evolution and ID in public schools

[BJQ87]

How about neither, that might make more people happy, at least stop a lot of contraversy and complaining. Why not admit theory as theory and not teach theory to young kids? In public schools up to the secondary level that is. In previous years I've had elementry school and highschool science teachers straight out state evolutionary theories as facts, if they were talking about the theory of ID then most those teachers would likely have been fired.

Say there was a law that made it so neither evolution or ID were taught in schools. The theists wouldn't complain about evolution being taught and the atheists wouldn't complain about ID being taught. The only thing they could complain about is not being able to teach their own theories in public schools. And if thats their complaint then oh well, i dont think the government has to care being as teaching theories in public schools isn't a right its more like a priviledge.

Or maybe the fact that ID is slowly starting to get accepted into school systems is better. That way kids are introduced to both of the two popular theories of our time, thus being more educational. And also evening out the playing field, encouraging the stating of theory as theory instead of fact.

Your thoughts?

[TragicMonkey]

"Theory" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[Ducky]

Considering we're talking about classes specifically dealing with science, and evolution is most certainly a part of science, teaching ID, which is at best a philosophy and not scientific, and at worst a toehold to introduce creationism, then I'd say ID is in the wrong place.

Or would you have us also teach both the "theory" of gravity alongside the "theory" of intelligent falling?

[H'ethetheth]

Or would you have us also teach both the "theory" of gravity alongside the "theory" of intelligent falling?My thoughts exactly.

[Tricky]

Or maybe the fact that ID is slowly starting to get accepted into school systems is better. That way kids are introduced to both of the two popular theories of our time, thus being more educational. And also evening out the playing field, encouraging the stating of theory as theory instead of fact.
If you think ID is a "theory", then tell me this: What evidence would it take to disprove the theory?

Evolution has many such areas where it is "falsifiable". Where are the falsifiable parts of ID?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's a popular theory with kids up to the age of 6 or 8 that Santa delivers toys at Christmas and the Easter Bunny delivers candy at Easter. So I think we should teach those two popular theories through, say, second grade.

It's a popular theory with many people that aliens abduct humans for research purposes. I think we should teach that theory in, say, grades 7 through 12 and, of course, college.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

How about neither, that might make more people happy, at least stop a lot of contraversy and complaining. Why not admit theory as theory and not teach theory to young kids? In public schools up to the secondary level that is. In previous years I've had elementry school and highschool science teachers straight out state evolutionary theories as facts, if they were talking about the theory of ID then most those teachers would likely have been fired.

That's because evolutionary theories are as close to facts as you get in science. ID, on the other
hand, barely makes the bar for "coherent hypothesis," and does not get as high as "testable conjecture."


Say there was a law that made it so neither evolution or ID were taught in schools.


That would cripple science education (and biology education in particular), and fifty years from
now, the United States will be a third-world country with everyone speaking the language of their
Chinese overlords.

Does that strike you as a good long-term goal?

[Ipecac]

Oy vey.

:oldroll:

[BJQ87]

"It's a popular theory with kids up to the age of 6 or 8 that Santa delivers toys at Christmas and the Easter Bunny delivers candy at Easter. So I think we should teach those two popular theories through, say, second grade.

It's a popular theory with many people that aliens abduct humans for research purposes. I think we should teach that theory in, say, grades 7 through 12 and, of course, college."

are any of those theories actually popular to the point of people thinking them to be true? obviously thats what i mean when im talking about teaching stuff in public schools. There's no such thing as too much critical thinking in my opinion, you can't really have too much of a virtue. If I say "I'm too generous, its actually that I probably have poor judgement skills. Wouldn't critical thinking include taking context and attitude into consideration?

"Considering we're talking about classes specifically dealing with science, and evolution is most certainly a part of science, teaching ID, which is at best a philosophy and not scientific, and at worst a toehold to introduce creationism, then I'd say ID is in the wrong place.

Or would you have us also teach both the "theory" of gravity alongside the "theory" of intelligent falling?"

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.

You see a gap in science and think of the theory of evolution, I see a gap in science and think about the theory of God. This type of thinking goes way back to ancient civilizations. Some people took a look at the world we live in and decided to come up with a theory of a god or a number of gods. Others decided not to believe in a god and probably thought that life exists just because it does. Eventually, and just recently in the course of history, those people who didn't believe in any kind of god or gods came up with a theory of their own that was also based upon taking a look at the world we live in and coming up with a possible explaination.

[sphenisc]

If you think ID is a "theory", then tell me this: What evidence would it take to disprove the theory?

Evolution has many such areas where it is "falsifiable". Where are the falsifiable parts of ID?

You go first. :p

[headscratcher4]

Ideas may be popular...but that doesn't make it scientific.

it is irrlelevent, it seems to me, whether a scientific theroy is popular or not. It is where the research and the data lead you. ID has neither research or data to back it up, and it can not be falsefied...in fact, it is anti "science" as we define science, because once you conldue that ID is the explaination, you might as well give up any investigation.

Further, "popular" is misused here. It isn't popular with trained scientists. The "scientists" who buy ID and demand that it be taught ast an alternative theory, number in the dozens -- and many of these are not credentialed in the field they are passing judemtn on and demanding be alterned. The VAST majority of scientist who work in the field completely reject ID.

The point is that ID is a political NOT A SCIENTIFIC movment. It has about as much scientific validity as the "science" practiced by Nazi's in the concentration camps. IT is fake science. It is anti-science.

[Bob Klase]

How about neither, that might make more people happy, at least stop a lot of contraversy and complaining. Why not admit theory as theory and not teach theory to young kids? In public schools up to the secondary level that is. In previous years I've had elementry school and highschool science teachers straight out state evolutionary theories as facts, if they were talking about the theory of ID then most those teachers would likely have been fired.


Even worse- I've seen elementry schools (even down to kindergarten) teach gravity theory as a fact! And that theory about the earth revolving around the sun is never even questioned!

But if we don't teach 'theory' to young kids, then there's really nothing left to teach them except the bible.

Or maybe the fact that ID is slowly starting to get accepted into school systems is better. That way kids are introduced to both of the two popular theories of our time, thus being more educational.

I think it would be much more productive to teach the kids what the word "theory" means when used in science. Evolution (like gravity) is theory. ID is barely a hypothesis.

[headscratcher4]

If you think ID is a "theory", then tell me this: What evidence would it take to disprove the theory?




If you prayed really, really hard that there not be an earthquake in your home town and there was an earthquake, than that would tend to disprove ID.

Also, if your town votes out a school board that wants to teach ID, and god in rightous wrath wipes the village off the face of the planent and turns all of the new school board into pillars of salt, that would tend to prove that ID.

How's that working for you?

[Upchurch]

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.wow. You really need to learn what the word "theory" means in science. Yes, they are called the "Theory of Gravity" and the "Theory of Relativity" and "Quantum Theory". The use of the word "theory" in science is a nod to the fact that there is always a possibility that it could be wrong, but by the time a hypothesis reaching "theory" status in science it's pretty darn certain.

Now you might be confused things which are labeled "laws" like "Newton's Laws of Physics" thinking that they are abolutly facts, right? Well, funny story. Many of Newton's Laws have been shown to be incorrect, or more accurately imprecise.

The Theory of Evolution is just as much a scientific fact as the Theory of Gravitation. Is it possible either are wrong? sure. Is it likely that either are wrong? no. Should they be constantly questioned and examined? absolutely.

You see a gap in science and think of the theory of evolution, I see a gap in science and think about the theory of God. How is your "theory of God" related to observable phenomenon?

This type of thinking goes way back to ancient civilizations. Some people took a look at the world we live in and decided to come up with a theory of a god or a number of gods. Others decided not to believe in a god and probably thought that life exists just because it does. Eventually, and just recently in the course of history, those people who didn't believe in any kind of god or gods came up with a theory of their own that was also based upon taking a look at the world we live in and coming up with a possible explaination.Ah, historical revisionism. :rolleyes:

[PatKelley]

"Or would you have us also teach both the "theory" of gravity alongside the "theory" of intelligent falling?"

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.

Gravity is a theory. It is a name for the property of mass to attract other mass with no intervening medium. Our current theory involves curvature of space/time in the presence of mass. So, yes, Gravity is a theory. And it is an excellent point of comparison, truth be told.

You see a gap in science and think of the theory of evolution, I see a gap in science and think about the theory of God.

God is a theory now? So he's open to falsifiablity and peer-review science?
This type of thinking goes way back to ancient civilizations. Some people took a look at the world we live in and decided to come up with a theory of a god or a number of gods. Others decided not to believe in a god and probably thought that life exists just because it does. Eventually, and just recently in the course of history, those people who didn't believe in any kind of god or gods came up with a theory of their own that was also based upon taking a look at the world we live in and coming up with a possible explaination.
Nope. You're really really wrong in your understanding of history. People came up with theories; some involved a man in the sky, others did not. Some actually had the temerity to encourage exploration and questioning, as in encouraging youth to climb Mount Olympus to see if the gods really were there. They occasionally paid for it with their freedom, their prestige, or in extreme cases with their lives, but they were not atheists. Often they were religious, pious, observant men - such as Gregor Mendel - who simply approached a problem with the idea of seeing what actually worked. Attempting to pin this on an atheist agenda because you don't like where it goes is, well, it's so late nineteenth century.

[headscratcher4]

OOOps. double post. Sign of lack of ID.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.

Gravity is no more a theory than Evolution is a Theory..

There are theories of gravity however just as there are theories of evolution.
But the fact that gravity exists is just as much a fact as evolution existing.

You see a gap in science and think of the theory of evolution, I see a gap in science and think about the theory of God. This type of thinking goes way back to ancient civilizations. Some people took a look at the world we live in and decided to come up with a theory of a god or a number of gods. Others decided not to believe in a god and probably thought that life exists just because it does. Eventually, and just recently in the course of history, those people who didn't believe in any kind of god or gods came up with a theory of their own that was also based upon taking a look at the world we live in and coming up with a possible explaination.


You're completly confusing the definition of "Theory" in science.

I'll quote the definition of Theory from Wiki..

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,

is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

This is what a Theory is. It is a framework based on observed facts. It conducts experiments and makes predictions and most of all it can be falisified if those predictions are wrong.
Evolution does this.

Today we know evolution happened. Period. We have proven this through a variety of methods. There is no scientific debate anymore over wether evolution happened or not but how it happened.

Looking at the natural world and claiming "God did it" is not a scientific theory at all. It does not base it's conclusions on facts,it does not conduct experiments,It does not make predictions,It is not falsifiable..It's simply not a scientific theory by any means.

What evidence is "God did it" based on?
What experiments have shown "God did it" to be a theory?
How is "god did it" falsifiable?
How does "God did it" explain vestigial organs?
How does "god did it" Explain ERV's?
How does "god did it" explain that Humans have some of the same mutations in their DNA that chimp's do which could only mean humans and chimps have a common non-human/non-chimp ancestor?
How does "god did it" explain the fossil record that supports evolution?
How does "God did it" explain Nested hierarchies?
How does "god did it" explain Redundant pseudogenes?

I could go on for hours,But if your "Theory" does not fit the criteria of a scientific theory..Than it's simply not one. Pure and simple.
Unless your "Theory" can answer all of the questions I put forth,Unless it can answer ALL of the questions evolution can and provide alternate explanations backed by evidence..It's not a theory.

[headscratcher4]

I like the alleged "fact" that the theory of evolution was based upon the godless taking a "look" at things and coming up with an explaination/theory of their own...that is how science works...take a look around and come up with an idea...this is the "Ann Elk, the theory which is mine" theory of science....

[BJQ87]

That would cripple science education (and biology education in particular), and fifty years from
now, the United States will be a third-world country with everyone speaking the language of their
Chinese overlords.

Does that strike you as a good long-term goal?

As i mentioned in my first post, if it did get outlawed then it would be for secondary schooling and below, in public schools that is. And also I haven't really taken that side, as I also suggested that teaching both theories as theory might be the better way to go. And I think so.

headscratcher4- Take into considration they are wanting to teach both of the theories, and not just one. I might agree this shouldn't be seen as a scientific movement. It is a way to make sure that a whole lot of kids don't feel obligated to believe in evolution because they look up to their teachers for wisdom and go home to their parents and say "nu uh my science teacher told me..." If your only teaching evolution in schools, then it might seem like its the more intellectual thing to do, also discouraging faith.

[BJQ87]

Gravity is no more a theory than Evolution is a Theory..

There are theories of gravity however just as there are theories of evolution.
But the fact that gravity exists is just as much a fact as evolution existing.


idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.

[drkitten]

idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.

And if you look up "evolution" in the dictionary and compare it to reality, you should draw exactly the same conclusion.

The only difference is that there's not a well-funded political organization with the mandate and mission to lie (yes, lie) in an effort to confuse you.

[headscratcher4]

The problem is that ID isn't a real "theory" by any stretch of the imagination or any credible use of that word. You can use the popular parlance "theory" but that doesn't trump the sceintific meaning of the word. ID is magic. Now, if you want to teach magic in science class it changes the nature of the class, it will no longer be a science class. The students int he class will no longer be learning science. Maybe that is ok with you...but it seems to defeat the purpose of science education.

Here's the point. It isn't science because it isn't subject to falsification or change. If ID is your answer it is your answer today, as it would have been 200 years ago, or 100 years from now. It is a intellectual brick wall that you can never go around or get over. It stops you in its tracks, as it were.

The theory of evolution CHANGES every time there is a new piece of evidence or analysis that expands the facts available and forces those facts to be reinterpreted in a new light. Evolutionary theory is different today than it was 100 years ago because more facts, data, analysis, expirimentation, etc. has changed the analysis. With ID, what changes the analsyis? It is a meaningless concept, scientifically. Therefore, teaching it in "science" class, giving it "scientific" credibility undermines the very concept of science and how it is done.

It is positively Orwellian. It is the Ministry of Love. It is an Un-good. It is a intellectual worm-hole.

Just abecause someone calls it a "theory" doesn't make it a scientific "theory"...based on your interpretation, what shouldn't they teach in "science"...alchemey? witch-craft and spells? Magic -- both practical and entertainment?

We're talking about teaching science not Hoggswart's (sp?) magic acadamy fopr Ed's sake.

[headscratcher4]

Double post. Did it again, Good is trying to punish me for doubting...

[PatKelley]

idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.

You are confused. The observation of the behavior we call gravity; that is not in dispute, as the principles upon which evolution is based are not in dispute: animals resemble one another to the point that anything with forearm bones has two. Populations of animals change. Variants show up occasionally. There were animals in the past that are not like the ones we have now.

The theory of gravity is an explanation for why it behaves how it does, and includes testable predictions for the mechanism purported in the explanation.

Similarly, evolution is a theory of change over time that provides a testable mechanism along with an explanation of why things are as they are.

God, as far as I know, is not testable under any conditions.

[BJQ87]

Today we know evolution happened. Period.

get off the stuff man. Nah i know you didnt really mean it the way it sounded right?

Looking at the natural world and claiming "God did it" is not a scientific theory at all. It does not base it's conclusions on facts,it does not conduct experiments,It does not make predictions,It is not falsifiable..It's simply not a scientific theory by any means.


I hope i didnt say it was a scientific theory, i dont think i did though.

[TobiasTheViking]

idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.
What you believe or think doens't change the fact that you are wrong.

Newton is NOT consistent with reality, it is NOT a fact.
Einsteins theory of gravity is NOT consistent with reality, it is NOT a fact.

Both are known to be wrong.

Einstein was closer to reality than Newton, but it is still not consistent with reality.

Both are close enough to reality that they can be used, for many things, but both are known to not be accurate.

Both of these are still Theories.

[headscratcher4]

I hope i didnt say it was a scientific theory, i dont think i did though.

So why would you teach a non-scientific theory in Science class...and where would you draw the line. How is the Flying Spaghetti Monster not just as credible a theory as what the ID movement pushes? Why would you not require science classes to spend time on it? Buddhist origin theories?

Lysenko had some wonderful "theories" about biology...should Lysenkoist biology be revived and taught along side molecular biology?

You render the concept of "theory" meaningless.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

are any of those theories actually popular to the point of people thinking them to be true? obviously thats what i mean when im talking about teaching stuff in public schools. There's no such thing as too much critical thinking in my opinion, you can't really have too much of a virtue. If I say "I'm too generous, its actually that I probably have poor judgement skills. Wouldn't critical thinking include taking context and attitude into consideration?
Little kids certainly believe in Santa and the Bunny. And apparently millions of people believe in alien abduction or even think they have been abducted. If "thinking something is true" is the criterion, you've got a lot of 'splaining to do, BJQ.

idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.
Dude, we're begging you, learn what a scientific theory is.

Make us proud.

Be the first one on your block to hear that you don't know what a scientific theory is and then go and find out.

We'll praise you up, down, and sideways if you do, because no one else ever has.

~~ Paul

[Ipecac]

get off the stuff man. Nah i know you didnt really mean it the way it sounded right?

I'll say it also. Very plainly.

Evolution is a fact. Evolution happens. We know that evolution happens and have actually seen it working. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

How evolution works is a scientific theory. That means that our current understanding has a GREAT DEAL of evidentiary support. That means that 150 years of research has enabled us to refine and narrow the theory to improve its predictive ability. It does NOT mean that we are guessing or making things up. The FACTS of evolution totally support the THEORY of evolution.

Clear enough?

[Tricky]

If you think ID is a "theory", then tell me this: What evidence would it take to disprove the theory?

Evolution has many such areas where it is "falsifiable". Where are the falsifiable parts of ID?
You go first. :p
Um... okay.

If you found vertebrate fossils embedded in undisturbed Cambrian sediments, evolution would be falsified.

Okay, your turn.:p

[Nyarlathotep]

gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.


Yes it is, in the same sense that Evolution is a theory. When you speak of the 'theory of evolution' your refer to a tested and generally well supported hypothesis, Thus one can speak of the 'theory' of evolution, the 'theory' of gravity, the germ 'theory' of disease, etc.

The problem comes when a lot of people, in common usage, use the word 'theory' to mean 'hypothesis' or even 'wild guess', i.e. "It's my theory that JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, but in fact a tiger got him". So people, like you, come to think that when one refers to the 'theory of evolution' that scientists are talking about an untested, unproven idea and that is not the case.

[HeyLeroy]

How about neither, that might make more people happy, at least stop a lot of contraversy and complaining. Why not admit theory as theory and not teach theory to young kids? In public schools up to the secondary level that is. In previous years I've had elementry school and highschool science teachers straight out state evolutionary theories as facts, if they were talking about the theory of ID then most those teachers would likely have been fired.

Say there was a law that made it so neither evolution or ID were taught in schools. The theists wouldn't complain about evolution being taught and the atheists wouldn't complain about ID being taught. The only thing they could complain about is not being able to teach their own theories in public schools. And if thats their complaint then oh well, i dont think the government has to care being as teaching theories in public schools isn't a right its more like a priviledge.

Or maybe the fact that ID is slowly starting to get accepted into school systems is better. That way kids are introduced to both of the two popular theories of our time, thus being more educational. And also evening out the playing field, encouraging the stating of theory as theory instead of fact.

Your thoughts?


It's not just atheists who are revolted at the thought of ID being taught in schools. Catholicism, being probably the largest Christian organization on the planet, has no problems in accepting the process of evolution as truth.

This was in last month's Discover magazine:

"Theory

Most people use the word theory to mean uncertainty, guesswork, or a rough idea, but in science it has a different meaning. A scientific theory explains facts or phenomena that have been shown to be true by repeated independent tests and experiments. An educated guess in science is called a hypothesis.

Scientific theories are not laws, which describe phenomena thought to be invariable. Theories are generally used to describe why certain laws work. For example, the law of gravity is known to be true for falling bodies, but how and why it works is explained by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein's theory was accepted as true only after repeated experimentation and observation. Yet not even laws are absolute. They are rarely overturned, but they may be amended should new data warrant it."

--Maia Weinstock

The process of evolution is observable, the theory is how it's explained.

Please reference any peer-reviewed, published scientific reasoning that supports the philosophy of ID. You can't, because there isn't any. NONE. Keep your navel-gazing philosophy OUT of science classrooms!!!

PS: Have you ever even read Darwin's On The Origins Of Species?

If you haven't, you should. Darwin was, quite clearly, a devout christian.

[Ryokan]

Why would you not require science classes to spend time on it? Buddhist origin theories?

Well, that would be a pretty short class, wouldn't it?

From a Buddhist FAQ :


Q: Who created the world?

A: We believe that we cannot answer that. It is beyond our ability to know that at this time. For if there was a creator, with the concept of cause and effect, we must ask who created the creator. It is not important for us to know that. One of the basic concepts within Buddhism is interdependence. With this teaching, we realize that all of us are interconnected and depend upon one another for our existence. Asking questions such as who created this or that is a way our mind distracts our attention to the more important matter of how I am living this moment. I am grateful to receive and have the life I have now. How do I repay that debt of gratitude? These are the questions we ask.

[Dr Adequate]

are any of those theories actually popular to the point of people thinking them to be true? Yes. Should they be taught in schools? gravity is a theory now? No. Gravity is gravity. The theory of gravity is the theory of gravity. Evolution is evolution. The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.

[Dr Adequate]

PS: Have you ever even read Darwin's On The Origins Of Species?

If you haven't, you should. Darwin was, quite clearly, a devout christian.
:notm

In particular, there is nothing in Origin of Species to suggest that. There is a single reference to a "Creator" in the first edition of OoS: "Endowed by their Creator with a few forms or one...". I understand that this was dropped from later editions. There is no reference whatsoever to any specific Christian beliefs, and I believe it would be most correct to call Darwin an agnostic.

Have you read the Origin of Species?

[BJQ87]

Catholicism, being probably the largest Christian organization on the planet, has no problems in accepting the process of evolution as truth.


as an organization i suppose that is true, do you know any statistics that say about what percent of people who call themselves catholic accept evolution as truth? it'd be nice to know.

Doesn't matter much anyways to me since many catholic principles dont coincide with my beliefs, in addition hasn't that same organization been bending a lot of their traditional beliefs lately?

[BJQ87]

No. Gravity is gravity. The theory of gravity is the theory of gravity. Evolution is evolution. The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.


yea, 'twas a technical wording misunderstanding.

[HeyLeroy]

Have you read the Origin of Species?


It's been several years, but yes.

I will re-read it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

BJQ87...Try responding to my entire post and answering all of my questions and responding to my points. You're obviously playing the avoidance game and avoiding my questions...Here,I'll repost them for you..

What evidence is "God did it" based on?
What experiments have shown "God did it" to be a theory?
How is "god did it" falsifiable?
How does "God did it" explain vestigial organs?
How does "god did it" Explain ERV's?
How does "god did it" explain that Humans have some of the same mutations in their DNA that chimp's do which could only mean humans and chimps have a common non-human/non-chimp ancestor?
How does "god did it" explain the fossil record that supports evolution?
How does "God did it" explain Nested hierarchies?
How does "god did it" explain Redundant pseudogenes?


Evolution answers all of these questions. If "intelligent design" can't then it's not a theory. It's only a theory if it answers all of the same questions evolution answers AND supports those answers by facts and evidence.

[KingMerv00]

Well, that would be a pretty short class, wouldn't it?

From a Buddhist FAQ :


Q: Who created the world?

A: We believe that we cannot answer that. It is beyond our ability to know that at this time. For if there was a creator, with the concept of cause and effect, we must ask who created the creator...

Wow, maybe we should teach that in science class. At least the reasoning is consistant with...I don't know...REALITY!

[BJQ87]

What evidence is "God did it" based on?
What experiments have shown "God did it" to be a theory?
How is "god did it" falsifiable?
How does "God did it" explain vestigial organs?
How does "god did it" Explain ERV's?
How does "god did it" explain that Humans have some of the same mutations in their DNA that chimp's do which could only mean humans and chimps have a common non-human/non-chimp ancestor?
How does "god did it" explain the fossil record that supports evolution?
How does "God did it" explain Nested hierarchies?
How does "god did it" explain Redundant pseudogenes?


Evolution answers all of these questions. If "intelligent design" can't then it's not a theory. It's only a theory if it answers all of the same questions evolution answers AND supports those answers by facts and evidence.

So your changing your wording from Scientific theory to Theory?

I agree that it is not a scientific theory in the sense that it cannot abide by your questions stated above. But to say it is not a theory at all, I dont see that being the case.

Politically speaking, people in America don't like the fact that many of their kids are only being taught evolution in schools as the main theory of how the universe came to be, because statistically most Americans don't agree with that. It is not that ID is a scientific theory, it is that it is another theory for how the universe came to be, a way to say "here's one way many people think it happened, (but in order to reduce influence over young minds toward atheism) here's another way many people think it happened." This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools. Both cases involve not wanting kids to be brainwashed towards opposing viewpoints, and wanting kids to be raised the way they think their kids should be raised. (Though if I had a kid I wouldn't be so controlling, i'd simply demonstrate my beliefs throughout his/her life processes and my kid would hopefully be attracted to my beliefs instead of me telling my kid what he/she must believe in...this would also allow the kid to make the belief his/her own.) But many parents do feel like they are being violated when their kids are being influenced by opposing viewpoints, in both cases of prayer in schools and evolution. It has little to do with science. It has more to do with the kids, and what is being taught in school, not necessarily the science class. The thing is, if you do introduce this theory, the best time is to introduce it would be in contrast to the scientific theory of evolution- which is taught in science class. It's not like they're going to teach ID in english, history, math, or music class.

[Ducky]

So your changing your wording from Scientific theory to Theory?

I agree that it is not a scientific theory in the sense that it cannot abide by your questions stated above. But to say it is not a theory at all, I dont see that being the case.

Politically speaking, people in America don't like the fact that many of their kids are only being taught evolution in schools as the main theory of how the universe came to be, because statistically most Americans don't agree with that. It is not that ID is a scientific theory, it is that it is another theory for how the universe came to be, a way to say "here's one way many people think it happened, (but in order to reduce influence over young minds toward atheism) here's another way many people think it happened." This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools. Both cases involve not wanting kids to be brainwashed towards opposing viewpoints, and wanting kids to be raised the way they think their kids should be raised. (Though if I had a kid I wouldn't be so controlling, i'd simply demonstrate my beliefs throughout his/her life processes and my kid would hopefully be attracted to my beliefs instead of me telling my kid what he/she must believe in...this would also allow the kid to make the belief his/her own.) But many parents do feel like they are being violated when their kids are being influenced by opposing viewpoints, in both cases of prayer in schools and evolution. It has little to do with science. It has more to do with the kids, and what is being taught in school, not necessarily the science class. The thing is, if you do introduce this theory, the best time is to introduce it would be in contrast to the scientific theory of evolution- which is taught in science class. It's not like they're going to teach ID in english, history, math, or music class.


They should teach it in a comparative religion class, NOT SCIENCE.

You again are missing the point, and are confusing what scientific theory means. If it is not a scientific theory, then it is not for a science class.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or do you really not understand this?

[BJQ87]

Well, that would be a pretty short class, wouldn't it?

From a Buddhist FAQ :


Q: Who created the world?

A: We believe that we cannot answer that. It is beyond our ability to know that at this time. For if there was a creator, with the concept of cause and effect, we must ask who created the creator...


Wow, maybe we should teach that in science class. At least the reasoning is consistant with...I don't know...REALITY!


Reasoning a creator in this case is just as consitent with reality, one chooses between there being a beginning to existence and there being an eternal existence. Some people reason the second because they can't imagine there being no existence whatsoever, unlike most other things that are consistent with reality you can't get a conception of it in your head, that is simply impossible.
The third option would be to say that the universe is eternal and did not have a beginning, or there is an infinite series of universes, I find it odd that most atheists I encounter don't take this option, and believe the big bang started existence.

[Ducky]

Reasoning a creator in this case is just as consitent with reality, one chooses between there being a beginning to existence and there being an eternal existence. Some people reason the second because they can't imagine there being no existence whatsoever, unlike most other things that are consistent with reality you can't get a conception of it in your head, that is simply impossible.
The third option would be to say that the universe is eternal and did not have a beginning, or there is an infinite series of universes, I find it odd that most atheists I encounter don't take this option, and believe the big bang started existence.


I take it back, you are not purposely being obtuse, you are a moron.

So exlpain to me why ID shouldn't be taught in a comparative religions class, and should be taught in a science class.

[BJQ87]

They should teach it in a comparative religion class, NOT SCIENCE.

You again are missing the point, and are confusing what scientific theory means. If it is not a scientific theory, then it is not for a science class.

Are you being obtuse on purpose, or do you really not understand this?


I am not missing the point, am not confusing what scientific theory means. That I already have cleared up so drop it. The only disagreement you have is that it has to be scientific to teach it in science class, that they should teach it in comparitive religion class. I would definately agree with you if they actually had that class in public secondary education and below, we are not discussing college.

[Ducky]

I am not missing the point, am not confusing what scientific theory means. That I already have cleared up so drop it. The only disagreement you have is that it has to be scientific to teach it in science class, that they should teach it in comparitive religion class. I would definately agree with you if they actually had that class in public secondary education and below, we are not discussing college.



So should we teach literature in a science class? That's not scientific either.

Why is it you think they do not have comparative religion classes in secondary ed?

[BJQ87]

I take it back, you are not purposely being obtuse, you are a moron.

So exlpain to me why ID shouldn't be taught in a comparative religions class, and should be taught in a science class.


I'm a moron because of your misconception of the context of the argument? I'm not saying your a moron though, misconceptions are excusable.

[Ducky]

I am not missing the point, am not confusing what scientific theory means. That I already have cleared up so drop it. The only disagreement you have is that it has to be scientific to teach it in science class, that they should teach it in comparitive religion class. I would definately agree with you if they actually had that class in public secondary education and below, we are not discussing college.



So should we teach literature in a science class? That's not scientific either.

Why is it you think they do not have comparative religion classes in secondary ed?

[Ducky]

...double post

[Ducky]

...double post.

[BJQ87]

So should we teach literature in a science class? That's not scientific either.

Why is it you think they do not have comparative religion classes in secondary ed?


I think they do not have comparitive religion classes in most secondary ed.

[BJQ87]

excuse my small misconception, I didn't use it to label you a moron at least.

[Ducky]

I think they do not have comparitive religion classes in most secondary ed.


And why not?


In case you're not following me here, I'll spell it out.


1) science class is about science.
2) ID is not a scientific theory, it has no testable hypothesis and is nothing but speculation about metaphysical and philosophical ideas.
3) It should not be taught in science class because we've already had this debate. It started with scopes monkey trial and ended with the 1987 supreme court decision that creationism is not to be taught in a science class.

[BJQ87]

So should we teach literature in a science class? That's not scientific either.


If there is literature that (even if it is not science) relates very well to the topic at hand and theres a load of people who are for reasonable reasons protesting and petitioning and causing a lot of debate then perhaps we should take a look at the issue and consider it. But that is not the really the case is it?

[BJQ87]

It should not be taught in science class because we've already had this debate.

if that were an authoritive reason then there would be a lot more problems with our society right now. If the supreme court said something and then everyone accepted it as the right thing to do things would be alot different right now. Think about MLK, malcom x, the femnist movement, etc.
I dont think people opposed to abortion are going to give up just because the supreme court said that it shouldn't be deemed "murder".

[Ducky]

If there is literature that (even if it is not science) relates very well to the topic at hand and theres a load of people who are for reasonable reasons protesting and petitioning and causing a lot of debate then perhaps we should take a look at the issue and consider it. But that is not the really the case is it?


Nor is it the case with ID. There is no science in it. Just like there is no science in Shakespeare. That's why they have seperate classes.

[Ducky]

if that were an authoritive reason then there would be a lot more problems with our society right now. If the supreme court said something and then everyone accepted it as the right thing to do things would be alot different right now. Think about MLK, malcom x, the femnist movement, etc.
I dont think people opposed to abortion are going to give up just because the supreme court said that it shouldn't be deemed "murder".


non-sequiter hiding in a strawman.

Try again.

[BJQ87]

Originally Posted by BJQ87 :
If there is literature that (even if it is not science) relates very well to the topic at hand and theres a load of people who are for reasonable reasons protesting and petitioning and causing a lot of debate then perhaps we should take a look at the issue and consider it. But that is not the really the case is it?



Nor is it the case with ID. There is no science in it. Just like there is no science in Shakespeare. That's why they have seperate classes.

So ID is not related to the theory of evolution? And there aren't people petitioning and causing a lot of debate?

[Ducky]

So ID is not related to the theory of evolution? And there aren't people petitioning and causing a lot of debate?


Do you really think ID is a scientific theory about evolution?

It is a theory about God wrapped in scientific jargon in an attempt to look scientific.

Get this straight: Evolutionary theory does not address the concept of God. It operates on emperical evidence and peer reviewed study.

While we're at it, name 1 research project doing research on ID. Name 1 peer reviewed journal that published an ID paper wherein the ID paper discusses ID research and data achieved from said research.

It's not science.


edited to clarify

[BJQ87]

Do you really think ID is a scientific theory about evolution?

It is a theory about God wrapped in scientific jargon in an attempt to look scientific.

While we're at it, name 1 research project doing research on ID. Name 1 peer reviewed journal that published an ID paper wherein the ID paper discusses ID research and data achieved from said research.

It's not science.


When I say related, do I mean it is scientific? No I already told you I dont agree that it is scientific.

[Ducky]

When I say related, do I mean it is scientific? No I already told you I dont agree that it is scientific.


Then why do you want it taught in a science classroom if you admit it is not science?

[Ryokan]

Politically speaking, people in America don't like the fact that many of their kids are only being taught evolution in schools as the main theory of how the universe came to be.

And how does the theory of evolution explain how the universe came to be?

Answer : It doesn't. That's not what evolution is about at all!!!

Besides, what people in America like or doesn't like doesn't mean squat, science is science.

[Ducky]

And how does the theory of evolution explain how the universe came to be?

Answer : It doesn't. That's not what evolution is about at all!!!

Besides, what people in America like or doesn't like doesn't mean squat, science is science.


Well put.

[BJQ87]

I dont really care for my own good if it is taught or not. I am looking at this from a political and social viewpoint. I think it is something to consider since so many people are debating it and since it is a way to say "here is one theory many people believe, and here is another theory many people believe" Like i said before, to reduce influence over young minds towards atheism.

Here read this part of what I said before and try to understand what I was saying rather than doing your best to pick it apart. "This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools. Both cases involve not wanting kids to be brainwashed towards opposing viewpoints, and wanting kids to be raised the way they think their kids should be raised. (Though if I had a kid I wouldn't be so controlling, i'd simply demonstrate my beliefs throughout his/her life processes and my kid would hopefully be attracted to my beliefs instead of me telling my kid what he/she must believe in...this would also allow the kid to make the belief his/her own.) But many parents do feel like they are being violated when their kids are being influenced by opposing viewpoints, in both cases of prayer in schools and evolution. It has little to do with science. It has more to do with the kids, and what is being taught in school, not necessarily the science class. The thing is, if you do introduce this theory, the best time is to introduce it would be in contrast to the scientific theory of evolution- which is taught in science class. It's not like they're going to teach ID in english, history, math, or music class."

[Ryokan]

Reasoning a creator in this case is just as consitent with reality, one chooses between there being a beginning to existence and there being an eternal existence. Some people reason the second because they can't imagine there being no existence whatsoever, unlike most other things that are consistent with reality you can't get a conception of it in your head, that is simply impossible.

And if some people reason that life on Earth was seeded by space aliens, should that also be taught in science class?

[Ducky]

I dont really care for my own good if it is taught or not. I am looking at this from a political and social viewpoint. I think it is something to consider since so many people are debating it and since it is a way to say "here is one theory many people believe, and here is another theory many people believe" Like i said before, to reduce influence over young minds towards atheism.

Here read this part of what I said before and try to understand what I was saying rather than doing your best to pick it apart. "This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools. Both cases involve not wanting kids to be brainwashed towards opposing viewpoints, and wanting kids to be raised the way they think their kids should be raised. (Though if I had a kid I wouldn't be so controlling, i'd simply demonstrate my beliefs throughout his/her life processes and my kid would hopefully be attracted to my beliefs instead of me telling my kid what he/she must believe in...this would also allow the kid to make the belief his/her own.) But many parents do feel like they are being violated when their kids are being influenced by opposing viewpoints, in both cases of prayer in schools and evolution. It has little to do with science. It has more to do with the kids, and what is being taught in school, not necessarily the science class. The thing is, if you do introduce this theory, the best time is to introduce it would be in contrast to the scientific theory of evolution- which is taught in science class. It's not like they're going to teach ID in english, history, math, or music class."


And again, ID and Science are not at odds (unless you ask an ID proponant) about the origins of life. They are not conflicting theories. Evolution does not address how the universe began.

So, why should we teach an admittedly theist theory of God in science class?

Why should we teach anything other than science in a science class?


Edited to rephrase.

Science does not address the CAUSE of the beginning of the universe.

[BJQ87]

Besides, what people in America like or doesn't like doesn't mean squat, science is science.


Science is science I agree, but what people in America like or don't like matters a lot from a political and social viewpoint. Again, I could care less whether ID is taught or not for my own good, but for the good of the American people I have some speculation.

[Upchurch]

Science is science I agree, but what people in America like or don't like matters a lot from a political and social viewpoint. Again, I could care less whether ID is taught or not for my own good, but for the good of the American people I have some speculation.
Misleading the American people about how science works is good for them?

[Ryokan]

Science is science I agree, but what people in America like or don't like matters a lot from a political and social viewpoint. Again, I could care less whether ID is taught or not for my own good, but for the good of the American people I have some speculation.

Science is not about opinions, it's about facts.

If a large group og Americans thought that the USA had actually won the Vietnam war, should that be taught in history class? If a large group of Americans thought William Shakespeare was actually American, should that be taught in English class?

If a large group of Americans thought that whites are genetically superior to blacks, should that be taught in science class?

Or is it only your delusions that should replace facts in public education?

Damn, I'm glad I'm European!

[Ducky]

Science is not about opinions, it's about facts.

If a large group og Americans thought that the USA had actually won the Vietnam war, should that be taught in history class? If a large group of Americans thought William Shakespeare was actually American, should that be taught in English class?

If a large group of Americans thought that whites are genetically superior to blacks, should that be taught in science class?

Or is it only your delusions that should replace facts in public education?

Damn, I'm glad I'm European!


You got a spare room I can move into?

[Ryokan]

You got a spare room I can move into?

Sure, but be warned; I'm messy and I snore :p

[gnome]

I am not missing the point, am not confusing what scientific theory means. That I already have cleared up so drop it. The only disagreement you have is that it has to be scientific to teach it in science class, that they should teach it in comparitive religion class. I would definately agree with you if they actually had that class in public secondary education and below, we are not discussing college.

Why not propose a different class then, instead of advocating teaching something that isn't science in a science class?

[Ducky]

Why not propose a different class then, instead of advocating teaching something that isn't science in a science class?


I would hope whatever intelligent design class would exist would be an elective.


ETA: I want an FSM class.

[Rufo]

Several things are related to science. In fact, almost all knowledge is at least related to science in one way of another. If you would teach all things related to science in the science class, there wouldn't really be much but science class in the schools. That's why there are different classes in the first place.

In my opinion, evolution should be taught as science, ID as philosophy, and creationism as religion/mythology. But they are all important, in different ways.

I would hope whatever intelligent design class would exist would be an elective.
Why? It's not more stupid than any philosophy. People think, and some of them reach the conclusion that the world was probably created by some kind of being called a God, some reach the conclusion that it wasn't. And in philosophy it does matter how many people believe in something - since it's almost impossible to determine philosophical 'truths'. ID is a philosophical theory, and if it's good or bad is a matter of opinion. Of course, it shouldn't be taught to kids as 'truth', but as 'theory'. And let's not confuse this use of 'theory' with the scientific use. ;)

Like i said before, to reduce influence over young minds towards atheism.
Why would the Theory of Evolution do that? If creatures evolve, does that mean there is no God? Or that God did not create the universe and life? Or even that God is not the father of Jesus, if we're talking about christianity? Why is this theory so scary?

If a large group of Americans thought that whites are genetically superior to blacks, should that be taught in science class?
I really, really, really wish I could think something else, but - yes. If the group was large enough. Science doesn't necessarily go forward, it can be forced backwards. Just look at what happened in the Dark Ages, when the common opinion was that the Earth was flat, despite that it had earlier been proved that the Earth was a sphere, and people even had calculated its size. Also, you can 'confirm' almost any scientific hypothesis if you choose to point out only the evidence that speaks for it. And, as I believe all on this forum knows all too well, when people want to believe something, they are very good at doing just that.

[Ducky]

Why? It's not more stupid than any philosophy. People think, and some of them reach the conclusion that the world was probably created by some kind of being called a God, some reach the conclusion that it wasn't. And in philosophy it does matter how many people believe in something - since it's almost impossible to determine philosophical 'truths'. ID is a philosophical theory, and if it's good or bad is a matter of opinion. Of course, it shouldn't be taught to kids as 'truth', but as 'theory'. And let's not confuse this use of 'theory' with the scientific use. ;)





Because in public schools there should not be a required religion class. That's for the parents to deal with at home. Why do you want to teach religion in public schools? If there is a class, it would have to be something the kids/parents could opt out of.

You see, we pay taxes. These taxes fund our government which in turn has funded our schools. There's an agreement that the government will steer clear of religion.

That's why if the class is to exist, it should be an elective.

If you want religion in your school, send your kids to a private school.

[headscratcher4]

You mean we didn't win the Vietnam War?

Does this mean that Bin Ladin didn't sit down with Saddam and plan 9/11? What about all of those WMDs we found?

Oh my...

[gnome]

I just wanted to add, that among proponents of teaching ID in schools... the idea that ID is not science is in the minority. Most of them want ID to be called science and taught as science.

[headscratcher4]

I just wanted to add, that among proponents of teaching ID in schools... the idea that ID is not science is in the minority. Most of them want ID to be called science and taught as science.

Indeed, as do astrologers. Astroloty is an alternative theory involving physics, biology, cosmology, geography, etc. In addition, many Ameicans believe in it and actively follow-it. It should be taught as science, or, at the very least, astronomy and physics sections should have to tell students that alternative theories exist.

And, while it is not so popular now, Lysenkoist biology, based on materialist "science" and the control that man can exert over nature, was once all the rage in the Stalinist Soviet Union (still, I think, practiced to a degree in North Korea). It is an alternative "theory" to Mendel and other biologists...so, popularity be damned, it should be taught in biology.


My point is that changing the definition of "science" to fit popular notions and acknowledge them is a slippery slope that will glide you quickly into the dark ages.

[PatKelley]

Misleading the American people about how science works is good for them?
Keeps them from thinking too much.

[Ryokan]

I really, really, really wish I could think something else, but - yes. If the group was large enough. Science doesn't necessarily go forward, it can be forced backwards. Just look at what happened in the Dark Ages, when the common opinion was that the Earth was flat, despite that it had earlier been proved that the Earth was a sphere, and people even had calculated its size. Also, you can 'confirm' almost any scientific hypothesis if you choose to point out only the evidence that speaks for it. And, as I believe all on this forum knows all too well, when people want to believe something, they are very good at doing just that.

So if a large group thought whites were genetically superior to blacks, but all scientists disagreed with it, you'd still support it being taught in science class?

Are you actually saying that popular opinion should decide what is taught in science class, and not what is actually science?

Should the same be true of all the subjects in school? If enough people believe Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA, should that be taught in school?

I know I'm asking pretty much the same kind of questions that you replied to, but are you serious?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Reasoning a creator in this case is just as consitent with reality, one chooses between there being a beginning to existence and there being an eternal existence. The concept of a creator who doesn't have any particular laws to follow is consistent with absolutely anything. That's why the idea is vapid and unscientific.

The question is, what explains what we observe? Evolution explains things; god explains nothing.

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

Keeps them from thinking too much.
I thought that's why we had Reality TV. We're still thinking too much?

[drkitten]

I thought that's why we had Reality TV. We're still thinking too much?

I guess not enough people watch Reality TV.

[Upchurch]

I guess not enough people watch Reality TV.
Good for them! My faith in humanity is slowly being restored.

[Rufo]

So if a large group thought whites were genetically superior to blacks, but all scientists disagreed with it, you'd still support it being taught in science class?

Are you actually saying that popular opinion should decide what is taught in science class, and not what is actually science?

Should the same be true of all the subjects in school? If enough people believe Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA, should that be taught in school?

I know I'm asking pretty much the same kind of questions that you replied to, but are you serious?
I'm terribly sorry - I misread your question. I thought you asked if it would be taught, not if it should be. I was merely trying to say that science can - sadly - easily be changed by popular opinion, not that I thought it should be affected by it. Science research should always be objective.

[Ryokan]

I'm terribly sorry - I misread your question. I thought you asked if it would be taught, not if it should be. I was merely trying to say that science can - sadly - easily be changed by popular opinion, not that I thought it should be affected by it. Science research should always be objective.

Ah, we're on the same page, then!

But yes, this whole discussion is about the 'should' part, the 'would' part is, sadly, obvious.

[sphenisc]

The problem is that ID isn't a real "theory" . It isn't science because it isn't subject to falsification or change.

Your evidence?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Evidence? Why don't you summarize or link to the Theory of Intelligent Design so we can see what it is? You won't find a theory based on empirical evidence. You will find some sort of hand-wave based on probability, but not a single example of a biological system proven to be irreducibly complex.

So where's the theory?

~~ Paul

[Ducky]

Your evidence?


How about we start where Behe himself admits the ID fails the scientific definition of the word "theory." (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178)

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

[Upchurch]

Your evidence?
Well, in order for ID to falsifiable, there has to be a falsifiable claim that, if shown to be incorrect, means that ID is impossible.

The big one, of course, is irreducibe complexity, correct? (the only one?) However, in order to show that irreducible complexity is false, we must show that there is no irreducible complexity anywhere in the universe. We can show that each individual "X is irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.

This is called trying to prove a negative (i.e. "prove that something doesn't exist") and it is damn near impossible.

So, as it is impossible to show that there is no irreducibly complex anywhere in the universe, there is no way to definitively prove it false. Thus, it is unfalsifiable.

[Ducky]

Well, in order for ID to falsifiable, there has to be a falsifiable claim that, if shown to be incorrect, means that ID is impossible.

The big one, of course, is irreducibe complexity, correct? (the only one?) However, in order to show that irreducible complexity is false, we must show that there is no irreducible complexity anywhere in the universe. We can show that each individual "X is irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.

This is called trying to prove a negative (i.e. "prove that something doesn't exist") and it is damn near impossible.

So, as it is impossible to show that there is no irreducibly complex anywhere in the universe, there is no way to definitively prove it false. Thus, it is unfalsifiable.


Nicely put, Papa Funkosophy.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The big one, of course, is irreducibe complexity, correct? (the only one?) However, in order to show that irreducible complexity is false, we must show that there is no irreducible complexity anywhere in the universe. We can show that each individual "X is irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.
Absolutely, and I say we don't have to worry about it at all until at least one irreducibly complex mechanism is demonstrated. Why should IC get any special favors over and above, say, the claim that Santa Claus delivers toys on Christmas? Is there some committee somewhere trying to prove he has never done so, even once?

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

D'oh. after reading the praises of my post, I realized that it should have been:

We can show that each individual "X is not irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.
Kind of a critical difference, there. :blush:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A beautiful example of the Brain Filling in the Nots effect.

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Well, in order for ID to falsifiable, there has to be a falsifiable claim that, if shown to be incorrect, means that ID is impossible.

The big one, of course, is irreducibe complexity, correct? (the only one?) However, in order to show that irreducible complexity is false, we must show that there is no irreducible complexity anywhere in the universe. We can show that each individual "X is irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.

This is called trying to prove a negative (i.e. "prove that something doesn't exist") and it is damn near impossible.

So, as it is impossible to show that there is no irreducibly complex anywhere in the universe, there is no way to definitively prove it false. Thus, it is unfalsifiable.

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?

[PatKelley]

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?
I could make a similar claim that is equally unfalsifiable. "There exists a thing in the universe that is a color that can't be named."

This is on par with your statement in that it is unfalsifiable. The hinted demand is that the entire universe be shaken loose and examined before anyone can say anything conclusive.

Hence, it is not science. Science says "we think things work like this; until it is shown otherwise, we assume all things work like this." To disprove it, you just have to show one thing that does not work like this, you don't have to show that no thing other than this exists. Hence, to truly supplant evolution, ID would have to produce an item that does not work like this, this being the current theory of evolution. There is, by the way, no delineation between "micro" and "macro" evolution in biology.

[Upchurch]

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?
Are there other claims to ID?


eta: What Pat said.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?
It's egregiously unfalsifiable, especially since irreducibly complex is not well defined.

It's on par with Zammit's demand that someone falsify all the evidence for the afterlife.

Although, we do know there is an invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune.

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?
What bothers me about this question is the implication that there are other claims from ID that I regard as falsifiable (and thus, within the domain of science). Sort of a "do you still beat your wife" question.

To my knowledge, the existance of irreducible complexity is the central assumption of ID. All other claims stem from this one claim. As such, if the irreducible complexity claim is unfalsifiable, anything based upon that claim is also unfalsifiable. For example, if irreducible complexity exists, then there is an intelligent designer. There is no possibility to absolutely disprove irreducible complexity, so there is no possibility to absolutely disprove an intelligent designer.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So your changing your wording from Scientific theory to Theory?

I agree that it is not a scientific theory in the sense that it cannot abide by your questions stated above. But to say it is not a theory at all, I dont see that being the case.

If it's not a scientific theory then it's not science...

If it's not science it does not belong in science class.

It's that simple.

Politically speaking, people in America don't like the fact that many of their kids are only being taught evolution in schools as the main theory of how the universe came to be, because statistically most Americans don't agree with that.

1.It makes no difference what Americans like or don't like about the facts. Those are the facts and that's all there is to it. Wether or not Americans agree with evolution or not is completly beyond the point. Evolution happens,That's all there is to it.


It is not that ID is a scientific theory, it is that it is another theory for how the universe came to be, a way to say "here's one way many people think it happened, (but in order to reduce influence over young minds toward atheism) here's another way many people think it happened."

1.ID not being a scientific theory means it's not even on the level of evolution.
2.It's obvious you're still uneducated about Evolution. Evolution does NOT say how the "universe" came to exist. Evolution is biological. meaning it explains how LIFE evolved and came to be the way it is today. That's all it does.
3.Evolution being purely biological and not philosophical could not possibly incluence people towards atheism. All it does is influence people away from fundamental christianity,And that is a good thing.

This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools. Both cases involve not wanting kids to be brainwashed towards opposing viewpoints, and wanting kids to be raised the way they think their kids should be raised.

Big difference between Prayer and Evolution. Evolution is science and can be proven. Prayer is religion and can not.

(Though if I had a kid I wouldn't be so controlling, i'd simply demonstrate my beliefs throughout his/her life processes and my kid would hopefully be attracted to my beliefs instead of me telling my kid what he/she must believe in...this would also allow the kid to make the belief his/her own.) But many parents do feel like they are being violated when their kids are being influenced by opposing viewpoints, in both cases of prayer in schools and evolution. It has little to do with science. It has more to do with the kids, and what is being taught in school, not necessarily the science class. The thing is, if you do introduce this theory, the best time is to introduce it would be in contrast to the scientific theory of evolution- which is taught in science class. It's not like they're going to teach ID in english, history, math, or music class.


It has absolutely everything to do with science. Not only with science but the future of our nation. If our children are not taught basic science because it goes against their religious delusions than our Nation will be far behind the rest in science.
Is it no wonder Many other nations pump out more scientists a year than America does?

You yourself admited ID is not science. This means it does not belong in science class. No matter what the parents want.

Since you can't support ID with any facts or any evidence then WHY does it belong in a science class opposed to evolution when evolution CAN support it's claims with evidence and facts and DOES fit the criteria of a scientific theory?

[Ducky]

If it's not a scientific theory then it's not science...

If it's not science it does not belong in science class.

It's that simple.



1.It makes no difference what Americans like or don't like about the facts. Those are the facts and that's all there is to it. Wether or not Americans agree with evolution or not is completly beyond the point. Evolution happens,That's all there is to it.




1.ID not being a scientific theory means it's not even on the level of evolution.
2.It's obvious you're still uneducated about Evolution. Evolution does NOT say how the "universe" came to exist. Evolution is biological. meaning it explains how LIFE evolved and came to be the way it is today. That's all it does.
3.Evolution being purely biological and not philosophical could not possibly incluence people towards atheism. All it does is influence people away from fundamental christianity,And that is a good thing.



Big difference between Prayer and Evolution. Evolution is science and can be proven. Prayer is religion and can not.




It has absolutely everything to do with science. Not only with science but the future of our nation. If our children are not taught basic science because it goes against their religious delusions than our Nation will be far behind the rest in science.
Is it no wonder Many other nations pump out more scientists a year than America does?

You yourself admited ID is not science. This means it does not belong in science class. No matter what the parents want.

Since you can't support ID with any facts or any evidence then WHY does it belong in a science class opposed to evolution when evolution CAN support it's claims with evidence and facts and DOES fit the criteria of a scientific theory?



Good post, Dustin.

[sphenisc]

What bothers me about this question is the implication that there are other claims from ID that I regard as falsifiable (and thus, within the domain of science). Sort of a "do you still beat your wife" question.


You said in your original posting that IR was 'the big one' [implying that there might be littler ones] and '(the only one?)' [with a question mark], so I don't think my implication was entirely unjustified, certainly not to the extent of it being a "do you still beat your wife" question.

[sphenisc]

What bothers me about this question is the implication that there are other claims from ID that I regard as falsifiable (and thus, within the domain of science). Sort of a "do you still beat your wife" question.

To my knowledge, the existance of irreducible complexity is the central assumption of ID. All other claims stem from this one claim. As such, if the irreducible complexity claim is unfalsifiable, anything based upon that claim is also unfalsifiable. For example, if irreducible complexity exists, then there is an intelligent designer. There is no possibility to absolutely disprove irreducible complexity, so there is no possibility to absolutely disprove an intelligent designer.

The implication aside, the real point of my question is that your/my characterisation of the IR claim is designed to set it up to fail the falsifiability test (sorry, that hurts my head...) what I mean is:

The unfalsifability of the statement is dependent not on any intrinsic property of IR but on the fact that humans are very small, slow and localised, and the universe is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
[Got distracted there for a minute - back on track now.]

So for example, the existence of heritable elements is central to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If there is no possibility of disproving the existence in the universe of a heritable element, there is no possibility to absolutely disproving TOEBNS. So TOEBNS is not science.

My point is that a poor characterisation of the main claim will allow any conjecture to be dismissed as unfalsifiable, and it might be more productive to discuss ways in which claims can be reformulated to satisfy the falsifability condition. [I'd also note that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are frequently described as 'Universal', without anybody complaining that this is unfalsifable.
:)

[sphenisc]

The implication aside, the real point of my question is that your/my characterisation of the IR claim is designed to set it up to fail the falsifiability test (sorry, that hurts my head...) what I mean is:

The unfalsifability of the statement is dependent not on any intrinsic property of IR but on the fact that humans are very small, slow and localised, and the universe is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
[Got distracted there for a minute - back on track now.]

So for example, the existence of heritable elements is central to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If there is no possibility of disproving the existence in the universe of a heritable element, there is no possibility to absolutely disproving TOEBNS. So TOEBNS is not science.

My point is that a poor characterisation of the main claim will allow any conjecture to be dismissed as unfalsifiable, and it might be more productive to discuss ways in which claims can be reformulated to satisfy the falsifability condition. [I'd also note that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are frequently described as 'Universal', without anybody complaining that this is unfalsifable. ]
:)

Hopethat makes sense ...

[DarkMagician]

This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools.Except that most of the time it's not atheists but Catholics and minority Christian sects that usually object to school-sponsored prayer.

[BJQ87]

If it's not science it does not belong in science class.


youd rather teach it in english? history? math? theres no more relevant subject than science because it relates to science as the theory is that God created life....and science.

It makes no difference what Americans like or don't like about the facts. Those are the facts and that's all there is to it. Wether or not Americans agree with evolution or not is completly beyond the point. Evolution happens,That's all there is to it.


Americans run this country. If evolution were more convincing then perhaps there would be more agreement against ID being taught in schools alongside of evolution. And it is no good to state theory as fact.

It's obvious you're still uneducated about Evolution. Evolution does NOT say how the "universe" came to exist. Evolution is biological. meaning it explains how LIFE evolved and came to be the way it is today. That's all it does.


is not the big bang theory a part of evolutionary theory? If not then I admit i had that misconception, because it is taught in schools seemingly as part of evolutionary theory. A big bang of some sort probably did happen i agree, but to say that it is not from God is a theory itself. Science doesn't explain anymore back in time, it just points to a big bang, then the theory pretty much stops and when it does that it leaves the very understandable misconception among children and even adults, that the thoery is actually saying there is no God. Because people respect what they are being taught in school, especially children, they see it as an authoritive way of seeing things, and are suseptable to brainwashing...All it does is influence people away from fundamental christianity,And that is a good thing.


Those people you are talking about are children. when you admit that it does influence children away from fundamental christianity, you are getting to the heart of the issue, because there are a whole lot of christians in this country that are strongly against this. I for one don't really care personally, as i have said before, yet i do care from a sociological and political perspective that so many others care, and are affected by this personally.

Evolution is science and can be proven. Prayer is religion and can not.


nice theory. Maybe one day it will be proven, maybe one day it will be proven wrong.

[BJQ87]

Originally Posted by BJQ87 :
This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools.

Except that most of the time it's not atheists but Catholics and minority Christian sects that usually object to school-sponsored prayer.


I haven't really disagreed with you on that, though i hesitate to agree with you either, im not educated on the statistics it would be nice if i were. I daresay though, most all atheists, whether parents or not, would be against prayer in school whether they make a public objection or not.

[Belz...]

youd rather teach it in english? history? math? theres no more relevant subject than science because it relates to science as the theory is that God created life....and science.

First off, I'd teach it in RELIGION class. Second, no. No he didn't.

Americans run this country. If evolution were more convincing then perhaps there would be more agreement against ID being taught in schools alongside of evolution. And it is no good to state theory as fact.

Theory and fact are closely related. Religion is not.

A big bang of some sort probably did happen i agree, but to say that it is not from God is a theory itself.

Nope. We say that it came from something specific. Science doesn't say it didn't come from God.

Science doesn't explain anymore back in time, it just points to a big bang, then the theory pretty much stops and when it does that it leaves the very understandable misconception among children and even adults, that the thoery is actually saying there is no God. Because people respect what they are being taught in school, especially children, they see it as an authoritive way of seeing things, and are suseptable to brainwashing...

Actually QM has a very interesting and well-supported theory about all this.

nice theory. Maybe one day it will be proven, maybe one day it will be proven wrong.

Somehow I doubt it. Religion is notoriously immune to evidence.

[sphenisc]

Um... okay.

If you found vertebrate fossils embedded in undisturbed Cambrian sediments, evolution would be falsified.

Okay, your turn.:p

Hi Tricky,

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/Cambrian.htm


The main issue concerning Cambrian vertebrates is whether there were any. It seems likely that at least one lineage of vertebrates existed before the Ordovician, but the issue is not entirely settled. Two organisms in particular are possible Cambrian vertebrates: Haikouichthys and Anatolepis. In addition, two other vertebrate lineages are ancient enough that it would be reasonable to suppose they originated in the Cambrian, even without a clear fossil record: conodonts and thelodonts.


Evolution is hereby declared to be falsified, (or as near as da...it).

Tricky, The Discovery Institute looks forward to your first membership subscription. :D

[BJQ87]

First off, I'd teach it in RELIGION class. Second, no. No he didn't.


In regaurds to the first, it all depends if they have a religion class. I think my opinion has become more solidified throughout this debate that as a democracy, we should simply not introduce evolution until junior highschool. If a load of people are going to be against this though saying that it would lead to us being significantly increased in inferiority to other countries in regaurds to advancement (which i happen to disagree with) Then perhaps teach both theories in science so that they are in contrast (this being in regaurds to what i said in my last post about children respecting what they are taught in school as the authoritive way of seeing things) up until junior high. Those are the two best scenarios in my humble opinion. Perhaps more people will desire this compromise once it becomes more mutual, which is probable to happen in the next decade if a lot of schools to accept this ID. (though in my opinion they should re-establish the ID theory as non-scientific)

[gnome]

In regaurds to the first, it all depends if they have a religion class. I think my opinion has become more solidified throughout this debate that as a democracy, we should simply not introduce evolution until junior highschool. If a load of people are going to be against this though saying that it would lead to us being significantly increased in inferiority to other countries in regaurds to advancement (which i happen to disagree with) Then perhaps teach both theories in science so that they are in contrast (this being in regaurds to what i said in my last post about children respecting what they are taught in school as the authoritive way of seeing things) up until junior high. Those are the two best scenarios in my humble opinion. Perhaps more people will desire this compromise once it becomes more mutual, which is probable to happen in the next decade if a lot of schools to accept this ID. (though in my opinion they should re-establish the ID theory as non-scientific)

Why insist on the scientific word "Theory" if you admit it's not science? All that does is to reinforce the popular misconception of what "theory" means. By saying "both theories" you present them as equal in the eyes of science.

You may admit it is not science--but you seem just fine with people mistaking it for science.

[BJQ87]

By saying "both theories" you present them as equal in the eyes of science.


I present them as equally probable, not equally supported. Perhaps you are just offended by me saying they are equally probable?

You may admit it is not science--but you seem just fine with people mistaking it for science.


no I'm not fine with it, though it is not the end of the world. All you opinionated towards atheism seem to be just fine with people mistaking the big bang as saying that God does not exist. But this is similarly probably not the case.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I present them as equally probable, not equally supported. Perhaps you are just offended by me saying they are equally probable?
Someone calculated the probabilities of the theory of evolution and ID?

~~ Paul

[Z]

I present them as equally probable, not equally supported. Perhaps you are just offended by me saying they are equally probable?

You are just not very well educated, are you?

If one theory is not as well supported, then it is not as probable. A scientific theory is based upon observation and calculation; ID is not. The theory of Evolution is highly probable, while the Idea of Intelligent Design is not. Frankly, the Supreme Court ought to rule that Creationism be called for what it is, and not falsely dressed up in scientific terms.

And the Big Bang has very little, if anything, to do with either atheism or evolution.

no I'm not fine with it, though it is not the end of the world. All you opinionated towards atheism seem to be just fine with people mistaking the big bang as saying that God does not exist. But this is similarly probably not the case.

Did you graduate school?

[Tricky]

Hi Tricky,

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/Cambrian.htm



Evolution is hereby declared to be falsified, (or as near as da...it).

Tricky, The Discovery Institute looks forward to your first membership subscription. :D

From your link:
We hasten to add that this does not place Haikouichthys in the Vertebrata (http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/020Craniata/100.html#Vertebrata), as we use that term in the Vertebrate section of Palaeos (http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/default.htm).

However, it is possible that I misspoke. There might be some things which could be called vertebrates in the Cambrian, though they are certainly not members of Vertebrata. However, even this is uncertain.

If you will allow me to correct my (possible) mistake, let's say fish in the Cambrian. However, I accept that I did not properly do my research, and for that I invite chastisement.:D

[BJQ87]

If one theory is not as well supported, then it is not as probable. A scientific theory is based upon observation and calculation; ID is not. The theory of Evolution is highly probable, while the Idea of Intelligent Design is not. Frankly, the Supreme Court ought to rule that Creationism be called for what it is, and not falsely dressed up in scientific terms.


Science can't do something so the theory is less probable? There is no reason for set probability to either theory, they are both theories whether you like it or not (i've heard people say that evolution happened, as a matter of actual fact. such bias is repulsive. Hopefully they didn't mean it the way it sounded.) and I even suggest that evolution is an absurd theory. Opinions are at the heart of the conflict.

[Belz...]

If a load of people are going to be against this though saying that it would lead to us being significantly increased in inferiority to other countries in regaurds to advancement (which i happen to disagree with) Then perhaps teach both theories in science so that they are in contrast

ID is not a theory.

[Belz...]

Science can't do something so the theory is less probable? There is no reason for set probability to either theory, they are both theories whether you like it or not (i've heard people say that evolution happened, as a matter of actual fact. such bias is repulsive. Hopefully they didn't mean it the way it sounded.) and I even suggest that evolution is an absurd theory. Opinions are at the heart of the conflict.

Theories that are supported by vast bodies of evidence are more likely to be true, wouldn't you say ?

[cyborg]

Science can't do something so the theory is less probable?

What does ID do except argue from ignorance?

There is no reason for set probability to either theory, they are both theories whether you like it or not

It doesn't work this way. You've been told this a million times. Are you or are you not willing to understand what a SCIENTIFIC theory is? If not there's really no point talking to you.

i've heard people say that evolution happened, as a matter of actual fact. such bias is repulsive.

I've heard people say that a god exists, as a matter of actual fact. Such bias is repulsive.

and I even suggest that evolution is an absurd theory. Opinions are at the heart of the conflict.

Science is not a bunch of people sitting around giving their opinions on the way the universe works: that's what YOUR side engages in.

You opinionate all you want about how the universe works; you just leave it to us to actually find out so we can build all those useful technologies these mere opinions have given you.

[Z]

Science can't do something so the theory is less probable? There is no reason for set probability to either theory, they are both theories whether you like it or not (i've heard people say that evolution happened, as a matter of actual fact. such bias is repulsive. Hopefully they didn't mean it the way it sounded.) and I even suggest that evolution is an absurd theory. Opinions are at the heart of the conflict.

Incredible proof of your ignorance and bias.

In proper scientific jargon: Evolution is a theory. Intelligent Design is simply an idea. ID does NOT rank as a theory among the scientific community; nor, even, as a hypothesis.

In the vernacular jargon, ID is a theory, while evolution is a fact. Sure, you don't hear people speaking about the Law of Evolution - any more than you hear about the Law of Relativity or the Law of Pythagoras. Public jargon is often a mishmash of confused terms, for whatever reason, and in the public jargon, 'theory' is too weak a term to describe evolution. However, because the scientific community properly speaks of it as the 'theory of evolution', the public nay-sayers have clung to this, wishing to equate a scientific theory with a vernacular theory. The two just don't equate, no matter how much you'd like to try.

As for ID, it doesn't make the cut as a scientific theory; even Behe has admitted as much. Hence, if we refer to Evolution as a 'theory', ID becomes an 'idea', and nothing more.

If you don't like evolution, for whatever reason, I'm sorry. For what it's worth, I don't care for gravity. I'm pretty sure in my dreams that I fly all the time; so why can't I bypass this so-called law in reality? But the facts are the facts; and, scientifically speaking, the theories are the theories. Evolution is a theory, and a highly probably one, based upon observation and calculation. ID is just a whack idea, one that occassionally runs counter to observation, and is highly improbable, based largely on faith. Evolution has the power to make predictions, and is falsifiable. ID fails on both counts.

So, whether you like it or not, evolution is a viable theory, while ID is just an idea. Or, to use the vernacular, evolution is a 'law', while ID is a 'theory'.

***

*Please note, I'm not actually sure if evolution has been promoted to 'law' status within the scientific community - others familiar with scientific methods know what I'm talking about. But for all practical intents...

[PatKelley]

The implication aside, the real point of my question is that your/my characterisation of the IR claim is designed to set it up to fail the falsifiability test (sorry, that hurts my head...) what I mean is:

The unfalsifability of the statement is dependent not on any intrinsic property of IR but on the fact that humans are very small, slow and localised, and the universe is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
[Got distracted there for a minute - back on track now.]

So for example, the existence of heritable elements is central to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If there is no possibility of disproving the existence in the universe of a heritable element, there is no possibility to absolutely disproving TOEBNS. So TOEBNS is not science.

My point is that a poor characterisation of the main claim will allow any conjecture to be dismissed as unfalsifiable, and it might be more productive to discuss ways in which claims can be reformulated to satisfy the falsifability condition. [I'd also note that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are frequently described as 'Universal', without anybody complaining that this is unfalsifable.
:)
Maybe you did not read my post on this subject. I suggest that you do so, and note that science's central assumption is that we assume that things operate this way (theory) everywhere until an exception arises (falsification) leading to a redefinition or reworking of theory to account for exception. For instance, look up "Phlogiston" or "Spontaneous Generation" for theories that were falsified and then discarded.

Reasoning from the other direction (we cannot discount a theory until it is proven false) is the inverse of this process. The key is that it account for current observation, as well as being subject to falsification.

Demanding the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong is not science. Somewhere there are fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall. Prove that theory wrong.

I have shifted the burden of proof; it is up to me to show that my assertion is true; I cannot do this by saying "you can't prove me wrong." That is a negative assertion rather than the positive assertion that there are fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall.

The point is, until you come up with proof there is no sense in incorporating your theory as there is no merit, extra explanation, better analysis or methodological evidence to it; true or not, it does not matter and can so be discarded.

[Upchurch]

The implication aside, the real point of my question is that your/my characterisation of the IR claim is designed to set it up to fail the falsifiability test (sorry, that hurts my head...) what I mean is:

The unfalsifability of the statement is dependent not on any intrinsic property of IR but on the fact that humans are very small, slow and localised, and the universe is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
[Got distracted there for a minute - back on track now.]

So for example, the existence of heritable elements is central to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If there is no possibility of disproving the existence in the universe of a heritable element, there is no possibility to absolutely disproving TOEBNS. So TOEBNS is not science.

My point is that a poor characterisation of the main claim will allow any conjecture to be dismissed as unfalsifiable, and it might be more productive to discuss ways in which claims can be reformulated to satisfy the falsifability condition. [I'd also note that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are frequently described as 'Universal', without anybody complaining that this is unfalsifable.
:)
Biology is not my strong suit. I can't argue the positive and negative aspects of it. Phsyics, on the other hand, is a different story.

It's funny that you mention Newton's Laws of Gravitation. Not only are they falsifiable, they've been falsified. They have been proven false. They are not true.

How was it done? Newton's Laws of Gravitation predicted that the orbit of Mercury around the sun should behave in a certain way. Observation shows that it does not behave in the way that Newton would predict. Close, but definitely wrong. (Einstein came along with the correct theory of gravity, which was close but significantly different to Newton's theory. But that's another post.)

Newton's Law of Gravitation is a very excellent example of a falsifiable scientific theory. All it took was one observation that didn't meet up with the prediction (and actually, there were more), for it to be falsified.

See how the process works? As I said, I'm not biologist. I'm not familiar enough with the theory of evolution to say difinitively how it might be falsifiable. I do know that IR is unfalsifiable because history has shown that no matter how many times a proclaimed irredibly complex system is shown to not be so, there will always be something else that will be proclaimed irreducibly complex. How many times does it have to be wrong before we accept that it is wrong?

[sphenisc]

Biology is not my strong suit. I can't argue the positive and negative aspects of it. Phsyics, on the other hand, is a different story.

It's funny that you mention Newton's Laws of Gravitation. Not only are they falsifiable, they've been falsified. They have been proven false. They are not true.

How was it done? Newton's Laws of Gravitation predicted that the orbit of Mercury around the sun should behave in a certain way. Observation shows that it does not behave in the way that Newton would predict. Close, but definitely wrong. (Einstein came along with the correct theory of gravity, which was close but significantly different to Newton's theory. But that's another post.)

Newton's Law of Gravitation is a very excellent example of a falsifiable scientific theory. All it took was one observation that didn't meet up with the prediction (and actually, there were more), for it to be falsified.

See how the process works? As I said, I'm not biologist. I'm not familiar enough with the theory of evolution to say difinitively how it might be falsifiable. I do know that IR is unfalsifiable because history has shown that no matter how many times a proclaimed irredibly complex system is shown to not be so, there will always be something else that will be proclaimed irreducibly complex. How many times does it have to be wrong before we accept that it is wrong?

I think you're missing the whole point of my argument. You can't declare that IR is unfalsifiable in one sentence and then in next say it's shown to be wrong?!

Either Newtonian Gravitation is unfalsifiable or it has been falsified (I'll discount the possibility that it is falsifiable but not yet falsified as it not relevant to my argument.)

If you characterise Newtonian gravitation in the same way as you do IR then it becomes unfalsifiable, but you don't -you make sure that you characterise it in a way which allows it to be falsified. My point is that IR should be treated in the same way.

Secondly, the argument from IR is that an IR system must be the product of an IDer i.e If something is IR then an IDer must exist.
Demonstrating that something thought to be IR is not IR does not invalidate the argument.

Cheers

[Upchurch]

I think you're missing the whole point of my argument. You can't declare that IR is unfalsifiable in one sentence and then in next say it's shown to be wrong?!You misunderstand. IR can be shown in every specific case, but that would not be conclusive that IR is false because, apparently, the intellegence involved has the illusive ability to pick and choose what it designs and what it does not.
Either Newtonian Gravitation is unfalsifiable or it has been falsified (I'll discount the possibility that it is falsifiable but not yet falsified as it not relevant to my argument.)Do not confuse falsifiable with having been falsified, nor unfalsifiable with not having been falsified.

Being unfalsifiable is not the alternative to having been falsified. One is the capacity, the other is the actuality. What ID lacks is the potentiality to be shown false. Newtonian gravity has the potential to be shown false and, indeed, was. Einsteining gravity likewise has the potential to be shown false, but has not been.
If you characterise Newtonian gravitation in the same way as you do IR then it becomes unfalsifiable, but you don't -you make sure that you characterise it in a way which allows it to be falsified. My point is that IR should be treated in the same way.The trouble is that ID is not anywhere nearly as well defined as Newtonian gravity was. ID cannot be measured. There is no logic that describes the difference between something that is designed and something that is not.
Secondly, the argument from IR is that an IR system must be the product of an IDer i.e If something is IR then an IDer must exist.
Demonstrating that something thought to be IR is not IR does not invalidate the argument.EXACTLY!! That's my point! :D Showing one that one planet did not follow Newton's gravity invalidated the argument. If we find one thing that does not behave by Einsteinian gravity, it will invalidate that argument. This is how a proper scientific argument is formulated and why ID does not fit the category. There is nothing that can be found to invalidate the argument. You can't prove the null hypothesis.

[sphenisc]

Maybe you did not read my post on this subject. I suggest that you do so, and note that science's central assumption is that we assume that things operate this way (theory) everywhere until an exception arises (falsification) leading to a redefinition or reworking of theory to account for exception. For instance, look up "Phlogiston" or "Spontaneous Generation" for theories that were falsified and then discarded.

Reasoning from the other direction (we cannot discount a theory until it is proven false) is the inverse of this process. The key is that it account for current observation, as well as being subject to falsification.

Demanding the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong is not science. Somewhere there are fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall. Prove that theory wrong.

I have shifted the burden of proof; it is up to me to show that my assertion is true; I cannot do this by saying "you can't prove me wrong." That is a negative assertion rather than the positive assertion that there are fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall.

The point is, until you come up with proof there is no sense in incorporating your theory as there is no merit, extra explanation, better analysis or methodological evidence to it; true or not, it does not matter and can so be discarded.

I've looked through the thread and I'm not sure which post you're referring to - so I may have misinterpreted your meaning somewhat. I was responding to Upchurch's post so this might have caused some confusion.

Yes, though I don't follow your 'reasoning from the other direction' bit -
" we assume that things operate this way (theory) everywhere until an exception arises " and "we cannot discount a theory until it is proven false" seems to be arguing in the same direction.

"Demanding the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong is not science."

Exactly, and the best way of addressing a theory which does this, is to rephrase/present it in such a way as to lessen the necessary work to prove it wrong.

If I say that Newtonian gravitation occurs somewhere in the universe then this is unfalsifiable, it 'demands 'the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong'. So we don't characterise NG in that way. My argument is that any statement about existence somewhere in the universe is intrinsically unfalsifiable, independent of whether it's IR, NG, fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall or James Randi. Therefore an argument based on such a characterisation tells us nothing interesting about the subject under discussion. The claim of unfalsifiability against IR, ON THIS BASIS, is thus setting it up to fail, and thus 'unfair' treatment of this conjecture.

I hope that is clearer.

[Ossai]

BJQ87
youd rather teach it in english? history? math? theres no more relevant subject than science because it relates to science as the theory is that God created life....and science. It’s religion and shouldn’t be taught in a publicly funded school at all.

Your ignorance shines through.
If evolution were more convincing and
is not the big bang theory a part of evolutionary theory? If not then I admit i had that misconception, because it is taught in schools seemingly as part of evolutionary theory. No the big bang (also old theory now and we’ve moved past it) is not part of evolutionary theory.

Because people respect what they are being taught in school, especially children, they see it as an authoritive way of seeing things, and are suseptable to brainwashing... Apparently you are a key example of this very thing if you don’t understand the basic science put forth so far.

What would it take to convince you that evolution is a fact and that we have evidence for it? Fossils, different breeds sharing the same family tree, development of new abilities by existing life forms – we’ve got them all.

In regaurds to the first, it all depends if they have a religion class. Why should a publicly funded school have a religious class? Maybe a comparative or history of religion class, but the same people that want ID taught would complain to have it banned as well.

(which i happen to disagree with) Then perhaps teach both theories in science so that they are in contrast ID isn’t science, nor is does it have a theory, so what is the second theory you mention?

Ossai

[PatKelley]

I've looked through the thread and I'm not sure which post you're referring to - so I may have misinterpreted your meaning somewhat. I was responding to Upchurch's post so this might have caused some confusion.

Yes, though I don't follow your 'reasoning from the other direction' bit -
" we assume that things operate this way (theory) everywhere until an exception arises " and "we cannot discount a theory until it is proven false" seems to be arguing in the same direction.

"Demanding the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong is not science."

Exactly, and the best way of addressing a theory which does this, is to rephrase/present it in such a way as to lessen the necessary work to prove it wrong.

If I say that Newtonian gravitation occurs somewhere in the universe then this is unfalsifiable, it 'demands 'the entire universe be shaken out to prove a theory wrong'. So we don't characterise NG in that way. My argument is that any statement about existence somewhere in the universe is intrinsically unfalsifiable, independent of whether it's IR, NG, fairies with wings who are pink and four inches tall or James Randi. Therefore an argument based on such a characterisation tells us nothing interesting about the subject under discussion. The claim of unfalsifiability against IR, ON THIS BASIS, is thus setting it up to fail, and thus 'unfair' treatment of this conjecture.

I hope that is clearer.

Yes, much. How then would one define IR? Do we have an example, or no? I'm thinking we need to set up criteria for IR.
I would think that exclusion from IR would be if there exists a mechanism for a heritable trait.

So how do we come up with exclusion critera for IR? It does need to be addressed, provided such criteria can be detailed.

[sphenisc]

Yes, much. How then would one define IR? Do we have an example, or no? I'm thinking we need to set up criteria for IR.
I would think that exclusion from IR would be if there exists a mechanism for a heritable trait.

So how do we come up with exclusion critera for IR? It does need to be addressed, provided such criteria can be detailed.

Thanks PatKelley , can you say what you mean by "I would think that exclusion from IR would be if there exists a mechanism for a heritable trait. "?

Do you mean, anything with a mechanism for passing on a heritable trait is automatically not irreducibly complex? Why should that be true?

[PatKelley]

Thanks PatKelley , can you say what you mean by "I would think that exclusion from IR would be if there exists a mechanism for a heritable trait. "?

Do you mean, anything with a mechanism for passing on a heritable trait is automatically not irreducibly complex? Why should that be true?

To show IR, IR relies upon the idea of new information arising from a mechanism other than genetics. If an organism sported an entire genome that was not in either parent, this would be a heritable trait that has no mechanism.

An analogy:

Say I have a box full of blocks. I shake them, and however they end up, I glue any stacked ones so they don't move and stay stacked. After a while I end up with a few towers that are above the height of the blocks. Looking in, each time I expect to see either a block has fallen out of a tower, or a tower has another block on it.

This represents change over time, and selection. It's only a basic representation of the idea, and only as a basic illustration of the idea, so don't take this as evolutionary theory in a nutshell.

This represents the information in organisms. It is built up (in all of them) from blocks. No matter the configuration, still blocks. We can see the individual blocks. These represent the internal rules of chemistry in shape and the way they can stack; they are not totally equally random but have certain probabilites and manners of stacking that are possible.

We can add more blocks, or we can take some away.

Irreducable Complexity in this case says that one of the configurations could not have occurred by accident - or through our process of shaking then gluing. Indeed, some of the towers it is hard to see how they came about; maybe an arch formed from two towers touching and a block being on top of both. But they still are blocks and still follow the rules of stacking.

A method of showing our hypothesis on stacking to be false:
Show that one of the items is not a block.
Show a configuration of blocks that violates the rules (not stackable, one block suspended in space, and so on)
Show a configuration of blocks that is so improbable as to not be buildable from smaller towers or shapes.

The state of ID is to point to the arch as Irreducibly Complex. While the arch is improbable in one shake, it is probable from multiple shakes, and likely after a while.


ID has to find a prediction that would show that not all blocks are blocks, not all blocks follow the rules of stacking, or that a configuration could not arise by repeated stacking.

Currently, ID would state that an arch could not develop because the glued-together top would not stack on other towers; this is not an example of the three stipulated elements that would change our view of blocks and stacking; one can still arrive at an arch within the rules but not following the path stipulated by ID. ID cannot claim this as an example.

In short, ID relies on a failure of the imagination as proof, much like aliens-built-the-pyramids theories.

[sphenisc]

To show IR, IR relies upon the idea of new information arising from a mechanism other than genetics. If an organism sported an entire genome that was not in either parent, this would be a heritable trait that has no mechanism.

An analogy:

Say I have a box full of blocks. I shake them, and however they end up, I glue any stacked ones so they don't move and stay stacked. After a while I end up with a few towers that are above the height of the blocks. Looking in, each time I expect to see either a block has fallen out of a tower, or a tower has another block on it.

This represents change over time, and selection. It's only a basic representation of the idea, and only as a basic illustration of the idea, so don't take this as evolutionary theory in a nutshell.

This represents the information in organisms. It is built up (in all of them) from blocks. No matter the configuration, still blocks. We can see the individual blocks. These represent the internal rules of chemistry in shape and the way they can stack; they are not totally equally random but have certain probabilites and manners of stacking that are possible.

We can add more blocks, or we can take some away.

Irreducable Complexity in this case says that one of the configurations could not have occurred by accident - or through our process of shaking then gluing. Indeed, some of the towers it is hard to see how they came about; maybe an arch formed from two towers touching and a block being on top of both. But they still are blocks and still follow the rules of stacking.

A method of showing our hypothesis on stacking to be false:
Show that one of the items is not a block.
Show a configuration of blocks that violates the rules (not stackable, one block suspended in space, and so on)
Show a configuration of blocks that is so improbable as to not be buildable from smaller towers or shapes.

The state of ID is to point to the arch as Irreducibly Complex. While the arch is improbable in one shake, it is probable from multiple shakes, and likely after a while.


ID has to find a prediction that would show that not all blocks are blocks, not all blocks follow the rules of stacking, or that a configuration could not arise by repeated stacking.

Currently, ID would state that an arch could not develop because the glued-together top would not stack on other towers; this is not an example of the three stipulated elements that would change our view of blocks and stacking; one can still arrive at an arch within the rules but not following the path stipulated by ID. ID cannot claim this as an example.

In short, ID relies on a failure of the imagination as proof, much like aliens-built-the-pyramids theories.

So if I find a rubber ducky in the box with blocks and towers of blocks, would its presence be evidence of IR, and if so doesn't this allow the coexistence of IR and a mechanism of heritable traits within a system?

[We're trying to find criteria for IR here, please try not to be distracted into diatribes about ID in general.] ;)

[PatKelley]

So if I find a rubber ducky in the box with blocks and towers of blocks, would its presence be evidence of IR, and if so doesn't this allow the coexistence of IR and a mechanism of heritable traits within a system?

[We're trying to find criteria for IR here, please try not to be distracted into diatribes about ID in general.] ;)
Correct. It would represent something that could not be broken down into a block, and did not have any others like it in the box. ID does currently claim this coexistance with "micro" evolution, or the variance in heritibility of traits. However, not looking in every other box is not a refutation of the rules, nor is it a confirmation that somewhere there exists a rubber ducky.

And I did not mean the latter as a diatribe, it just came out that way, not by Design ;)

[BillHoyt]

:notm

In particular, there is nothing in Origin of Species to suggest that. There is a single reference to a "Creator" in the first edition of OoS: "Endowed by their Creator with a few forms or one...". I understand that this was dropped from later editions. There is no reference whatsoever to any specific Christian beliefs, and I believe it would be most correct to call Darwin an agnostic.

Have you read the Origin of Species?
Have you read Darwin's autobiography?

[sphenisc]

Correct. It would represent something that could not be broken down into a block, and did not have any others like it in the box. ID does currently claim this coexistance with "micro" evolution, or the variance in heritibility of traits. However, not looking in every other box is not a refutation of the rules, nor is it a confirmation that somewhere there exists a rubber ducky.

Great, so we're getting somewhere ( though you mention ID again.. naughty ...naughty)

So, to present a 'slightly' more realistic example - I find a dead cat, and I take a DNA sample, I'm really,really clever so I can predict from the DNA, plus my knowledge of the cat's life experience blahdy blah, what potential states the cat could be in, from fertilised ovum, foetus, kitten etc.
I examine the cat and find a bullet in its brain. I can't account for this bullet from any of the stages of what a cat could look like. So is the bullet an example of IR (at least in the context of the cat/bullet system)?

[For anyone who got bored halfway through, the cat is equivalent to the box of blocks, bullet is rubber ducky, cat development is mechanism of inheritable traits]

[BillHoyt]

Can everyone agree to ignore that clown whose post is above this one?

[Ducky]

Can everyone agree to ignore that clown whose post is above this one?



Soon as he tells me where my cat went...

[sphenisc]

Can everyone agree to ignore that clown whose post is above this one?

No?

[PatKelley]

Great, so we're getting somewhere ( though you mention ID again.. naughty ...naughty)

So, to present a 'slightly' more realistic example - I find a dead cat, and I take a DNA sample, I'm really,really clever so I can predict from the DNA, plus my knowledge of the cat's life experience blahdy blah, what potential states the cat could be in, from fertilised ovum, foetus, kitten etc.
I examine the cat and find a bullet in its brain. I can't account for this bullet from any of the stages of what a cat could look like. So is the bullet an example of IR (at least in the context of the cat/bullet system)?

[For anyone who got bored halfway through, the cat is equivalent to the box of blocks, bullet is rubber ducky, cat development is mechanism of inheritable traits]
Finding one (the bullet) would show a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA. This is all it would show. Such an object would be a change in the somatic organism, and would not have any bearing on evolution, as it could not be passed on. Seriously. Finding a bullet in a cat would not show IC. Many animals incorporate foreign matter, but Darwinian evolutionary theory says it needs to be a trait present in the germ cells; somatic cell heritability (or Lamarckian (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html) evolutionary theory) stipulates acquired traits as heritable.

Back to the box analogy. Each box represents a creature. All we've been told is there is something in one of the boxes that is not a block, or is a set of blocks that don't follow the stacking rules.

Showing such an element (a not-block i.e. rubber ducky, or a block that floats and does not follow stacking rules) would bolster support for IC, as one has found an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules, or of blocks. Showing that someone painted on the box would not (change to the somatic or non-heritable cells).

Still, claiming all boxes have not been opened is not proof of a rubber-ducky.

[gnome]

I present them as equally probable, not equally supported. Perhaps you are just offended by me saying they are equally probable?

I'd ask what assessment of the probabilities you made.

But my main problem is that by using "theory" you invoke science, because that is a scientific term. If you don't mean "scientific theory" then what do you mean by "theory" at all? Can you define "theory" as you're using it?

[sphenisc]

Finding one (the bullet) would show a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA. This is all it would show. Such an object would be a change in the somatic organism, and would not have any bearing on evolution, as it could not be passed on. Seriously. Finding a bullet in a cat would not show IC. Many animals incorporate foreign matter, but Darwinian evolutionary theory says it needs to be a trait present in the germ cells; somatic cell heritability (or Lamarckian (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html) evolutionary theory) stipulates acquired traits as heritable.

Back to the box analogy. Each box represents a creature. All we've been told is there is something in one of the boxes that is not a block, or is a set of blocks that don't follow the stacking rules.

Showing such an element (a not-block i.e. rubber ducky, or a block that floats and does not follow stacking rules) would bolster support for IC, as one has found an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules, or of blocks. Showing that someone painted on the box would not (change to the somatic or non-heritable cells).

Still, claiming all boxes have not been opened is not proof of a rubber-ducky.
I've tried to follow this but I'm obviously misunderstanding the analogy somewhere.
Your orignal post said

"Say I have a box full of blocks..[snip]..This represents the information in organisms. It is built up (in all of them) from blocks."

I took this to mean that one box represented one organism, the block represented a heritable element e.g. a gene. The rules governing the stacking of boxes is equivalent to the way the rules of chemistry govern the production/development of the phenotype of the organism.

Yet in your latest point you say

"Finding one (the bullet) would show a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA."..."Finding a bullet in a cat would not show IC."

and

"Showing such an element (a not-block i.e. rubber ducky, or a block that floats and does not follow stacking rules) would bolster support for IC, as one has found an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules, or of blocks. "

To present my thoughts more logically:

The bullet is a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA

The rubber ducky is an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules or of the blocks.

I'm interpreting the bullet as equivalent to the rubber ducky,
'not derived from' as equivalent to 'cannot be made with',
and 'heritable characteristics present in DNA' as equivalent to 'the stacking rules or of the blocks'.

As far as I can see the points of the analogy match up, yet you draw opposite conclusions. What am I missing?

[Tricky]

Can everyone agree to ignore that clown whose post is above this one?
Nope, Sorry Bill. I find sphenisc to be an intelligent, non-abusive and even funny poster with whom I happen to disagree. But he seems quite open to reasoned discussion. I think this ought to be exactly the type of person JREF ought to be trying to attract.

[sphenisc]

Nope, Sorry Bill. I find sphenisc to be an intelligent, non-abusive and even funny poster with whom I happen to disagree. But he seems quite open to reasoned discussion. I think this ought to be exactly the type of person JREF ought to be trying to attract.

Thanks Tricky, ... the cheque's in the post... :)

[Tricky]

Thanks Tricky, ... the cheque's in the post... :)
Hope it ain't in them damn Euros...

[PatKelley]

I've tried to follow this but I'm obviously misunderstanding the analogy somewhere.
Your orignal post said

"Say I have a box full of blocks..[snip]..This represents the information in organisms. It is built up (in all of them) from blocks."

I took this to mean that one box represented one organism, the block represented a heritable element e.g. a gene. The rules governing the stacking of boxes is equivalent to the way the rules of chemistry govern the production/development of the phenotype of the organism.

Yet in your latest point you say

"Finding one (the bullet) would show a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA."..."Finding a bullet in a cat would not show IC."

and

"Showing such an element (a not-block i.e. rubber ducky, or a block that floats and does not follow stacking rules) would bolster support for IC, as one has found an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules, or of blocks. "

To present my thoughts more logically:

The bullet is a trait not derived from heritable characteristics present in DNA

The rubber ducky is an element that cannot be made with the stacking rules or of the blocks.

I'm interpreting the bullet as equivalent to the rubber ducky,
'not derived from' as equivalent to 'cannot be made with',
and 'heritable characteristics present in DNA' as equivalent to 'the stacking rules or of the blocks'.

As far as I can see the points of the analogy match up, yet you draw opposite conclusions. What am I missing?
For a very simple reason: the bullet is not a heritable characteristic. If you could show that the bullet was a retained trait from generation to generation despite not being in the DNA, that would be evidence. Finding the equivalent of the rubber ducky in the information of the cat would be IC; finding an actual rubber ducky wedged inside of it would not. In this case, the "rubber ducky" equivalent in heritable traits would be something that was heritable, but did not follow rules of heritability (modern Mendelian-derived genetics) and did not show up in the DNA. The stacking-rules violation would be unusual base pairs not of the GATCU variety.

[sphenisc]

For a very simple reason: the bullet is not a heritable characteristic. If you could show that the bullet was a retained trait from generation to generation despite not being in the DNA, that would be evidence. Finding the equivalent of the rubber ducky in the information of the cat would be IC; finding an actual rubber ducky wedged inside of it would not. In this case, the "rubber ducky" equivalent in heritable traits would be something that was heritable, but did not follow rules of heritability (modern Mendelian-derived genetics) and did not show up in the DNA. The stacking-rules violation would be unusual base pairs not of the GATCU variety.

Okay, I think I've got it.

I not sure how modern Mendelian-derived genetics were produced other than by looking at lots of heritable traits and writing the rules, as more more traits are observed the rules are rewritten accordingly (sex-linkage, extranuclear DNA, meiotic drive etc.) As each new 'rubber ducky' is produced it's used to reformulate the rules - thus removing it's rubber ducky status. Doesn't this, by definition, remove any possibility of IC?

[PatKelley]

Okay, I think I've got it.

I not sure how modern Mendelian-derived genetics were produced other than by looking at lots of heritable traits and writing the rules, as more more traits are observed the rules are rewritten accordingly (sex-linkage, extranuclear DNA, meiotic drive etc.) As each new 'rubber ducky' is produced it's used to reformulate the rules - thus removing it's rubber ducky status. Doesn't this, by definition, remove any possibility of IC?

These are not Rubber Duckys, though, and this is not an attempt to dodge so we don't go down that road yet. Let me explain. Mendelian genetics gets its name from Gregor Mendel, a man in a monastic order who first experimented with inheritable characteristics. The first rules he found were simple, and it happened he was working with organisms that had mostly simple-Dominance traits; at least the ones he looked at.

Finding a new rule (that there is incomplete dominance) led to the discovery of chromosomes and X and Y specific mutations.

This is a heritable characteristic that is carried by genetic information; genes are carried, and expressed or not expressed. Incomplete dominance was a variation in that both were expressed rather than one expressed and one not.

If one could find a characteristic that was in an organism that did not follow heritability rules and was not a spontaneous mutation (some genetic diseases crop up in folks who have no family history), one might be getting somewhere.

An example: One finds a trait that is expressed only in the first born child of a family traced through the father's lineage. The child can be male or female, but if female she expresses the trait (say white hair) but none of her children do; however, if male, even if not firstborn, his first child will have white hair. This would be difficult to explain with modern genetics; especially if it were shown that it was always the first child.

This might be a trait expressed in the genetic code, but it clearly violates our "stacking order."

However, finding an object in a corpse is not IC.

[sphenisc]

These are not Rubber Duckys, though, and this is not an attempt to dodge so we don't go down that road yet. Let me explain. Mendelian genetics gets its name from Gregor Mendel, a man in a monastic order who first experimented with inheritable characteristics. The first rules he found were simple, and it happened he was working with organisms that had mostly simple-Dominance traits; at least the ones he looked at.

Finding a new rule (that there is incomplete dominance) led to the discovery of chromosomes and X and Y specific mutations.

This is a heritable characteristic that is carried by genetic information; genes are carried, and expressed or not expressed. Incomplete dominance was a variation in that both were expressed rather than one expressed and one not.

If one could find a characteristic that was in an organism that did not follow heritability rules and was not a spontaneous mutation (some genetic diseases crop up in folks who have no family history), one might be getting somewhere.

An example: One finds a trait that is expressed only in the first born child of a family traced through the father's lineage. The child can be male or female, but if female she expresses the trait (say white hair) but none of her children do; however, if male, even if not firstborn, his first child will have white hair. This would be difficult to explain with modern genetics; especially if it were shown that it was always the first child.

This might be a trait expressed in the genetic code, but it clearly violates our "stacking order."

However, finding an object in a corpse is not IC.

Why were they not rubber duckies? They were heritable traits which couldn't be accounted for by the 'stacking order' rules which were then known. Doesn't this qualify them as rubber duckies?

In your example could you clarify if you mean only the first born child of an individual male, or the first born child of a particular male/female combination. [I don't know what it's like where you are, but some men here are known to have children by more than one partner... hard to credit I know, but apparently it true.] :eek:

[PatKelley]

Why were they not rubber duckies? They were heritable traits which couldn't be accounted for by the 'stacking order' rules which were then known. Doesn't this qualify them as rubber duckies?


Not really. Not knowing all the rules does not insert a designer, and science generally prefixes any truly broad statement with "we think" or "research so far indicates." The traits are still heritable; they are still bound in DNA. They were stacks we'd not seen before, but they still follow the rules of not being suspended in air and not being made of anything other than blocks.

It was these exceptions to the raw Mendelian model that led to more research and the discovery of DNA and its mechanisms, how it mutates and can mutate, and how all of that information is communicated and transmitted.

Think of it like this: Mendelian genetics were the sound you hear when you shake the box: some had really loud clunks, others did not. With genetics we finally got to look inside the box; the Mendelian rules were not thrown out because they still accurately describe part of what was going on. They were not the entire picture: this does not make them a rubber ducky for evolution because traits are still heritable, still only from the germ line, and still follow rules. Finding new elements to the rules is not the same as finding something which totally violates them. For instance, if we found an animal that was not genetically related to any of the other life on earth (not related genetically), that would violate our assumptions that all life derived from one source. If we found an animal that did not carry its information through its genetics, that would also violate a principle of heritibility and genetics, which are assumptions in selection and variability.

These are falsifications of genetics and evolutionary biology, not falsifications of IC. They do not prove the idea of a designer. We have been trying to determine what constitutes falsification of IC, not what would falsify genetics and evolutionary theory.

The problem is all of the above could still have naturalistic mechanisms; that they appear to falsify evolutionary theory does not provide positive proof for ID and IC: one doesn't win by default.

A bullet in a cat is not IC, that much we've determined. And we've also determined IC does not claim the entire sequence of genome and heritability. IC claims some things could not have arisen through other than an intelligent agency because no intermediates could exist.

If an intermediate is found to an item identified as IC by ID and the DI, IC and ID would be falsified. It would appear to be that this has happened. It is down to where Behe has claimed that the Designer could be working on the level of probability beyond the ken of even IC arguments.





In your example could you clarify if you mean only the first born child of an individual male, or the first born child of a particular male/female combination. [I don't know what it's like where you are, but some men here are known to have children by more than one partner... hard to credit I know, but apparently it true.] :eek:
Just consider single pairings. Keeping it simple.

[sphenisc]

Not really. Not knowing all the rules does not insert a designer, and science generally prefixes any truly broad statement with "we think" or "research so far indicates." The traits are still heritable; they are still bound in DNA. They were stacks we'd not seen before, but they still follow the rules of not being suspended in air and not being made of anything other than blocks.

It was these exceptions to the raw Mendelian model that led to more research and the discovery of DNA and its mechanisms, how it mutates and can mutate, and how all of that information is communicated and transmitted.

Think of it like this: Mendelian genetics were the sound you hear when you shake the box: some had really loud clunks, others did not. With genetics we finally got to look inside the box; the Mendelian rules were not thrown out because they still accurately describe part of what was going on. They were not the entire picture: this does not make them a rubber ducky for evolution because traits are still heritable, still only from the germ line, and still follow rules. Finding new elements to the rules is not the same as finding something which totally violates them. For instance, if we found an animal that was not genetically related to any of the other life on earth (not related genetically), that would violate our assumptions that all life derived from one source. If we found an animal that did not carry its information through its genetics, that would also violate a principle of heritibility and genetics, which are assumptions in selection and variability.

These are falsifications of genetics and evolutionary biology, not falsifications of IC. They do not prove the idea of a designer. We have been trying to determine what constitutes falsification of IC, not what would falsify genetics and evolutionary theory.

The problem is all of the above could still have naturalistic mechanisms; that they appear to falsify evolutionary theory does not provide positive proof for ID and IC: one doesn't win by default.

A bullet in a cat is not IC, that much we've determined. And we've also determined IC does not claim the entire sequence of genome and heritability. IC claims some things could not have arisen through other than an intelligent agency because no intermediates could exist.

If an intermediate is found to an item identified as IC by ID and the DI, IC and ID would be falsified. It would appear to be that this has happened. It is down to where Behe has claimed that the Designer could be working on the level of probability beyond the ken of even IC arguments.




Just consider single pairings. Keeping it simple.

I'm not sure I see the distinction between "Finding new elements to the rules " and "finding something which totally violates them."

If I discover an organism which inherits its traits from its offspring, the well-known 'temporally-inverted fruit bat', then all it takes to rewrite the rules is to say, "the rules apply to all organisms as they were, except for the temporally-inverted fruit bat, where they work backwards."

Is my fruit bat a rubber ducky? ( I'm sorry, this is getting surreal.)


I can't understand the answer to my last question either: Let me rephrase it

Do you mean that
a) the trait is expressed only in the first born child of an individual male (for any given male, however many children he has, only the first will express the trait.)
or
b) the first born child of a particular male/female combination will express the trait.

For example, a male M produces four children C1, C2, C3, C4 as a result of mating with females F1, F2 twice and F3, in that order.

Under meaning a) only C1 expresses the trait.
Under meaning b) C1, C2 and C4 would express the trait.

Please indicate which meaning you intended, a simple a or b will suffice.

[PatKelley]

I'm not sure I see the distinction between "Finding new elements to the rules " and "finding something which totally violates them."

If I discover an organism which inherits its traits from its offspring, the well-known 'temporally-inverted fruit bat', then all it takes to rewrite the rules is to say, "the rules apply to all organisms as they were, except for the temporally-inverted fruit bat, where they work backwards."

Is my fruit bat a rubber ducky? ( I'm sorry, this is getting surreal.)

Well, you're starting to get what science is about: it is not static and dogmatic. Science is willing to admit something is missing, and is open to having its assumptions disproved.

The reason it is getting surreal is because we have to reach beyond the assumptions we already have. We already expect offspring to look like their parents; and if they don't we're shocked. Evolutionary theory formalized this idea; it explained why children of people in accidents don't have their parent's injuries. There is a somatic cell line (the organism) and a germ-cell line (gametes, or specialized cells that combine one-half of the somatic organism's original DNA).

To violate this idea, it would involve a child inheriting something not of the parent; however, this was recognized and noted as mutation. Not every offspring looks exactly like the parents, and not every parental mutation is expressed. Many (in fact most) mutations are fatal, so they never make it beyond a very early stage of development.

Now, in the case you stipulate it would turn the entire idea of inheritence on its head, saying that as a child gained a feature that would propagate backwards; would this be through time? Would it then appear that every past organism already had the changes wrought by the child intact? This would falsify the basic model of inheritence.

But it would not be a positive proof of IC.

I can't understand the answer to my last question either: Let me rephrase it

Do you mean that
a) the trait is expressed only in the first born child of an individual male (for any given male, however many children he has, only the first will express the trait.)
or
b) the first born child of a particular male/female combination will express the trait.

For example, a male M produces four children C1, C2, C3, C4 as a result of mating with females F1, F2 twice and F3, in that order.

Under meaning a) only C1 expresses the trait.
Under meaning b) C1, C2 and C4 would express the trait.

Please indicate which meaning you intended, a simple a or b will suffice.

A. Only A.

This would be a violation of inheritence as well, but with a different meaning from the rubber ducky example earlier in your post. This would represent a form of inheritence which in addition to not following the simple rules of inheritence we understand does not reconcile with a simple premise or with inheritence in general. A mutation such as A would, I think, be evidence of IC: impossible to replicate with DNA, yet undoubtedly heritable in a very specific way.

[sphenisc]

Well, you're starting to get what science is about

I'm going to assume that the tone here was meant to be complimentary rather than condescending, so thank you for that. I return the compliment.



The reason it is getting surreal is because we have to reach beyond the assumptions we already have.

That may be why you found it surreal. I found it surreal because I never invisaged that the question " IS MY FRUIT BAT A RUBBER DUCKY?", would occur in a serious debate about scientific concepts - I thought that rather surreal and amusing, may be a smiley would have helped? :)


"We already expect offspring to look like their parents; and if they don't we're shocked. "
Yes

" Evolutionary theory formalized this idea;"
Yes, though a bit broad, genetics formalizes this idea, and thereby contributes to evolutionary theory.


it explained why children of people in accidents don't have their parent's injuries. There is a somatic cell line (the organism) and a germ-cell line (gametes, or specialized cells that combine one-half of the somatic organism's original DNA).

Yes, Weissmann, Yes the Central Dogma, Yes


To violate this idea, it would involve a child inheriting something not of the parent;


Now that's really clever!! I take it you meant to say a child expressing a trait which was not derived from something present in the parent?


however, this was recognized and noted as mutation. Not every offspring looks exactly like the parents,
I think I would go for the stronger statement 'No offspring looks exactly like its parents', though I might be persuaded otherwise for very small genome, very high abundance organisms such as certain viruses, plasmids etc. But that really depends on where one wants to draw your 'organism' boundary.


and not every parental mutation is expressed.

I not sure what the point of that is statement is? Are you saying that some mutations are recessive? Yes.
Are you saying somatic mutations in a parent are expressed in the offspring? Yes.
Are you saying neutral mutations in coding regions occur + non-coding regional mutations occur, in a parent which aren't expressed in the 'obvious' phenotype of the parent?
Fine


Many (in fact most) mutations are fatal, so they never make it beyond a very early stage of development.

This doesn't follow logically since most mutations could cause fatality, and do so at the age of say 18. But now I really am nitpicking!

Now, in the case you stipulate it would turn the entire idea of inheritence on its head, saying that as a child gained a feature that would propagate backwards; would this be through time?

The name I gave to my creature was the "temporally-inverted fruitbat".
If I'd said it was a "red fruitbat", I'd expect you to be able to take a stab at its colour. If I'd said it was an "Egyptian fruitbat", I'd expect you to be able to guess where it might come from. I'm sorry if my assumption was unfounded, the answer is YES.


Would it then appear that every past organism already had the changes wrought by the child intact? This would falsify the basic model of inheritence.


Yes, the family tree for the transmission of a recessive gene is identical that for normal fruit bats except that you have to draw it the other way up (temporally-inverted fruitbats always and only ever have two offspring, so the diagrams will still look similar! :) )

Yes, this would falsify the basic model of inheritance.


But it would not be a positive proof of IC.

Okay, so this doesn't qualify as a rubber ducky, as it, by definition in our early posts, a rubber ducky provides positive evidence of IC. My fruit bat is not a rubber ducky.
So although it "falsifies the basic model of inheritance", it doesn't "totally violate the rules of genetics". You are slicing concepts here with a razor finer than I can see.

To summarize so far:
I've attempted to edge towards a definition of IC by presenting various examples

1) bullet : rejected because it's not a heritable element
2) You then suggest
"If one could find a characteristic that was in an organism that did not follow heritability rules and was not a spontaneous mutation ... one might be getting somewhere. "
3) I then point out that heritability rules tend to be rewritten in the light of new observations.
4) You then say "Finding new elements to the rules is not the same as finding something which totally violates them." I infer from this (in its context) that its not sufficient to provide something which requires "new elements to the rules", it must "totally violate them" in order to provide evidence of IC.
5) I then suggest an example, my fruitbat, which, I think, 'totally violates' the current heritability rules, but will still following heritability rules of its own.
6) Your response is that this is would not provide evidence for IC, even though it "falsifies the basic model of inheritance".

[I think this is a fair summary of the chain of argument so far. If you, or any outside lurker (I think that's the term) would care to point out if I've misrepresented the case then I will ,of course, be willing to discuss alterations]

My response to the argument so far is that the available gap between "find a new element" and "falsifying the basic model of inheritance", in which to fit "totally violates", appears to be increasingly small and hard to define.

This leaves the case you gave as the only potential example from which we can expand to produce a definition.

A mutation such as A would, I think, be evidence of IC: impossible to replicate with DNA, yet undoubtedly heritable in a very specific way.

However, I would require a more detailed description of why you think this is adequate to "totally violate" heritability rules, but doesn't just mean that a new 'element' to the rules needs to be found, or it falsifies the basic model of inheritance.
My intuition is that I could produce an account for this under current genetic rules of heritability, without any recourse to new genetic rules. Though I would, of course, expect access to the whole realm of available genetic rules used by organisms, not just the limited toolkit which occur in humans.

But maybe that just your comment about me 'starting to get what science is about' rushing to my head!
:)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I not sure what the point of that is statement is? Are you saying that some mutations are recessive? Yes.
Are you saying somatic mutations in a parent are expressed in the offspring? Yes.
Are you saying neutral mutations in coding regions occur + non-coding regional mutations occur, in a parent which aren't expressed in the 'obvious' phenotype of the parent?
Fine.
Somatic mutations are not expressed in the offspring, because they are not present in the germline cells.

The primary reason a germline mutation would not be expressed in an offspring is because the offspring inherits one chromosome from each parent, and so does not inherit its parents' entire genomes.

This doesn't follow logically since most mutations could cause fatality, and do so at the age of say 18. But now I really am nitpicking!
Actually, I think most mutations are neutral. But what is this about the age of 18? Most fatal mutations are fatal immediately.


~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Somatic mutations are not expressed in the offspring, because they are not present in the germline cells.

Yes


The primary reason a germline mutation would not be expressed in an offspring is because the offspring inherits one chromosome from each parent, and so does not inherit its parents' entire genomes.


Then we differ subtlely in our meaning of 'germline', if it isn't inherited by an offspring, then I would regard it as not being in the germline.


Actually, I think most mutations are neutral.

Yes


But what is this about the age of 18? Most fatal mutations are fatal immediately.


Nothing is special about the age of 18, which is why I prefixed it with the word 'say'. It's significance is that it is 'beyond a very early stage of development'.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes [Somatic mutations are not expressed in the offspring, because they are not present in the germline cells.]
Then why did you say:

Are you saying somatic mutations in a parent are expressed in the offspring? Yes.

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Then why did you say:


~~ Paul

Because I meant to write 'not expressed', as in

Are you saying somatic mutations in a parent are NOT expressed in the offspring? Yes.

I was discussing "and not every parental mutation is expressed. " and meant to describe different ways in which things might not be expressed.
I didn't pick up the mistake when I wrote it, or even when you quoted me. I see it now and you're absolutely right, I was wrong and I stand corrected. Thanks

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Aha, a typo! I've heard of thoze.

~~ Paul

[Z]

Aha, a typo! I've heard of thoze.

~~ Paul

You have? I'm so proud! See, I make typos for a liging...

[Notrump]

And in the category of irrational attempts to twist the law, here's a link to information on a situation in which a couple is complaining to a court that evolution is being taught as a religion. I would not be surprised if the plaintiffs get hit with a countersuit that successfully demonstrates the original suit is frivolous. :boggled:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10217105/from/RSS/

[PatKelley]

{SNIP for Covered Ground}

My response to the argument so far is that the available gap between "find a new element" and "falsifying the basic model of inheritance", in which to fit "totally violates", appears to be increasingly small and hard to define.

Not so much, because Lamarckian inheritance would violate our current understanding of inheritence as well, hence that bifurcation early on.

This leaves the case you gave as the only potential example from which we can expand to produce a definition.

However, I would require a more detailed description of why you think this is adequate to "totally violate" heritability rules, but doesn't just mean that a new 'element' to the rules needs to be found, or it falsifies the basic model of inheritance.
My intuition is that I could produce an account for this under current genetic rules of heritability, without any recourse to new genetic rules. Though I would, of course, expect access to the whole realm of available genetic rules used by organisms, not just the limited toolkit which occur in humans.

Here is where it gets interesting...because there are hormonal ideas that could contribute to this model, however that would fall apart when the male mated with a second female and failed to produce the first-born trait. We could also rule out hormonal by inseminating many females at once, and regardless of the order, the first born should have this trait.

But maybe that just your comment about me 'starting to get what science is about' rushing to my head!
:)
No, anybody is capable of getting scientific argument, but it does take some insight into the balance of data and theory...:)
It was meant as a compliment.