NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Just a question. I assume human evolution from a single cell organism can be proved 100% correct?

If so, can you post a link - unless things have changed since I was in Uni, its still only a theory and cant 100% be proved.

Species adapting to changing situations and weeding out the weak and promoting the strong can be proved.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/proof.html


If a good scientist says that a theory has been proved, then he's speaking informally. Mathematics deals in proof, but scientific theories are not proved. Ever.

(It is sometimes claimed that the "laws" of thermodynamics are proved. That is a partial truth. The mathematical part of the "laws" is indeed mathematically proved. The science part is not.)

The basic credo is that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Nothing is so firmly known that it cannot, in principle, be overthrown by new evidence. In practice, of course, there have been scientists who clung to old theories. Creationism, for example, hung on at many universities for decades after Darwin. The standard student joke was that evolution spread "one funeral at a time".

But belief being tentative does not mean that all theories are equal. Evidence is weighed: belief comes in gradations. For example, Roger Penrose puts theories in four categories: Superb, Useful, Tentative, and Misguided.

So, where does the Theory of Evolution fit? There are Creationist claims that scientists feel evolution is in crisis. Others say it's "just a theory", by which they mean Tentative. However, I personally testify that the scientific community rates it Superb.

Stephen Jay Gould has said that the evidence is to the point where it would be perverse to treat Common Descent differently from a fact. The most prestigious scientific journals agree, and regularly publish articles which assume that Common Descent is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is the theory they use to explain that fact.

Evidence for Evolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0_0_0/lines_01

[C_Rush]

I really find the whole debate tedious and ridiculous, quite frankly. Simply put, people will believe what they believe.

Personally, I am a Christian and am proud of that fact. I believe God created the universe and set in place the mechanisms needed for species to adapt to their given environments and that those who are successful will survive and those who aren't die out. I have no problem reconciling a creationist faith with evolutionary fact.

The only problem I encounter is when evolutionists state a theory for the origins of the universe as fact that cannot be tested or proven anymore than creationism can. Explaining the origin of the universe as resulting from a hypothetical explosion of super dense matter (what existed before - where did this matter come from?) and subsequent billions of years of random chance is not any more viable than belief in a Creator who set it all in motion - just IMO, of course.

But should it be taught in classrooms? No. Science class is for science, period. If the prevailing scientific thought places evolution at the forefront, that is what should be taught to students. If parents want their kids learning about creationism, take them to church, homeschool them and discuss whatever questions they have. But do not force it onto students who do not belive the same religious tenets you do - same as why we no longer have prayer in public schools.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject comes from Carl Sagan, one of my favorite writers, a preeminant scientist and outspoken athiest:
"There are excesses in science and there are excesses in religion. A reasonable man wouldn't be stamped by either one. There are many interpretations of Scripture and many interpretations of the natural world. Wherever a discrepancy seems to exist, either a scientist or a theologian - maybe both - hasn't been doing his job."

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Just a question. I assume human evolution from a single cell organism can be proved 100% correct?

If so, can you post a link - unless things have changed since I was in Uni, its still only a theory and cant 100% be proved.

Species adapting to changing situations and weeding out the weak and promoting the strong can be proved.

Gravity is only a theory, germ theory is only a theory, quantum theory is only a theory.

Evolution is a fact (it's observed, just like gravity), the theory of evolution attempts to explain how it happens (natural selection, mutations, horizontal gene transfer, etc etc).

Descent of all life from a common ancestor is about as supported as it gets in terms of scientific theories.

As troutman said, all knowledge in science is provisional, so yes a better theory could come along at any time.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by C_Rush

I really find the whole debate tedious and ridiculous, quite frankly. Simply put, people will believe what they believe.

Personally, I am a Christian and am proud of that fact. I believe God created the universe and set in place the mechanisms needed for species to adapt to their given environments and that those who are successful will survive and those who aren't die out. I have no problem reconciling a creationist faith with evolutionary fact.

The only problem I encounter is when evolutionists state a theory for the origins of the universe as fact that cannot be tested or proven anymore than creationism can. Explaining the origin of the universe as resulting from a hypothetical explosion of super dense matter (what existed before - where did this matter come from?) and subsequent billions of years of random chance is not any more viable than belief in a Creator who set it all in motion - just IMO, of course.

But should it be taught in classrooms? No. Science class is for science, period. If the prevailing scientific thought places evolution at the forefront, that is what should be taught to students. If parents want their kids learning about creationism, take them to church, homeschool them and discuss whatever questions they have. But do not force it onto students who do not belive the same religious tenets you do - same as why we no longer have prayer in public schools.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject comes from Carl Sagan, one of my favorite writers, a preeminant scientist and outspoken athiest:
"There are excesses in science and there are excesses in religion. A reasonable man wouldn't be stamped by either one. There are many interpretations of Scripture and many interpretations of the natural world. Wherever a discrepancy seems to exist, either a scientist or a theologian - maybe both - hasn't been doing his job."

That's excatly the point... No matter who you are or what you believe, teach science and critial thinking in sicence class, teach belief systems and faith in another. Maybe have a philosophy class where people who are intrested can discuss the grey area. Keep the lines between for children black and white...
________
Kids wellbutrin

[photon]

Originally Posted by C_Rush

I really find the whole debate tedious and ridiculous, quite frankly. Simply put, people will believe what they believe.

Sure they will, the point isn't about what things people will believe, it's about what is taught in schools.

Personally, I am a Christian and am proud of that fact. I believe God created the universe and set in place the mechanisms needed for species to adapt to their given environments and that those who are successful will survive and those who aren't die out. I have no problem reconciling a creationist faith with evolutionary fact.

Most Christians are in the same boat as you, and that's not really the issue.. the issue is the small but vocal group that believes in a 6000 year old earth and will lie, cheat, do whatever it takes to get their idea into the science classroom. No one says they can't believe in a 6000 year old earth, but that's not science.

The only problem I encounter is when evolutionists state a theory for the origins of the universe as fact that cannot be tested or proven anymore than creationism can.

First, what's an evolutionist? Second, evolution is about descent with modification, how does that address anything about the origin of the universe?? The problem I see is you lumping a whole bunch of different things together and then attacking them as if they are related when they are not.

Explaining the origin of the universe as resulting from a hypothetical explosion of super dense matter (what existed before - where did this matter come from?) and subsequent billions of years of random chance is not any more viable than belief in a Creator who set it all in motion - just IMO, of course.

Again you're attacking a straw man, likely simply because you don't really understand what the science actually says. And that's fine, I think that's a problem of the education system and science in general communicating to the public.

Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe. It simply states that far in the past the universe was smaller and denser, and this is evidenced by a huge amount of evidence. If you run the math backwards though you eventually get infinities and singularities, which don't mean anything in real terms, so the Big Bang doesn't claim to say how the universe came into being.

There are lots of ideas and hypothesis about how it started, but at this point science doesn't really know how it started.

EDIT: And the part about random chance isn't correct either.. cosmological evolution (stars, planets etc) and biological evolution are not random.

But should it be taught in classrooms? No. Science class is for science, period. If the prevailing scientific thought places evolution at the forefront, that is what should be taught to students. If parents want their kids learning about creationism, take them to church, homeschool them and discuss whatever questions they have. But do not force it onto students who do not belive the same religious tenets you do - same as why we no longer have prayer in public schools.

Agreed.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by C_Rush

I really find the whole debate tedious and ridiculous, quite frankly. Simply put, people will believe what they believe.

Personally, I am a Christian and am proud of that fact. I believe God created the universe and set in place the mechanisms needed for species to adapt to their given environments and that those who are successful will survive and those who aren't die out. I have no problem reconciling a creationist faith with evolutionary fact.

The only problem I encounter is when evolutionists state a theory for the origins of the universe as fact that cannot be tested or proven anymore than creationism can. Explaining the origin of the universe as resulting from a hypothetical explosion of super dense matter (what existed before - where did this matter come from?) and subsequent billions of years of random chance is not any more viable than belief in a Creator who set it all in motion - just IMO, of course.

But should it be taught in classrooms? No. Science class is for science, period. If the prevailing scientific thought places evolution at the forefront, that is what should be taught to students. If parents want their kids learning about creationism, take them to church, homeschool them and discuss whatever questions they have. But do not force it onto students who do not belive the same religious tenets you do - same as why we no longer have prayer in public schools.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject comes from Carl Sagan, one of my favorite writers, a preeminant scientist and outspoken athiest:
"There are excesses in science and there are excesses in religion. A reasonable man wouldn't be stamped by either one. There are many interpretations of Scripture and many interpretations of the natural world. Wherever a discrepancy seems to exist, either a scientist or a theologian - maybe both - hasn't been doing his job."

Although you are making a conciliatory post, you are actually conflating evolution with cosmology (which it has nothing to do with). Since when is the Big Bang Theory part of evolutionary theory. I realize that you are doing it innocently. But many of the loudest anti-science voices are doing it deliberately. You find me a published peer-reviewed article where the big bang theory and evolutionary are tied together by some scientific chain of reasoning and I'll buy you a coffee.

EDIT (Of course Photon beat me to it in a more eloquent post... Hangs head and cries....)

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Just a question. I assume human evolution from a single cell organism can be proved 100% correct?

If so, can you post a link - unless things have changed since I was in Uni, its still only a theory and cant 100% be proved.

Originally Posted by C_Rush

The only problem I encounter is when evolutionists state a theory for the origins of the universe as fact that cannot be tested or proven anymore than creationism can.

I know troutman and photon already answered these posts, but I want to re-iterate this again, since this is a very common misconception that appears in every science/religion thread.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
-Albert Einstein

Nothing in science can ever be proved 100% correct. Rather, the scientific method is to make observations, propose a hypothesis, perform experiments, then develop a theory or model to support the observed evidence and experiments. If new evidence contradicts an existing theory, then that theory is either discarded or modified, and the process begins anew. For example, Isaac Newton developed formulas and calculations concerning the theory of gravity in his Principia Mathematica, but Einstein's theory of general relativity discards them in favour of a new, more complex model (although Newton's theories will still provide accurate results for most calculations; relativity only supplants them when dealing with very massive bodies such as black holes or objects moving at speeds near that of light).

As for C_Rush's assertion that evolution cannot be tested, that's simply not true. The theory of evolution has withstood the rigours of the scientific method, experimentation, and peer review for over 170 years. It's certainly been modified and revised since Darwin's time (particularly when genetic theory was developed in the 1950s and 60s), but the general concept that all living creatures on Earth evolved from simpler organizations through genetic mutation is a virtual certainty.

[Burninator]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.

[C_Rush]

Sure they will, the point isn't about what things people will believe, it's about what is taught in schools.

Which is exactly what I said.

Most Christians are in the same boat as you, and that's not really the issue.. the issue is the small but vocal group that believes in a 6000 year old earth and will lie, cheat, do whatever it takes to get their idea into the science classroom. No one says they can't believe in a 6000 year old earth, but that's not science.

Again, exactly what I said. And just for the record, I do not personally believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

First, what's an evolutionist? Second, evolution is about descent with modification, how does that address anything about the origin of the universe?? The problem I see is you lumping a whole bunch of different things together and then attacking them as if they are related when they are not.

The problem I see is you not reading clearly. I am not attacking anything, merely stating that Big Bang theory can't be proven anymore than creationism can. They are both based on supposition and people looking at "evidence" that they believe supports their particular view. I don't believe teaching Big Bang theory is wrong or discount the scientists and people who support it. And there is a definate link in the scientific community between Big Bang theory as providing an origin for the universe and evolutionary theory - look up information on the Cosmic Calender.

Again you're attacking a straw man, likely simply because you don't really understand what the science actually says. And that's fine, I think that's a problem of the education system and science in general communicating to the public.

Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe. It simply states that far in the past the universe was smaller and denser, and this is evidenced by a huge amount of evidence. If you run the math backwards though you eventually get infinities and singularities, which don't mean anything in real terms, so the Big Bang doesn't claim to say how the universe came into being.

There are lots of ideas and hypothesis about how it started, but at this point science doesn't really know how it started.

I understand the science just fine, thank you. I am an educated individual with multiple university degrees with distinction and, yes, I've even studied Big Bang and evolutionary theory. But thank you for calling my knowledge into question without knowing anything about me - straw man indeed. The Big Bang definately posits a theory about the origin of the universe - do not equivocate on that.

EDIT: And the part about random chance isn't correct either.. cosmological evolution (stars, planets etc) and biological evolution are not random.

It is random. Based on the prevailing scientific theories, life is due to a random combination of chemicals mixing in proper proportion to produce amino acids, DNA, complex cellular structure, etc. It is random because according to theory, these mixtures are pure accident brought about by favorable environmental factors (water availabilty, solar radiation levels, availabilty of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon in the correct proportional amounts, etc.) without any kind of outside interference guiding their interaction.

At any rate, I will state again that I do believe in evolution and creation - it's not something I have a problem reconciling. A lot of the debate, I find, circles around people trying to make one theory mutually exclusive to the other instead of looking at areas where they may in fact share commonalities.

[C_Rush]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As for C_Rush's assertion that evolution cannot be tested, that's simply not true. The theory of evolution has withstood the rigours of the scientific method, experimentation, and peer review for over 170 years. It's certainly been modified and revised since Darwin's time (particularly when genetic theory was developed in the 1950s and 60s), but the general concept that all living creatures on Earth evolved from simpler organizations through genetic mutation is a virtual certainty.

Please show where I said evolution cannot be tested. I, in fact, stated quite clearly that I believe in evolution.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by C_Rush

Please show where I said evolution cannot be tested. I, in fact, stated quite clearly that I believe in evolution.

I quoted it in my earlier post.

The only problem I encounter is when evolutionists state a theory for the origins of the universe as fact that cannot be tested or proven anymore than creationism can.

I read that statement as you claiming that neither evolution nor creationism can be tested. If that wasn't your intent, your sentence structure was awkward and misleading.

[MarchHare]

(Biological evolution) is random. Based on the prevailing scientific theories, life is due to a random combination of chemicals mixing in proper proportion to produce amino acids, DNA, complex cellular structure, etc. It is random because according to theory, these mixtures are pure accident brought about by favorable environmental factors (water availabilty, solar radiation levels, availabilty of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon in the correct proportional amounts, etc.) without any kind of outside interference guiding their interaction.

Factually incorrect.

Evolution by natural selection is absolutely not random. Genetic mutations are random and determined by (amongst other causes) the things you mention, but genetic mutation and evolution are not the same thing. It's a very common mistake to conflate the two.

[photon]

Originally Posted by C_Rush

Which is exactly what I said.

Again, exactly what I said.

Yup, I'm agreeing with you

The problem I see is you not reading clearly. I am not attacking anything, merely stating that Big Bang theory can't be proven anymore than creationism can. They are both based on supposition and people looking at "evidence" that they believe supports their particular view. I don't believe teaching Big Bang theory is wrong or discount the scientists and people who support it. And there is a definate link in the scientific community between Big Bang theory as providing an origin for the universe and evolutionary theory - look up information on the Cosmic Calender.

Maybe attacking is too strong a word, but you are saying you have a problem with something, and I'm trying to say why what you have a problem with doesn't really exist.

"The only problem I encounter is when evolutionists state a theory for the origins of the universe as fact that cannot be tested or proven anymore than creationism can." was the exact sentence. First, what's an evolutionist? Second, evolution doesn't talk about cosmology. Third, no one claims it as fact. Fourth, it (being Big Bang Theory) can and has been tested. So to me I think the problem that you see doesn't in fact exist.

Sorry I'm not familiar with the cosmic calendar, it just looks to me like the history of the universe mapped over a calendar year with interesting events falling on specific dates. How does that link Big Bang theory and evolution? You'll have to be more specific.

I understand the science just fine, thank you. I am an educated individual with multiple university degrees with distinction and, yes, I've even studied Big Bang and evolutionary theory. But thank you for calling my knowledge into question without knowing anything about me - straw man indeed. The Big Bang definately posits a theory about the origin of the universe - do not equivocate on that.

I don't have to know anything about you or your education, I didn't say anything about that beyond what I can understand from what you posted, and the language you are using and the way you are using could be a result of either being too loose with meanings, or that the meanings you see are different than the meanings science uses. You talk of proving a theory which no scientist would do.

The Big Bang theory describes how the universe began. By that I mean it describes the universe up until the very beginning of time. But it does not say anything as to what caused it to start, that's what I'm trying to say. The Big Bang doesn't say what happened before the Big Bang.

It is random. Based on the prevailing scientific theories, life is due to a random combination of chemicals mixing in proper proportion to produce amino acids, DNA, complex cellular structure, etc. It is random because according to theory, these mixtures are pure accident brought about by favorable environmental factors (water availabilty, solar radiation levels, availabilty of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon in the correct proportional amounts, etc.) without any kind of outside interference guiding their interaction.

Again I think you're throwing different things together. Are you talking about evolution? Because evolution isn't random, and evolution is not a random combination of chemicals mixing in proper proportion, it's descent with modification.

Or are you talking about abiogenesis? If so, then yes the first replicating molecule that formed that eventually developed into RNA and whatever was a random occurrence. But once you have that first replicator, evolution takes over and it is no longer a random process (because there is something guiding their interaction, natural selection and other things). But that's not evolution.

At any rate, I will state again that I do believe in evolution and creation - it's not something I have a problem reconciling. A lot of the debate, I find, circles around people trying to make one theory mutually exclusive to the other instead of looking at areas where they may in fact share commonalities.

And I think I agree with you, the issue I see is that some religious people can't reconcile it for whatever reason and so decide that because their view can't possibly be wrong, they must for some reason find scientific rationalizations for their views even though there isn't any. That's the problem I see, and that's why the debates over evolution are important.