Dissent From Darwin

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This goes to my point on another thread that when scientists start talking about God they are no longer talking science but religion.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell it to Dawkins and Sagan. I already get that.

[ QUOTE ]

The best working model it has at this time involves Natural Selection and Random Mutation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which brings us back to the Dissent from Darwin.

[ QUOTE ]

The God concept is a supernatural one and science is not in the business of dealing with supernatural concepts


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've made that point many times before. It's my opinion the only reason ID'ers violate that is in response to the continual violation perpetrated on the public by atheist evolutionists.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said in another post, undesigned evolution will always change when anything about it is falsified.

[/ QUOTE ]
Darwin's theory basically comes down to this:

1. Organisms have mechanisms for producing varied copies of themselves, sometimes with novel traits.
2. Natural selection means that some organisms will not survive to reproduce. In general, these organisms will be the ones with traits that are least suited to survival in their environment
3. This is sufficient to explain all life on earth.
4. This is what actually happened.

People often conflate these points, so let's look at them separately.

(1) and (2) are proven true by observation. Only the mechanisms and degree are of debate.

(3) is a question of finding plausible and likely mechanisms for (1) and (2) to produce all the organisms on earth. Since Darwin's time we've discovered DNA as the blueprint of life, which contains the capacity for change and the development of novel features. The incredible fossil record of animals like the horse indicate that mechanisms for wide scale change exist and have happened in the past. For example, we know for a fact that paws can become hooves, shoulder joints can tilt forward slowly into a different configuration, teeth can change to be suitable for chewing grass, and digestive systems can evolve from omnivorous to dealing with a diet of grass. There are many, many other examples where history has proven that large scale evolution can occur by natural means. Another example is the transition from reptiles to mammals which has a superb fossil record. Of course, God could have put the fossils there with the correct gradations, in chronological order in the correct strata so that it looked exactly like natural evolution. He could also be David Sklansky.

The only reason Darwin's theory is so accepted today is because we have found these things, and their existence overwhelming suggests evolution by natural selection is not only possible, but expected to produce the variation we see.

(4) is a question of what actually happened. Reconstructing the fossil record and reconciling observed patterns of life with other information such as geological records is the best we will ever get. You can hide in there if you wish.

Also note that Darwin's theory is falsifiable, and there is evidence that would destroy it, never to be resurrected. If we found evidence that the earth is 6000 years old (or even a million), evolution would be dead. If we found evidence of a flood 5000 years ago, as suggested in your holy book, evolution would be dead. If we found fossil records or existing species that didn't fit neatly into a model of common descent in the phylogenic tree, evolution would be in deep, deep [censored]. We haven't even had to invoke the alien theory - if we found old stands of Eucalypts growing in California, evolution would have some explaining to do. In fact, the degree to which plant and animal populations fit the geological history of the world is simply astounding. It fits exactly with what we'd expect if things had evolved.

You assert that evolution would just change if it was falsified. That's not true. There are a heap of things which would completely destroy any theory of evolution. This is because it requires:

- sufficient time
- a strong element of common descent
- a physical mechanism for variation and creation of novel traits
- a coherent phylogenic tree
- agreement with the geological and cosmological record

Evolution has passed all these tests with flying colors, and continues to do so with each new bit of information we receive about the world. What does that tell you?

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also agree with this statement.


[/ QUOTE ]

You do? You really are skeptical of that statement but think one common ancestor is a virtual certainty?

[/ QUOTE ]Rarely a serious scientist talks in terms of "virtual certainty". But the overwhelming evidence, yes, points to the direction outlined by Darwin and the neo-Darwinists, that's right.

And I could also agree with that statement! Do you know what the root of the term "skeptical" is? It's the Greek word for "Think".


Mickey Brausch

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

The God concept is a supernatural one and science is not in the business of dealing with supernatural concepts


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I've made that point many times before. It's my opinion the only reason ID'ers violate that is in response to the continual violation perpetrated on the public by atheist evolutionists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution Scientists who are Athiests have a right to promote their religious beliefs (Athiesm) in public just like anybody else. The proper response of ID types should be to engage them in public debate making it clear that they are discussing religion, not science. However, there is no place for any of this in the science classroom.

A science teacher presenting the theory of evolution should be making no mention of God one way or another. If he does, either by way of ID or Atheist Denial, there is grounds for complaint. I doubt this is the real issue for the IDers though. In all my time at school I can only recall one time that God was mentioned during a lesson on Evolution. And that was when a student brought up the complaint that God was not being mentioned. As I recall, the teacher basically said that it was not the job of science to discuss God. I really don't think God/No-God is being brought into the science classroom except by the IDer's.

PairTheBoard

[Mickey Brausch]

link

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological [and geological] sciences. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry."

That's the statement being signed by all those scientists named Steve (or Stephanie or Esteban, etc). Another statement which I would have no problem agreeing with!

The purpose of the "project" is to show the absurdity of "science by poll", which is what the weasels behind such creationist fronts as the Discovery Institute are trying to pull. Boo hiss.

Mickey Brausch

[Subfallen]

The confusion in this thread is philosophical, not factual. Everyone seems to think science and philosophy are disjoint methodologies: that is, a truth claim in the scientific domain is incommensurable to a truth claim in the philosophical domain, and vice versa.

This is at best an antiquated intuition, and at worst it is indefensible dogmatism. Anyone who seriously argues otherwise has missed the last 100 years of philosophy. (*Cough* NotReady *cough.*) One only need examine the considerable philosophical controversy on what constitutes a meaningful empirical claim to see what I mean.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
This goes to my point on another thread that when scientists start talking about God they are no longer talking science but religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. See, the increasing convergence of philosophy and science makes this statement read approximately:

[ QUOTE ]
This goes to my point on another thread that when scientists start talking about God they are no longer talking in terms of meaningful reality but religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what you want? Religion explicitly outside the domain of what can be meaningfully discussed as real?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This goes to my point on another thread that when scientists start talking about God they are no longer talking science but religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. See, the increasing convergence of philosophy and science makes this statement read approximately:

[ QUOTE ]
This goes to my point on another thread that when scientists start talking about God they are no longer talking in terms of meaningful reality but religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what you want? Religion explicitly outside the domain of what can be meaningfully discussed as real?

[/ QUOTE ]



Are you equating Science with the study of that which is meaningfully real? I think that's the position of the Logical Positivists, that Religion, being beyond the scope of science, talks about things that are not meaningfully real and thus should be ignored. However, I think that position amounts to a Religious Position. It opines on the significance of what Religion discusses. That's different from what I'm saying. The scientific view of Religion is that Religion is not relevant to science simply because it is beyond the scope of science.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, God could have put the fossils there with the correct gradations, in chronological order in the correct strata so that it looked exactly like natural evolution. He could also be David Sklansky.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read up to here then quit. This is useless. "Atheism say nothing about God except everything about Him all the time".

Heck with it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Rarely a serious scientist talks in terms of "virtual certainty".


[/ QUOTE ]

True. More like absolute certainty.