you aren't communicating your objections properly, it's just that your objections are just plain wrong/irrelevant. At it's most basic, you are arguing that science is not science. But while you may think you understand the theory of evolution, you don't. Heck, even if you do understand it well for a layman, you certainly can't expect to understand it as well as a biologist. Case-in-point:

Speciation, just like the example you cited, is a breeze to achieve. But how do you conclude from that something as high functioning as a liver could come about through simple adaptation?

The standard answer is, given hundreds of millions of years of gradual changes . . . However, how do you explain the huge numbers of new organs/organisms developed in the 5 to 10 million years of the Cambrian explosion?

Well, can't you answer that? [rhetorical: no point in actually going over the whole theory right here, just know that there is an answer and if you want it, you can find it.] It appears to me that based on your lack of knowledge of the explanation, you assume there is no explanation. And based on that, you conclude that science is a faith.

With your line of questioning above, you'll always find questions to which you don't know the answers. You may get an answer that leads you to another question. But after a while, if you stop and turn around, you may find yourself buried 10 steps deep into some very limited issues with the theory. And that massive body of evidence behind you - not the pinhole in front of you - is why scientists accept the theory of evolution.

Les, with the exception of a few bad apples (they exist everywhere), science only claims to have answers when it has answers. Just because you don't know what the reason is, doesn't mean that scientists don't have a reason. Science isn't some grand global conspiracy/cult with which to extract research dollars or destroy religion. Have a little faith (pun intended) in your fellow man.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Frankly, it's not that you aren't communicating your objections properly, it's just that your objections are just plain wrong/irrelevant.

You can usually tell how someone is going to debate you when they start out saying you are “just plain wrong,” and don’t bother to explain how. “I’m right and you are wrong” is about all you managed to say throughout this entire post.

At it's most basic, you are arguing that science is not science.

Show me where I said or even implied that. I am arguing science is science, but that in a couple of areas scientism devotees are exaggerating the evidence they have in order to convince the public that science is capable of answering the most important ontological questions about our universe. I have nothing bad to say about science that is only science.

But while you may think you understand the theory of evolution, you don't. Heck, even if you do understand it well for a layman, you certainly can't expect to understand it as well as a biologist. Case-in-point:

speciation, just like the example you cited, is a breeze to achieve. But how do you conclude from that something as high functioning as a liver could come about through simple adaptation? . . . The standard answer is, given hundreds of millions of years of gradual changes . . . However, how do you explain the huge numbers of new organs/organisms developed in the 5 to 10 million years of the Cambrian explosion?

Well, can't you answer that? [rhetorical: no point in actually going over the whole theory right here, just know that there is an answer and if you want it, you can find it.]

This is an example of the condescending thuggery I’ve complained about. Thanks for supporting my point! To insist that no one is allowed to challenge claims unless one is an expert (or in a power position) is how tyrants typically argue.

And here you give yourself away “Well, can't you answer that?. . . just know that there is an answer and if you want it, you can find it.” Why should I want to find a Darwinist answer? I don’t give a damn if Darwinist evolution theory is correct or not. If it is, then fine, if it isn’t, then that’s fine too.

See, it is you who is the “believer,” not me, because it is only those pre-committed to scientism who are determined to stick some mechanistic explanation in the gaps whether they make sense or not. Where's that objectivity that is supposed to be a high ideal of science?

It appears to me that based on your lack of knowledge of the explanation, you assume there is no explanation. And based on that, you conclude that science is a faith.

You just so certain you are right that you don’t even have to respond to my arguments. I’d bet anything you haven’t even reflected on my points, and that is why the best you can do is condescend rather than make your case with logic and evidence, and in response to my arguments.

With your line of questioning above, you'll always find questions to which you don't know the answers. You may get an answer that leads you to another question. But after a while, if you stop and turn around, you may find yourself buried 10 steps deep into some very limited issues with the theory. And that massive body of evidence behind you - not the pinhole in front of you - is why scientists accept the theory of evolution.

Look, why don’t you just show me where I’ve not understood. It isn’t that difficult to study evolution, nothing has mystified me yet. You haven’t cited one solitary example where I’ve misunderstood or under-understood. Here’s pages and pages of me sticking my neck out criticizing evolution theory:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=93364&page=4

Surely you should be able to find mistakes I’ve made if I am so uninformed of the great mysteries of evolution which you seem to think only a minority are so brilliant they can understand, and the rest of us MUST be real morons if we dare question anything about it.

Just because you don't know what the reason is, doesn't mean that scientists don't have a reason. Science isn't some grand global conspiracy/cult with which to extract research dollars or destroy religion. Have a little faith (pun intended) in your fellow man.

Oh, you mean bow to self-proclaimed geniuses like good little sheep? Don’t dare to ask for evidence, logic . . .? You are being paternalistic, which might be a good thing in the military, but around here I thought we were encouraging people to think.

There is nothing wrong in believing science may not have all the answers to how life came about, and if you continue to treat skeptics like they are stupid, you are going to do nothing but hurt the cause of science. Besides, it isn’t just non-scientism devotees who have concerns about evolution. Here’s a science believer I quoted in the above linked thread being, I thought, fair about some of the problems (edited so it would fit in one post):

http://www.angelfire.com/tn/tifni/misc/cambrianexplosion.html

“Half a billion years ago, during this "evolutionary big bang," life evolved at rates of over twenty times the Precambrian rate. From approximately 535 million years ago to 520 million years ago, nearly all the animal phyla in existence today (and many that are no longer with us), save the Bryozoa, first appeared in the fossil record. While this does not necessarily entail that all animal phyla came into existence during the Cambrian explosion – some scientists believe that the "explosion" was a change in climate that produced conditions favorable for the fossilization of preexisting phyla – the evidence for a period of astounding diversification of life is overwhelming. The animals that made their abrupt appearance during the Cambrian explosion are ancestors of virtually all the creatures that swim, fly, and crawl today.

Until recently, scientists believed that phyla evolved over a ridiculously short period of 75 million years. In 1993, a group of researchers from M.I.T. and Harvard did some zircon dating in Siberia, then took the Cambrian period, chopped it in half, and stomped down the evolutionary boom to the first 5 to 10 million years. ‘We now know how fast fast is,’ grinned Samuel Bowring of M.I.T. in an interview with Time magazine. ‘And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they start feeling uncomfortable?

The possible causes of the Cambrian explosion are as numerous and whimsical as the animals it created. . . . The Cambrian Explosion leaves us humans, 500 million years later, with the most puzzling of questions. The Cambrian rocks of the geologic column contain a proliferation of complex life; however, no trace of predecessors to such complex and sometimes offbeat organisms is to be found in Precambrian rocks. For example, the evolution of vertebrate fish from invertebrate animals, which wore exoskeletons and left no traces of turning their exoskeletons inside out to produce vertebrae, remains a gaping hole in the evolutionary timeline. Thus the Cambrian explosion raises questions about Darwin’s grand theory of evolution.

Creationists exploit the Cambrian explosion as evidence that the Biblical record of creation is true. Then God said, ‘Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures.’ So appeared the abundant fish and marine life that appeared during the Cambrian explosion. These ‘stationary or slow-moving’ creatures were the first to be overwhelmed by the mud and silt of the Deluge, and they were fossilized to be discovered half a billion years later.

The existence of such a plethora of conflicting hypotheses, all of which are viable, some of which seem fantastic, may instill a sense of doubt in the reader as to whether any of them correctly explain the mystery of the Cambrian explosion. In my opinion, a propitious combination of true polar wander, predation, and an increase in the number of Hox genes provides the most satisfactory and comprehensive explanation. I tend to doubt the creationism hypothesis not because of a prodigious lack of faith, but rather because the creationists seem to embrace it too heartily and ignore the conspicuous incongruities between Genesis and current ‘scientific’ beliefs. However, the true polar wander hypothesis is relatively new and has been challenged in Science, where it was first published. The unstoppable advance of science may eventually reach a firm conclusion as to what triggered the Cambrian explosion. For now we must continue to wonder about and wonder at this remarkable and baffling proliferation of life.”

 

[Evo]

This website is a great read, even though it starts out rather humorously. (sorry if a bit OT, Les' link made me think of it)

A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale

1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid.

(2) Adam and Eve, talking snakes, etc.

(3) World's waters are in great Venus-like atmosphere or in ground
water. No rain, no ocean basins.

(4) Radiometric dating invalid; speed of light changed.

(5) Humans, dinosaurs, mammals, the "works," all live together in
peace. Both lions and Tyranosaurus Rex are vegetarians in Eden before
the "fall."

(6) Human life spans up to 900 years.

(7) Battle of Satan and angels produces craters on moon.

Flood Year: Flood "Geology" - ONE (?) year of normal (?) "science"

Rain - 40 days

(8) Big animals run to mountain tops. Not a single dumb human caught
in all the early flood sediments. All dinosaurs washed off only in
middle flood-time.

(9) Coral reefs (Guadalupe Mountains of Texas) grow to thicknesses of
half a mile during single year.

(10) Vast coal beds accumulate one on top of another, each as original
swamp deposits on order of 100 feet thick, all in one year.

(11) Mile-thick salt formations in Utah form by evaporation (!) of
seawater during (!) the flood.

Flood - about 250 days.

(12) Most of the world's sedimentary rocks dumped on continents to
average thickness of one mile, almost entirely during the flood year.

(13) Most continental drif occurs. Flood waters drain into the newly
formed ocean basins. Atlantic opens at average rate of 1/2 mile per
hour.

(14) Most deep sea sediments (average about 1,500 feet thick) collect
on the newly opened ocean floors.

(15) Hawaiian volcano built 30,000 feet high on new sea floor. (Cools
enough for birds and plants from Ark to colonize soon after end of
flood year.

Final Retreat - ? 100 days ?

(16)Volcano of Mount Ararat built 7,000 feet high underwater and cools
in time for grounding of the Ark.

(17) Successive Yellowstone ash beds bury 10 to 27 forests one on top
of another, all grown during single year.

(18) Grand Canyon cut by receding flood waters. Flood sediments
de-water and harden in one year to rock strong enough to stand as
steep, mile-hile cliffs.

Post-Flood Geology - 4,500 years of normal (?) science to Present

(19)From Ark, Noah (?) directs streams of distinctive animal and plant
communities to migrate to Africa, Australia, South America, etc.
(Ferry service ?) (Some creationists use post-flood continental
drift at rates up to one mile per hour !)

(20)Sun stands still for Israelite battle. Earth stops rotating and
then starts again due to near-miss by Venus out of its orbit ?
(Velikovsky)

(21)Only one ice age as post-flood atmosphere cools.
Geologists' abundant evidence of many great ice advances
separated by sub-tropical vegetation and development of thick soil zones
between some advances are wrong.

(22)Late-flood granite masses, formed at 1,000 degrees (F.), cool to
present low temperatures at rates in violation of all laws of thermal
physics. Fit to radiometric daes is mere coincidence.

(23)Extreme rates of continental drift typical of flood (1/2 mile per
hour) suddenly slow to present-day laser-measured rates of inches per
year. Accord of present rates with radiometric dates is mere chance.

(24)Coral reefs (Bikini, Eniwetok) grow 1/2 to 1 mile thick in first
1,000 years (rate of one foot per month) then slow to present measured
rates of inches per century.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/Wise/CreationistGeologyRefuted.htm

 

[Danger]

Beautiful, Evo! Just when I start to wonder why I keep you around, you come up with something like that.

 

[russ_watters]

This website is a great read, even though it starts out rather humorously. (sorry if a bit OT, Les' link made me think of it)
A Creation "Science" Geologic Time Scale
1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." Laws of science invalid....

Now Evo, babe, it's not nice to make fun...

On a related note, they misspelled my name, but nevertheless, I appreciate the recognition...

Day 2 - Waters[sic] above and waters[sic] below.