The Crusade Against Evolution

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Hey, genius, evolution isn't science. That's why its called a theory.

LOL. All of science is theory. There are a few fundemental laws, but everything els else theory. Maybe bible thumpers should keep there noses out of science and leave that for the people who think.

i'm sick of people using religious factions as a means to rate the plausability of christian ideas. that's like choosing a theory that's wrong and saying "see, science is bogus." science and christianity are on the same page on a lot of issues. God works under rules himself. he doesn't just wave a wand or something. "i think i'll put a planet there, and that lil black hole thingy.... let's just plop that over there. it's unfortunate that organized religion felt the need to pigeon hold scientific discovery. that's why we're here!!!! fill the earth and subdue it for god's sake. how do you subdue something? by understanding it completely enough to predict and control it. don't let the fear taught by religious mongers who horde money collected with fear under the pretense of some "get out of jail (hell) not so free" card. science's ferverent nature is brought about by the persicution of the religious iron fist. science DID disprove their religion. doesn't make christianity wrong, them yes, not the whole. issac newton was just accepted into heaven a few years ago according to the catholic church!!!! how absurd is that! the bible understood the world as a globe centuries before that was "accepted and tested" scientific theory. the concept of quarantining and washing of hands before eating???? centuries before nostrodamus. organized religion....please flame the piss out of it. they've collected enough money and spilled enough blood. but know this, we are unique, we are the epitome of science. we are the wonders of the universe. our existence, our solar system, our galaxy are all unique and perfect in the turbulant universe. the things that have transpired have led to the fruition which is now, for us. our cognitive abilities aren't chance, they're a gift and a responsibility. science is beautiful and it's ours to enjoy..... but do we? do we really? who benefits? drugs you say? for who. the rich, the fortunate. mp3 player? for advancement of our species? hardly. just another thing to draw attention away from the disgrace we've become. morality is a factor, people. we are on a path of extinction. naturally? not even close. it will be of our design, and we'll have none to blame but ourselves. what's natural about that selection.

the bible isn't just fingerpointing...... that's the money aspect of it. that's what it's all about. any zealous endeavor is for that gain. split the atom, atom bomb. man on the moon a testiment to our accomplishments? nope, just a blow against the global threat of communism. science, just like religion in it's original design is beautiful and perfect. it's the perversion of it. the twisting and misconstuing for personal gain that's caused such a rift. you got both pieces to the puzzle in front of you.... but preconceived notions and POLITICS don't allow for the conglomeration of the two. morality is just as big a key to our existence as mortality. an answer for both is necessary for the advancement of our species. plain and simple. and it really is.

 

[GDT]

Anyway what is there to teach in Intelligent Design?

teach 'A higher power created us'
pupil 'How'

teach 'Eerrr ooohh not by evolution anyway. Shaddup and read your bible'

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Train
for the record, im a strong evolutionist, but thats not what im arguing here.

What surprises me is this hell bent anger coming from people who cant stand the thought of even another idea existing. how many times have people on this board spouted off about how righteous and well informed they are, and they only come to thier own conclusions based on information from a wide array of sources. Whats so bad about having multiple ideas being exposed to students? And then letting the students come to thier own conclusions? In a way this sounds like it would be a better learning experience, exposing the children to several theories, and let them compare and ague the validity and then reason for themselves.

One problem with todays schools (in america at least) is they dont encourage thinking, they just try to pump kids with facts, no thinking involved. Its like, ok kids, heres this theory, memorize it and take a test, heres another, memorize it and get tested on it, etc. I for one would like to see science classes for young people taught like they were under Soviet Russia. They didnt just read off theories like schools here, they instead went over the history of the science, having the children learn about the trials and erros regarding a certain area, then "discover" the answer for themselves. of course the intent was for the children to discover the same conclusion that was wideley accepted at the time, but more importantly it taught the children to think using the scientific method.

I just don't think origin theories have any place in a science class.

The problem is the types of people who choose to become scientists and their staunch refusal to believe any answer can't be found in their precious pursuit.

The definiton of science:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

The definition of phenomena:
An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

Scientists should stick to science and stop trying to become philosphers. Kthx.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Again, I make a call onto all honest fanatic Christian wackos who don't believe in reason and science to practice what you preach. In other words, do not use medicine or any of the fruits of science.

Hey, genius, evolution isn't science. That's why its called a theory.

P.S. You really have a narrow close-minded view of Christians. You do your party proud.

That's why it's called a scientific theory.

How is DI not scientific theory also?

Intelligent design does not follow the rules of epistemology required by Science.

Epistemology is the study of foundations and the nature of knowledge.

Approaches since Plato, and developed in modern form by Descartes--requires that epistemological questions be answered in ways that do not presuppose any particular knowledge.

Science deals with analysis of mathematical probabilities based on observable evidence of the natural universe. If you are interested, search under the principle of falsifiability.

So for example based on observed evidence --what is the mathematical probability that God created the Universe and life?

The answer is: we can't say (yes, or no) because we have not complied with the rules of epistemology--Thus God is outside the realm of Science.

Arguments applied to a deist/supernatural (rather than a naturalistic) worldview, require presuppositions. They lack subjectivity and an objective standard.

For its answers --Intelligent design--indulges in argumentation based on false or untestable and hence unfalsifiable premises. Completely OUTSIDE the rules of epistemology= that is, ways that do not presuppose any particular knowledge.

Falsifiability and Evolutionary theory.

In this regard Cladistic analysis is employed to make testable hypothesis of evolutionary descent. Cladistic methods are commonly used to reconstruct evolutionary trees=which are hypothesis of descent=which can be tested rigorously.

Macroevolution (My favorite misinterpretation by lay-folk).

Macroevolution deals with evolution at the non-natural taxon level--which is to say at the kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, etc. level. These are organizational constructs (artificial) that represent unity of traits, and conversely diversity.

For example In the Kingdom Animalia we find that there are roughly 30 or so Invertebrate Phyla.

In contrast all vertebrate animals (including Homo sapiens sapiens) are found within ONLY ONE Phyla = Chordata.

Mammals are much further down the line, and you may know them as a Class--but they are really a subclass within the Class Reptilia.

All vertebrates, and certainly all reptiles--including Homo sapiens sapiens are closely related and share most of their derived traits.

So...Macroevolution is much more concerned with descent and modification at the Phylum level (the big jumps in biological organization)--say between the Phylum Annelida and the Phylum Molusca. The bottom line is, if you do not study Invertebrates, it is hardly worth getting excited about macroevolution.

Macroevolution can equally be tested through Cladistic analysis.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: Ethex
Nice Link.

I am disputing the theory of gravity

Um, leave my theories alone. I like to think of them more as immutable laws.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Gravity

Originally posted by: Ethex
Nice Link.

I am disputing the theory of gravity

Um, leave my theories alone. I like to think of them more as immutable laws.

Sorry guy, you have ceased to exist. I think a Ban is now appropriate!

 

[Moonbeam]

I got a kick out of the way an above link was used to dismiss an aspect of evolution: "

"But evolution (3) runs into serious problems on the macroevolutionary level. Attempts to simulate the Darwinian mechanism by computer have not produced the desired result of generating new organizational structures. Instead random changes in the computer language simulating the DNA sequence have produced degradation rather than increasing order (Moorehead and Kaplan, 1967)."

I really trusty in those 1967 computer modelings.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Evolution is a fact. There is no way around this. Populations change over time, and in according to their environments. There is literally a thousand treasure chests worth of information available to back this. A few aberrant phenomona doesn't dismiss 100 years of work. It is more likely that our theory is incomplete and still requires some more work.

A theory is much much more than a single statement. It has withstood the test of time and experiments. This is not your theory of why the cat got thirsty or why the checkbook is unbalanced. This is 50-100 years of experiments and data backing evolution.

 

[ZobarStyl]

Originally posted by: Luck JF
Evolution is not scientific at all. It is unproven theories based on major assumptions based on foundations which go against the very laws of biology. You need alot more faith to believe in evolution than creation. Creation is much more plausible and reasonable.

I call BS; it's obvious you've never even cracked a basic Biology textbook or you'd know that every single 'law' of biology points again and again at evolution. There are people doing research in my lab every day that utilizes evolution not as a theory but as a simple fact of life. We look for similar sequences across genomes, we analyze proteins for conserved active sites that exist in creatures no creationist could dare call related; and what we see never contradicts what the theory of evolution states. Unless you've got some magic law of biology that you think evolution breaks that you can show us, you're just spouting nonsense.

'ID' is really just creationists getting smarter and realizing that in a nation that seperates church and state, you can't thump a Bible to get dogma turned into classroom literature but instead must play the scientists' game and say that your idea that God actively had a hand in our creation is a 'theory.' However, to be a scientifically accepted 'theory' that is taught in schools, the idea is typically that it must have some evidence supporting it; we don't simply publish every off the wall idea in textbooks so that children get a 'balanced view'. There are many of different areas of science that all coalesce in agreeing that the theory of evolution is the most accurate view of how complex organisms came to be on this planet, therefore, we teach this accepted theory in schools. However, no such information exists to confirm ID as anything but an unproven hypothesis; all the 'examples' to support ID are simply instances of people not thinking hard enough. I mean, teachers don't 'teach the controversy' when little Jimmy writes down on his test that people are actually made of Jello and Wood Glue; no, we mark it wrong because no evidence exists to support his hypothesis.

And 'widely accepted' is a term being thrown around quite loosely here; widely accepted by the scientific community would be a pretext for a theory taught in schools, whereas widely accepted by the general public means exactly squat. There are innumerable urban legends (check out snopes.com for some good laughs) that people unquestionably believe in and yet are completely and utterly false. Public opinion matters in elections, but it doesn't change anything scientifically.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Evolution is a fact. There is no way around this.

dude, it's a theory. Don't get ahead of yourself. Science has a way of flipping itself on it's head every few millenia. This is the best we have so far but it is far from fact. There are portions of evolution that have strong empirical and factual support but there are other parts that have some serious gaps.

My primary objection to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school is there is NO underlying evidence for it. It is based entirely on beliefs. It is something that should be taught by parents, elected for in college, or learned on your own. You can't shove my beliefs down the throat of some other person's child. If you do so then you must do it for ALL beliefs. If you want to get right down to it there is more logical evidence in the creation ideas of Buddism than Christianity. Why not teach that in school??


In case anyone is wondering I am a Christian and I believe in evolution. Creationism and evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. Evolution may explain why things are the way they are, but it doesn't explain how they are here at all. As adults I would be happy to discuss my beliefs with you. I just don't think they should be taught in school.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

To show that evolution is a real process, just look at viruses and bacteria and at how new strains continuously appear.

However, some principles of the theory of evoultion seem made up in order to preserve the godlessness of the theory. Is exaptation, for example, stongly supported by fossil evidence?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Evolution is a fact in that populations change over time and according to their environments.

The reason evolution is still a theory is because there are still several kinks to be worked out.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I got a kick out of the way an above link was used to dismiss an aspect of evolution: "

"But evolution (3) runs into serious problems on the macroevolutionary level. Attempts to simulate the Darwinian mechanism by computer have not produced the desired result of generating new organizational structures. Instead random changes in the computer language simulating the DNA sequence have produced degradation rather than increasing order (Moorehead and Kaplan, 1967)."

I really trusty in those 1967 computer modelings.

Yeah, Foolishness. If you take a truly random seed and then seed randomness from the result you will get a total population of samples whose order is degrading. However, if you do the same thing but eliminate disorderly outcomes after each sample then you will end up with a perfect result if given enough time.

It sounds like they are doing it backwards.

If you take a big basket of letters in the alphabet and drop them from an aircraft your chances of spelling shakespear on the ground are slim. If you increase the altitude of the plane it will not increase the odds. However, if you increase the number of times the plane does this you will increase the odds.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Evolution is a fact in that populations change over time and according to their environments.

The reason evolution is still a theory is because there are still several kinks to be worked out.

That's better but it's still not fact in any sense.

Relativity has some "kinks to be worked out". It is in far better shape than evolution but is still considered a theory, not the FACT of relativity.

No TRUE scientist would ever say he knows the answer or knows something is a fact. Any halfway decent historian would quickly deflate his vanity. Ask Isaac Newton what he thinks of Aristotle. Ask Albert Einstein what he thinks of Isaac Newton. Ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks of Einstein. The only one of the whole bunch who knew the "facts" was Aristotle. :roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Evolution is a fact in that populations change over time and according to their environments.

The reason evolution is still a theory is because there are still several kinks to be worked out.

That's better but it's still not fact in any sense.

Relativity has some "kinks to be worked out". It is in far better shape than evolution but is still considered a theory, not the FACT of relativity.

No TRUE scientist would ever say he knows the answer or knows something is a fact. Any halfway decent historian would quickly deflate his vanity. Ask Isaac Newton what he thinks of Aristotle. Ask Albert Einstein what he thinks of Isaac Newton. Ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks of Einstein. The only one of the whole bunch who knew the "facts" was Aristotle. :roll:

Nonsense, Newton and Einstien were absolutly right. Hawkings was right about black holes. Evolution is also a fact

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Evolution is a fact in that populations change over time and according to their environments.

The reason evolution is still a theory is because there are still several kinks to be worked out.

That's better but it's still not fact in any sense.

Relativity has some "kinks to be worked out". It is in far better shape than evolution but is still considered a theory, not the FACT of relativity.

No TRUE scientist would ever say he knows the answer or knows something is a fact. Any halfway decent historian would quickly deflate his vanity. Ask Isaac Newton what he thinks of Aristotle. Ask Albert Einstein what he thinks of Isaac Newton. Ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks of Einstein. The only one of the whole bunch who knew the "facts" was Aristotle. :roll:

Nonsense, Newton and Einstien were absolutly right. Hawkings was right about black holes. Evolution is also a fact

Are you comparing these theories with creationism?

 

[Lovepig]

Science is against Evolution!

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Lovepig
Science is against Evolution!

Your borg avatar is quite appropriate. :thumbsdown:

 

[Rainsford]

I consider myself a reasonable person who examines the facts in a scientific manner and comes to a supportable conclusion. I simply do not think this conclusion can be ID, or DI, or creationism, or whatever. Evolution makes the most logical sense and is backed up most by scientific fact. Since science is what is being taught in science classrooms, I don't think a religious belief should be taught alongside a scientific theory. As Train says, multiple perspectives are important, but I think it's equally important we don't send kids the message that all ideas are equal just because people have them, some scientific ideas are clearly right, some are equally wrong.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I really trusty in those 1967 computer modelings.

i dont see why you wouldnt. the only real difference between now and then would be a more advanced AI engine for better prediction of evolutionary branches and processing speed.

so, youll either get the 1 in a million that leads to where we are now, or see the same failures, just a lot faster.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Evolution is a fact in that populations change over time and according to their environments.

The reason evolution is still a theory is because there are still several kinks to be worked out.

That's better but it's still not fact in any sense.

Relativity has some "kinks to be worked out". It is in far better shape than evolution but is still considered a theory, not the FACT of relativity.

No TRUE scientist would ever say he knows the answer or knows something is a fact. Any halfway decent historian would quickly deflate his vanity. Ask Isaac Newton what he thinks of Aristotle. Ask Albert Einstein what he thinks of Isaac Newton. Ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks of Einstein. The only one of the whole bunch who knew the "facts" was Aristotle. :roll:

Nonsense, Newton and Einstien were absolutly right. Hawkings was right about black holes. Evolution is also a fact

You have just demonstrated without a doubt that 1.) You don't know what you are talking about. 2.) Out of ignorance you think you do.

Newton was close to being right. Until Einstein came along we could not explain the discrepancies in his THEORY of gravity. Further more there are discrepancies in relativity that have not yet been explained although Hawking has made some attempt to do so. Also, do you mean Hawking was right before or after he admitted he was wrong and revised his theories on black holes?

You have no concept of what "Theory" means. Evolution is a theory, not a fact. Had Newtons theory on gravity been correct and without discrepancy it would have been a fact.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Evolution, as a process, is a fact. Populations change over time and according to their environments.

Evolution, as a theory, is still a theory.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Evolution is a fact in that populations change over time and according to their environments.

The reason evolution is still a theory is because there are still several kinks to be worked out.

That's better but it's still not fact in any sense.

Relativity has some "kinks to be worked out". It is in far better shape than evolution but is still considered a theory, not the FACT of relativity.

No TRUE scientist would ever say he knows the answer or knows something is a fact. Any halfway decent historian would quickly deflate his vanity. Ask Isaac Newton what he thinks of Aristotle. Ask Albert Einstein what he thinks of Isaac Newton. Ask Stephen Hawking what he thinks of Einstein. The only one of the whole bunch who knew the "facts" was Aristotle. :roll:

Nonsense, Newton and Einstien were absolutly right. Hawkings was right about black holes. Evolution is also a fact

Are you comparing these theories with creationism?

*I* am merely using these theories to demonstrate what a theory is and how it differs from fact. I am also attempting to demontrate how even very sound theories do undergo radical changes from time to time.

*Infohawk* is demonstrating his lack of understanding of theory versus fact as well as his ignorance of Newton, Einstein and Hawking.

 

[SickBeast]

Evolution does occur. Any reasonable human being will acknowledge that. Where it starts to get fuzzy is when people try to explain that all life evolved from a tiny single-celled organism. I personally believe that evolution occurs (Darwin's first book), but I do not believe that we all came from an amoeba (Darwin's second book).

Even if evolution is completely true and accurate, something had to create that first gimpse of life. Something greater than us that we do not understand, nor do I think we will ever.

IMO science and religion combine to help explain our world, especially when it comes to creation. If you believe in one but not the other you're missing half the picture.

 

[fjord]

Scientific knowledge is based on direct observation, and is bounded by the natural universe. Scientists make observations about the natural universe, and seek-out general explanations of those observations that are immutable to transformations of perspective. To the extent this is true for a given phenomenon, we can speak of scientific fact.

Fact does not mean proof, though. Science aims to disprove (falsify)--but never to prove anything.

In a very real sense, Science is simply a Progress report on our understanding of the Natural Universe, based on a probabilistic analysis.

Another point, The theory of Evolution says nothing about the creation of life. It only postulates mechanisms to explain all life that we know of (Biological diversity).

So, for example: The modern explanation of the process of Evolution, known as Natural Selection can be summarized as follows:

The members of each population vary hederitarily (in virtually all traits, such as physiology and behavior, etc.) Individuals possessing certain combination of traits survive and reproduce better (differentially) than individuals with other combinations. As a consequence, the units that specify physical traits (=genes and chromosomes)--increase in relative frequency within such populations, from one generation to the next.


For those interested in life origins, I recommend:
"THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. From the Birth of Life to the Origin of Language"
by John Maynard Smith & Eörs Szathmáry
Oxford University Press1999

A good analysis of the so-called 'Creation/Evolution Controversy' and origins orthodoxy is: Michael Ruse (2001):
"Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? The Relationship between Science and Religion."
-----------