Help in Responding to an Anti-Evolution Opinion Piece in School Newspaper

[Elektrix]

Hi all,

I'm hoping someone can help me out. I'm looking to put together a response to an opinion piece that was published in George Mason University's school paper, the Broadside. The opinion piece in question can be found here:

http://www.broadsideonline.com/article.php?date=02-13-2006&section=opinion&article=gryboski.txt

Clearly there's a lot of points that could be covered, so I'm mainly looking for assistance and specific evidence to provide to refute the main claims in this piece. I know some of these are fairly old arguments (i.e. evolution can't be tested because you can't observe anything happening over millions of years, and the only thing we've been able to observe is microscopic life).

I actually don't really see where he backs up the claim that intelligent design is "compatible with the scientific method", so I'm not even sure how to refute the claim (he seems to be misrepresenting what the scientific method is in order to shoehorn intelligent design into it, but I'm not sure).

I've also heard the bit before about no mutation being found that adds new genetic material to an organism.

Some of this is just tough to respond to because I'm not even sure where he is even providing an argument to back up the claim (the premise of the piece seems to be that evolution is not compatible with science whereas intelligent design is).

Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

-Elektrix

[IIRichard]

One fallicy the author makes is to confuse The Theory of Evolution with the question of How Life Began. The two are entirely separate. No serious biologist claims to have solved that puzzle.

Second, by definition, science excludes any supernatural device or cause. Simply calling some _deus ex machina_, "Intelligent Design" merely disguises the insertion of the supernatural. Proponents of I.D. simply can't approach science on its own terms.

Thirdly, I.D. cannot be falsed, another aspect of any scientific theory. Since it can't be falsed, it can't be science. It can't be proven either. Evolution is a theory that can be falsed, e.g. experimentally repudiated but that has never happened.

Natural selection, the driver of evolution, can be demonstrated and experiments conducted. Bacteria reproduce in a matter of hours. Thousands of generations can be studied.

The author makes a great noise that evolution can't be studied since it occurs over millenia. So do star formation, geological and climate change. Come to think of it, mathematics has continued to develop since Euclid.

Finally, the author makes some statements regarding genes and DNA that I am not familiar with to refute. I believe that genetic information can be gained lost, switched on and off. However, biology is not my field.

IIRichard

[Elektrix]

Thanks IIRichard, that definitely gives me some things to think about to start off a response.

Hopefully someone with a biological background can help with some of the genetic claims he made as well.

-Elektrix

[Cecil]

You might like to talk about bacteria that have evolved the ability to digest nylon (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm).

[Elektrix]

You might like to talk about bacteria that have evolved the ability to digest nylon (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm).

Thanks. Haven't had time to read the whole thing yet, but it looks like this is a pretty good example of a refutation to mutations not adding "new information". I still don't really know enough to touch on the issue of "new genetic material" or whatever though, but I get the impression that's something different.

-Elektrix

[kedo1981]

How about this

Modern science works
Superstition never did
Naturalistic explanations for physical phenomenon fit with what we observe as the real world.
Superstition never did
Evolution, while far from perfect, answers many questions, including ones from other branches of science like geology, cosmology and chemistry
ID (really creationism) would answer all of life’s mysteries with “GOD did it”

[Soapy Sam]

Genes are digital. They function as part of gene complexes- essentially switching systems.

There is no need at all for "new information" in order to produce a "new organism. " A whale and a dog are , to some degree, recognisably the same- quadruped mammals. The bits are there in both, but they are developed to different degrees. This is often a resulkt of timing in embryonic development- which is under both environmental and genetic control.
Similarly, while Joyce created new words in "Ulysses", he created no new letters. Every book in modern English uses the same 26 letters and handful of punctuation marks. Some books are clearly closely related- last year's phone book and this year's for instance:Some are very different. The same is true of MP3s. A digital code generates new output using a small number of symbols which need not change themselves- though they might.

Dogs and wolves are distinctly similar, able to interbreed and clearly are related. However, the absence of anything intermediate must mean dogs and wolves were created separately, right?

Duh!

Best of luck with your refutation.

[Jon the Geek]

The "new information" that IDers want to be there is contained in the universe. The laws of physics dictate how a wing must work. Evolution is a process of finding solutions to problems, but the complexity of the solution already exists in the universe.

[CurtC]

Here are some misconceptions I see:

* Missing links - what missing links? We have fossil transitional forms overflowing our museums.

* Hoaxes - there have been about three famous hoaxed fossils that I know of, but creationists are always mentioning them as if they were ever important.

* Biogenetic Law - this invention of Haeckel's was not compatible with Darwinian evolution, and was completely disproved about 130 years ago. I don't see how this is a weakness of evolution.

* Evolution can't be directly tested - well, he's a history major, so point out that the idea that the US had a Civil War in the 1860s can't be directly tested either.

* Mutations don't add information - either he doesn't understand what mutations are, or doesn't understand the concept of information. Mutations add information just as easily as they reduce information. Surely anyone can see this, since anything a mutation can do, a mutation could undo.

* The Law of Biogenesis was how Pasteur and others phrased their observation that maggots don't come from non-living matter. It does not relate to the abiogenesis question.

Good luck with your letter.

[Ladewig]

I've read Michael's opening statement four times and I still can't find a verb in there. Is it really a sentence?

Other posters have already given you some good information. All I can add is the suggestion that you mention Talk.Origins on the USENET or some other internet source.

If it were me, I'd also include a bit about "Darwinism" and "Evolutionism," perhaps by pointing out that these terms are as silly as Pastuerism and Germism or Kelvinism and Thermodynamicsism.

[geni]

since when have viruses been killed by antibiotics?

[CurtC]

I've read Michael's opening statement four times and I still can't find a verb in there.The verb is "are."

[Dr Adequate]

Suppose that someone were to buttonhole our know-all history major and address him as follows:

"Many have pointed out that the no-Empire theory, the great competitor to the Roman Empire theory, is not a theory in the proper context, a context long misused by popular society. Then again, neither is the no-Empire theory. Neither theory can be directly tested, for no one can observe anything happening thousands of years ago.

The closest we have to such is the observation of Western Europe in the present day, which is thoroughly democratic. This has led many historians, whose names I am for some reason unable to recall, to adopt the no-Empire theory.

Therefore the no-Empire is compatible with the historical method, which is the process of going from observation to validated theory, for it is a conclusion based off of continual observation. Evidence for the Roman Empire, however, is based largely off of presupposition. If an archeological dig finds the scantest remnants of a villa, automatically the scientific community hails it as more proof for the Roman Empire."

Well, at first he'd think it was a dumb sort of joke, wouldn't he?

The parallelism breaks down slightly because whereas I am right and Europe is democratic, he is wrong and experiments on bacteria show beautiful examples of evolution. (See Mutation for more details)

_________________________


The essay shows a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method. The way to confirm or disprove a scientific theory is to see what predictions it makes about what we will and will not see when we observe nature.

The theory of evolution makes predictions in the areas of biogeography, morphology, geology, genetics, behavioral ecology, computer science, and engineering.

To take one example, the theory of evolution predicts that the family tree of life as revealed by comparative morphology, biogeography, paeleontology and genetics should be the same family tree whichever discipline you apply. And it is.

The author makes great play of the fragmentary state of certain fossils. He makes no mention of the many key fossils which are in a beautiful state of preservation; presumably he is unaware of their existence, which casts doubt on the thoroughness of his research as compared to the research of, for example, scientists.

He tops this off with the claim that evolution has "lost its credibility". Amongst history majors, perhaps; but not among scientists. Because of the controversy over the teaching of evolution in public schools, it has been endorsed in the last few years by, amongst others, 72 American Nobel Prize winning scientists, by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Genetic Association and the American Institute of Biological Sciences. (Lots more here (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Evolution_is_losing_support_among_scientists#What_ scientists_say_about_evolution) --- if you cant list all the organizations, you could maybe count them?) I am more interested in what they find scientific than in the opinion of a non-scientist who is ignorant of the scientific method.

[IIRichard]

Damn, I forgot one criticism of the article. It seems to be arguing for the "excluded middle." That is, the assertion is made, "Either my theory is correct or yours is. Since your 'Scientific' theory is incomplete, my theory must be correct."

Sice all science is in some respect "incomplete," it always looks like a winnner to the proponents of whatever woo is being supported.

Homeopathists, anti-vaxers, naturopaths and others use this fallicy all the time.

IIRichard

[Ladewig]

The verb is "are."


Thanks. Once one reads a sentence the wrong way it can be difficult to read it the right way.

[Melendwyr]

Try going to The Panda's Thumb (www.pandasthumb.org) and posting to their forum (known as "After the Bar closes", you can find a link to it on the first right-hand information bar).

They're a great source of information about evolution and the anti-science movement.

For example, were you aware that William Dembski, one of the primary architects of the ID movement, believes that his methods can be used to prove that strings of text produced by rearranging words and letters in the Bible are actual messages that must have been placed there by a superhuman intelligence?

The people at Panda's Thumb can point you to the evidence of that.

[Elektrix]

Try going to The Panda's Thumb (www.pandasthumb.org) and posting to their forum (known as "After the Bar closes", you can find a link to it on the first right-hand information bar).

They're a great source of information about evolution and the anti-science movement.

For example, were you aware that William Dembski, one of the primary architects of the ID movement, believes that his methods can be used to prove that strings of text produced by rearranging words and letters in the Bible are actual messages that must have been placed there by a superhuman intelligence?

The people at Panda's Thumb can point you to the evidence of that.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Although generally, I'm planning on just sticking with core facts and arguments. I'm thinking it would be kind of a fallacy to try and use the argument of "This ID proponent believes in something nutty, therefore ID is nutty".

[Wudang]

I'm thinking it would be kind of a fallacy to try and use the argument of "This ID proponent believes in something nutty, therefore ID is nutty".

Absolutely - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

[Jon.]

The verb is "are."

The subject of which is "information". To me, that screams volumes about the writer's intelligence.

[Art Vandelay]

If I were a student at this university, I would be tempted to send the following letter:


Dear Administration:
I recently read an opinion piece from a fellow student which displayed an appalling lack of knowledge in areas as diverse as grammar, logic, and science. I can only hope that this student is part of a remedial program aimed at correcting the deficiencies in his high school education which are all too readily apparent.
The article begins with the following paragraph (which, on closer inspection, is revealed a single “sentence”).
Information seldom heard in the debate over evolution and intelligent design thanks to some courts are the numerous errors of evolutionism, from the classic missing links to hoaxes and outdated tenets still taught in American classrooms even after being taken out of other nations’ textbooks, such as Biogenetic Law.
While an opening paragraph is traditionally a place for a writer to present the basics of the argument to follow, laying the groundwork for further understanding through a clear, well thought out introduction, this preamble (and it certainly does amble) is quite the opposite. To begin with, “information” is a singular noun, yet Mr. Gryboski for some reason has decided to pair it with “are”, a plural verb. How a person can graduate from high school, let alone be admitted to a university, without learning that singular subjects take singular verbs is beyond me. Of course, the real problem is that the sentence structure is so hopelessly convoluted that no conjugation fits. The term “evolutionism” in the place of “evolution” marks the writer as either ignorant of the proper term, or as childishly refusing to use it. Although he claims that there are errors of this “evolutionism”, he fails to name a single one in the entire essay. He mentions missing links, but that is not an “error”. He mentions hoaxes and outdated tenets, but doesn’t have any examples except Biogentic Law, for which he has no support for his claim that it is an error of “evolutionism”. He claims that these issues are rarely heard, and that this is due to judges, but that is false on both counts. The very fact that people like him constantly make these claims belies the assertion that they are seldom heard, and the idea that judges have prohibited people from discussing them is simply divorced from reality. Simply because judges have ruled against ID and creationism does not mean that it is now illegal to critique evolution. And all of these errors are just in the first sentence-paragraph.

The next paragraph repeats these errors: “Thanks to recent judicial decisions, evolution once again goes unchallenged in the public schools of nearly all the United States.” There has been no judicial decision prohibiting challenges of evolution, and for him to suggest otherwise is evidence either of his deep ignorance or dishonesty. And for him to claim that evolution is unchallenged in the midst of an essay challenging it is rather odd. He next claims that it is hypocrisy to want to teach all theories on other subjects, but not on evolution, showing that he isn’t quite clear on the meanings of either the word “hypocrisy” or “theories”. There are no multiple theories on the Moon’s creation, the extinction of the dinosaurs, or evolution, to teach. And his comparison of creationism to histories of non-European Civilizations is truly bizarre.

Apparently he anticipated this criticism, because immediately after claiming that both ID and evolution are theories, he switches to claiming that neither are. He claims that the criterion is whether direct observation is possible, and declares that evolution cannot be directly observed. He is wrong on both counts: there are plenty of theories for which only indirect observations are available, and evolution can be directly observed.

He begins the next paragraph a complete non sequitur, claiming that it follows that ID is compatible with the scientific method, even though he has presented absolutely nothing that would lead to that conclusion. He describes the scientific method as "the process of going from observation to validated theory", but what he apparently doesn't realize is that making observations, then decrating something to be a theory is not sufficient. The observation and "theory" must actually have something to do with each other. His implied assertion that ID "theory" has been validated is completely without foundation. He has claimed that people have questioned evolution, but he has given absolutely no scientific basis for this questioning, nor shown how it leads to ID. He then goes on to claim that evolution is based on presupposition, apparently oblivious both to the fact that he has nothing to support such a claim, and that for a creationist to make such an accusation is truly the pot calling the kettle black. He then once again, in the middle of an article challenging evolution, claims that evolution is unchallenged.

This is followed by a repetition of the accusation of errors, again without naming any errors. He claims that “No mutation has ever been found in micro or macro life that has added new genetic material to an organism.” Even if it were true (which it is not), it wouldn’t be an error, it would simply be a lack of evidence. He tries to defend this claim by explaining counterexamples away as being losses or sorting of preexisting genetic material. Well of course it’s sorting of preexisting genetic material! There are only four types of genetic material: A, T, G, C. Any mutation will be sorting of those materials. Just because there are only losses and sorting does not mean that new generic material isn’t being added. After all, when a marble sculpture is made, it is made simply by removing marble. But who would claim that a sculpture is nothing new, simply because it was made from the loss of marble? When a painting is made, paint is moved from the palette to the canvas. Who would claim that a painting is nothing new, simply because it is “sorting” preexisting material? He then goes on to misspell “losing”, as well as use the word “begat” when he should have used the present tense “beget”, proving once again that he doesn’t understand basic conjugation of verbs (and that he is more interested in trying to show off by using archaic words, than in using words he actually understands).

The only reasonable explanation for how a college student could have written such an incredibly poor essay is that it is meant as a parody of creationists. Assuming that it is a genuine article, it shows that ID should not be taught in schools, if for no other reason that it would take precious time away from lessons in basic spelling, grammar, logic, and science that this writer so clearly needs. There are a lot of people paying you a lot of money to get a diploma in the belief that it will mean something. I deeply hope that you will require Mr. Gryboski to take remedial classes, and show basic profiency, before allowing him to graduate. To do otherwise would unfairly diminish the meaning of every diploma that you have granted.

[Melendwyr]

Thanks, I'll check it out.

Although generally, I'm planning on just sticking with core facts and arguments. I'm thinking it would be kind of a fallacy to try and use the argument of "This ID proponent believes in something nutty, therefore ID is nutty". You're missing the point: the very same methods that Dembski claims can detect intention in biological designs are the ones he also claims can detect intention in rearranged passages from the Bible.

This is one of the primary architects of the current movement making a claim that has direct implications for his claims in biology - and anyone can see the logical errors in them.

It's rather like Michael Behe admitting that his alternate definition of 'science' would include things like astrology - his beliefs about astrology aren't on trial, but his application of methods is directly relevant to his claims about biology.

[Art Vandelay]

The subject of which is "information". To me, that screams volumes about the writer's intelligence.Here's how it might look if it were written by someone who understands how to write in English:
Thanks to some courts, the numerous errors of evolutionism are seldom heard in the debate over evolution and intelligent design. These errors include the classic missing links, hoaxes, and outdated tenets (such as Biogenetic Law) which are still taught in American classrooms even after being taken out of other nations’ textbooks. Notice that the writer "meant" for the subject of "are" to be "the numerous errors of evolutionism". However, he decided to fancy up the paragraph (and jam it all into one sentence), and in the process the subject switched to "information". Notice that in this sentence, "information" doesn't actually serve any real function. My conjecture is that the writer wanted to put "seldom heard" at the beginning of the sentence, rather than after “errors of evolutionism”, so he put in the word “information” as a place holder for “errors of evolutionism”, so that “seldom heard” would have something to which it could refer. I don’t think he was consciously aware of this, of course. It’s hard to believe that if he had actually consciously thought through what he was saying, he would come up with such a convoluted sentence.

"Are" isn't right, because "information" is singular, but "is" doesn't really fit with the sentence either, because "information" isn't the "true" subject of the sentence, it’s just a placeholder for “errors of evolutionism”. Also note that while the writer meant to say that the fact that the Biogenetic Law is wrong is rarely heard, he in fact said that the Biogenetic Law itself is rarely heard, which is yet another example of his poor English skills.

[Mid]

If I were a student at this university, I would be tempted to send the following letter:
...snip...

Well I've done my first ever nomination because I really liked this post

[Dr Adequate]

There are no multiple theories on the Moon’s creation, the extinction of the dinosaurs... Yes there are.

His mistake is in suuposing that every scientific theory, or evolution in particular, must be in the same state.

[Mongrel]

Yes there are.

His mistake is in suuposing that every scientific theory, or evolution in particular, must be in the same state.


Or that when there are alternative theories that they're suitable to be taught at high school level.

[The Black Fox]

From the article:

No mutation has ever been found in micro or macro life that has added new genetic material to an organism.

This statement is so staggeringly ignorant and untrue I am actually speechless :jaw-dropp (so it's a good job I'm typing this). I don't know where to begin...

Examples of genetic material being ADDED TO AN ORGANISM: Temperate lambda bacteriophages inserting their DNA into a bacteria's chromosome, a bacterium recieving a plasmid during copulation, the addition of repeat CAG sequences causing Huntington's chorea, analysis of the human genome showing that 5% contains duplications of identifiable gene segments, need I go on? This guy hasn't done the most basic of research into gene mutation.

All mutations found by scientists have either been a loss or sorting of preexisting genetic material.

Two words: addition mutations. Put them together and read carefully.

viruses that lose the ability to process the antibiotics that destroy them.

Antibiotics don't destroy viruses. Has this guy ever read a textbook?

Michael Gryboski is a history major

What a surprise. He's obviously highly qualified to talk about evolutionary biology and genetics then. Anyone with a biology A-level could refute his 'arguement'.

[Elektrix]

Thanks again everyone, your responses have been really helpful in figuring out how to respond to this. I was originally planning on writing just a letter, but I think I'm going to work on a full opinion piece (which will give me more space to work with). I'll post it to this thread when I finish it.

[Elektrix]

One other thing I was wondering about....... he says near the end:

The process of chemical evolution has never been able to be successfully reconciled with the Law of Biogenesis, as chemical evolution requires abiotic factors to begat life, but the Law of Biogenesis tells us that life can only come from life.

CurtC touched on this earlier, but I was wondering if there was anything more to say about this claim, other than that Biogenetic Law was disproved 130 years ago. He at least seems to treat it as something that is still current, and is still a problem of evolutionary theory (as opposed to it being a problem of biogenetic law not being compatible).

[Art Vandelay]

Yes there are.They're not theories in the same sense as the Theory of Evolution. A better term would something like "scenarios".

Examples of genetic material being ADDED TO AN ORGANISM: Temperate lambda bacteriophages inserting their DNA into a bacteria's chromosome,But you see, that's not NEW genetic material. It's OLD genetic material being put into a new place.

the addition of repeat CAG sequences causing Huntington's chorea, Again, it's not NEW genetic material, it's OLD genetic material that simply is repeated.

Clearly you don't understand how these sort of people think.

Elektrix
CurtC touched on this earlier, but I was wondering if there was anything more to say about this claim, other than that Biogenetic Law was disproved 130 years ago. He said Biogenesis, not Biogenetic. I made the same mistake the first time I read it. Really, he's just begging the question.

[jj]

They're not theories in the same sense as the Theory of Evolution. A better term would something like "scenarios".

But you see, that's not NEW genetic material. It's OLD genetic material being put into a new place.

Again, it's not NEW genetic material, it's OLD genetic material that simply is repeated.

Clearly you don't understand how these sort of people think.

Elektrix
He said Biogenesis, not Biogenetic. I made the same mistake the first time I read it. Really, he's just begging the question.

Well, Art, by that standard, if new nucleotides get added or the old ones get changed, it's still all "old genetic material" because it's still the same 4 old amino acids.

Personally, I don't conclude that these people think, Art, I think they react.

[Dcdrac]

And ask this IDiot why humans do not have gills

[Dr Adequate]

They're not theories in the same sense as the Theory of Evolution. A better term would something like "scenarios". Ah. If that's what you meant, then we're in agreement.

[Hellbound]

New information.

How about bacteria developing the ability to digest nylon?

[Dcdrac]

Point out the Mosquitos amazing ability to adapt to each new repellent used against it.

[brettDbass]

Or indeed, how about the new species of maggott which evolved in one hundred generations?
http://science.box.sk/newsread_print.php?newsid=6435

[Matabiri]

I believe that evolution was a genuine theory that had its strong points, but as time went by and more data came to view, the theory has lost its credibility.

That's big (and additionally ungrammatical - nice mixing of tenses) of him.

[Vorticity]

I can't believe no one has yet posted a direct link to talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

...as well as their fabulous "Index of Creationist claims":

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

[Ladewig]

I can't believe no one has yet posted a direct link to talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

...as well as their fabulous "Index of Creationist claims":

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Thanks for the link. I read these claims for about 20 minutes and was amazed to the point of speechlessness. After awhile, I began to wonder how seriously people take these claims and then I noticed that the Talk.Origins folks provide citations for every one of the creationist claims! People publish books with these claims in them - oy gevalt!

[Dr Adequate]

Or indeed, how about the new species of maggott which evolved in one hundred generations?
http://science.box.sk/newsread_print.php?newsid=6435 "Hybridization ... blah blah blah ... recombination of existing information ... blah ... law of conservation of information ... blah blah gibber ..."

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I can't believe no one has yet posted a direct link to talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

...as well as their fabulous "Index of Creationist claims":

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I think I'm in love with your for having posted that link.

[CurtC]

CurtC touched on this earlier, but I was wondering if there was anything more to say about this claim, other than that Biogenetic Law was disproved 130 years ago.The "Law of Biogenesis" is what Louis Pasteur came up to explain why maggots aren't spontaneously generated by rotting meat. Many people used to think that, and that molds, etc., just popped up by themselves. Pasteur showed that they always come from other life. He was not addressing the idea of how chemicals on the early Earth could have been synthesized and start combining.

Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" was something else - he observed how embryos of all tetrapods look pretty much the same, and how the human embryo starts out looking pretty fish-like, then keeps its tail, etc. His idea was that embryos retrace their evolutionary history when developing, and called that the Biogenetic Law. He did drawings of the various embryos to illustrate his point, and (consciously or not) exaggerated similarities among them. This idea was completely discredited 130 years ago. Kent Hovind calls the drawings a fraud, says that Haeckel was tried and convicted by his university for it (a fabrication), and his main point is that Haeckel's drawings still appear in every biology textbook, and says that the Law of Biogenesis is still being taught as proof of evolution. As far as I can tell, this is just not true.

Anyway, the names are similar but the two "laws" are different.

[Elektrix]

The "Law of Biogenesis" is what Louis Pasteur came up to explain why maggots aren't spontaneously generated by rotting meat. Many people used to think that, and that molds, etc., just popped up by themselves. Pasteur showed that they always come from other life. He was not addressing the idea of how chemicals on the early Earth could have been synthesized and start combining.

Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" was something else - he observed how embryos of all tetrapods look pretty much the same, and how the human embryo starts out looking pretty fish-like, then keeps its tail, etc. His idea was that embryos retrace their evolutionary history when developing, and called that the Biogenetic Law. He did drawings of the various embryos to illustrate his point, and (consciously or not) exaggerated similarities among them. This idea was completely discredited 130 years ago. Kent Hovind calls the drawings a fraud, says that Haeckel was tried and convicted by his university for it (a fabrication), and his main point is that Haeckel's drawings still appear in every biology textbook, and says that the Law of Biogenesis is still being taught as proof of evolution. As far as I can tell, this is just not true.

Anyway, the names are similar but the two "laws" are different.

Thanks Curt for clearing this up as well. So, when he says:

The process of chemical evolution has never been able to be successfully reconciled with the Law of Biogenesis, as chemical evolution requires abiotic factors to begat life, but the Law of Biogenesis tells us that life can only come from life.

which part of this is incorrect? That the Law of Biogenesis that Pasteur came up with was only supposed to explain things like why maggots don't generate spontaneously out of meat, etc. but doesn't have anything to do with how chemicals combined to form the earliest forms of life?

I found this explanation as well in the wikipedia entry on biogenesis:

Law of Biogenesis and Creationism

The narrower meaning of the term Biogenesis is the basis of Creation biology, which holds that since life cannot arise spontaneously from non-life, life must, of necessity, have been created by a "supernatural" being, typically the Christian God.

Supporters of the theory of evolution argue that creationists misuse the law of biogenesis to support their arguments. For example:

"The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules." [4]

They also say that creationists' use of the law as an argument against theories of common descent is an example of the fallacy of false dilemma, since it is imaginable that a creator god created the LUCA or one of its ancestors, from which point on evolution occurred in a guided or unguided fashion.

Creationists respond that abiogenesis is not a form of creationism, because it holds that life arises spontaneously, while creationism holds that life was deliberately created. Further, since the hypothesized development of "primitive life" from "increasingly complex molecules" has never been observed, there remains no comprehensive scientific justification for believing it has ever occurred. Finally, they argue that once it has been conceded (as is conceded by theistic evolution) that the original cell was created by a divine being, there is no reason to believe he could not have created life in a variety of forms, although there is also no reason to believe he would bother. [5]

I'm still trying to figure out a way to sum this up, since it seems to be an important point in the original piece that needs to be refuted, but I'm not sure of what is the key point to say makes it irrelevent.

Edit: I found this as well, seems to also explain in some more detail the difference and why this is a misuse of the law of biogenesis: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/3-1.html

-Elektrix

[Elektrix]

Hi all. Thanks again for all your help. Below is what I submitted as a rebuttal:

A Defense of Evolution

In a recent opinion piece ["Unlike Evolution, Intelligent Design Compatible with Science," Feb. 13, 2006], Michael Gryboski made a number of claims in order to try and show that evolution is invalid, and that intelligent design should be taught instead. In fact, he only demonstrated the difference between science and pseudoscience.

First, it is incorrect to claim that evolution is going unchallenged due to judicial decisions. There is nothing preventing challenges to evolution from being taught. The burden on intelligent design, and creationism before it, was to demonstrate that they were legitimate sciences and not religion in disguise. If a valid scientific challenge to evolution came up, there are no existing court decisions or laws that would prevent it from being taught.

Contrary to his claims, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the broader question of the origins of life itself. Evolution is much more concerned with explaining the origin of species, primarily through the process of natural selection. And contrary to Mr. Gryboski's claims, natural selection is something that can be observed, tested and verified. Thousands of generations of bacteria can be studied in a lab as evolution takes place. Furthermore, even evolution as it occurs over millions of years can be studied, thanks to the evidence that is available. To claim that it isn’t a science because of this would be like claiming that astronomy isn’t a science because we can’t directly observe the entire lifespan of a star. We understand the evolution of stars thanks to our ability to examine data from different stars in our galaxy at different stages of their lifespans.

While it is true that there are always going to be “missing links” and holes in the fossil record, it is also true that we have an abundance of transitional fossils that provide evidence for the theory of evolution. And while there have been a few hoaxes, these do not invalidate evolution itself. Biogenetic Law was cited as one example, but this is something that was discredited over a century ago, precisely because it included false data and was not compatible with evolutionary theory. It is hard to see how the failure of Biogenetic Law can be called an error in evolutionary theory.

Mr. Gryboski states that “No mutation has ever been found in a micro or macro life that has added new genetic material to an organism. All mutations found by scientists have either been a loss or sorting of preexisting genetic material.” This seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics. Since there are only four types of genetic material (A, T, G and C), it is inevitable that any mutation is going to involve sorting of existing genetic material. However, this does not mean that new material isn’t being added (this would be like saying that a new book didn’t include new information just because it only used words that already existed). One common example of a mutation adding something new is a Japanese bacterium that experienced a mutation that allowed it to metabolize nylon. He also uses an example of “viruses that lose the ability to process the antibiotics that destroy them”. Any biology student could tell him that antibiotics don’t destroy viruses.

Finally, Mr. Gryboski claims that “chemical evolution has never been able to be successfully reconciled with the Law of Biogenesis”, which does not make sense. The Law of Biogenesis is fairly limited, primarily concerned with showing that species like maggots and rats did not pop up fully formed. Louis Pasteur proposed this because up until the 19th century, it was a common belief that maggots could be generated whole from rotting meat, for example. It is not related to evolutionary theory or even abiogenesis, the field of science that does focus on the origins of life on Earth.

Mr. Gryboski claims that evolution has “lost its credibility”. If his opinion piece can be taken as an example of what he would like to be taught in science classes, it should be clear why Intelligent Design has failed. Since ID rests on pseudoscience and false claims, it is clear that the only reason it hasn’t lost its credibility is because it never had any to begin with.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<Mr. Burns>
Excellent Smithers!
</Mr. Burns>

[Art Vandelay]

I'm still trying to figure out a way to sum this up, since it seems to be an important point in the original piece that needs to be refuted, but I'm not sure of what is the key point to say makes it irrelevent.As I said, it's simply begging the question. Either the Law of Biogenesis contradicts evolution (in which case it's wrong), or it's misstated. Either way, it's irrelevant. You can't just say "Some scientist said this several centuries ago, so you're wrong". That's not how science work.

[IIRichard]

Since I was the first to respond to the original post, allow me to be one of the first to say, "Well done!" Your rebuttal summarized most of what others had posted in an effective, readable fashion. One can hope that your message will be well received and understood by those who might not previously have considered the question.

IIRichard

[Elektrix]

Thanks very much IIRichard...:)

-Elektrix

[Apex Rogers]

Thanks very much IIRichard...:)

-Elektrix

Let us know the newspaper's response and whether it will be published as a counterargument to the original piece (I don't see why it wouldn't be published, but you never know, some people might have an agenda :rolleyes:)

[Elektrix]

Hi all,

Just wanted to update you, they did go ahead and publish my piece in this week's issue:

http://www.broadsideonline.com/article.php?date=02-27-2006&section=opinion&article=higgins.txt

Thanks again for all your help! Although I think I'm going to need to send another letter to the editor, as they published another piece about something called "scientism", which struck me as a bit off (it seems to be making the claim that scientists are guilty of this, etc.). I'm going to post another thread about this though.

Thanks!

[Dcdrac]

That was a good article very succint, Inotice you are an english major, do you hope to become an op ed writer? If not maybe you should.

[Elektrix]

That was a good article very succint, Inotice you are an english major, do you hope to become an op ed writer? If not maybe you should.

Thanks. Yes, I'd actually like to get more involved in journalism and op-ed writing. Personally, I'd really love to write more about scientific topics for a general audience. Some of my favorite writers are science writers who are able to explain things well to a non-scientific audience, which I think is something that is really important.

-Elektrix

[laxmatt]

I asked the author of the anti-evolution piece why is christianity and evolution incompatible?

Here's the answer:
"Regarding how evolution negates Christianity (if it were proven true of course) it has been a tough for me as well, being brought up around many theistic evolutionists.

I would say that evolutionary theory contradicts the Genesis Account of Creation in several ways (and that's if the age-of-the-earth debate is ignored). Its sort of a slippery slope: if that part of Scripture is not to be taken literally or historically, then why should other parts?

This has become more logical an assumptionas time has passed, given that since the theory of evolution was proposed a school of thought has arisen that claims that Jesus never even existed, not even as a mortal. Also, let's not forget Dawkin's famous line:

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”"

Here's the entire discussion online (sorry I can't link - this is my first post. Just take out the spaces and paste)

ht tp://z11.invisionfree.co m/GMU_SGA/index.p hp?showt opic=369&st=0

[laxmatt]

Oh, and this kid posted a reply to this thread on his website. Check it out, it's funny. (Again, sorry I can't link. Get rid of the spaces and paste.)

ht tp://ww w.cross-nation.co m/ajr.ht ml

[Elektrix]

Oh, and this kid posted a reply to this thread on his website. Check it out, it's funny. (Again, sorry I can't link. Get rid of the spaces and paste.)

ht tp://ww w.cross-nation.co m/ajr.ht ml

Wow, interesting. I wouldn't have even known he posted this.

One thing I would like to say is that he complains about the editors editing his own piece, but then I think seems to attack the rebuttal I wrote because the only point of substance in it (from his perspective) was the bit about viruses, etc.

For the record, the rebuttal I submitted was longer, and did cover many more points, but they edited it down quite a bit for space.

I honestly don't quite get the rest of his point though; he accused me (and the forum I guess) of not being nice or accurate, but I don't think I was mean to him in the rebuttal I wrote, nor was I inaccurate. I think the only thing I wasn't nice about was when I said that the Intelligent Design movement itself lacked credibility.

He seems to spend a fair amount of time complaining about some things which don't even seem to really be germane to the discussion (the issue that the people here attacked his credibility as a History major, while not attacking me as an English major, and complaining about the editing done by the editors of the Broadside).

-Elektrix

[laxmatt]

Yea, there's an argument he and I have on the thread I linked in my first post.

It's an interesting read. The guy is an absolute fanatic.

If you ever want a glimpse into the mind of a nut you should read the "fiction" on his website. It's horribly violent. Almost reminds me of the writings of the Va Tech kid.

[Elektrix]

Yea, there's an argument he and I have on the thread I linked in my first post.

It's an interesting read. The guy is an absolute fanatic.

If you ever want a glimpse into the mind of a nut you should read the "fiction" on his website. It's horribly violent. Almost reminds me of the writings of the Va Tech kid.

I had kind of wanted to write a response to the piece he wrote about LandoverBaptist.com. It struck me as kind of bizarre to complain about a satire site distorting Christianity. Fundamentally, it seems like if some people have trouble figuring out the site is a satire, that might not be the fault of the satire itself as much as the subject being satirized..... if people can't tell the difference between the satire and the real thing, what does that say about the real thing?

-Elektrix

[laxmatt]

In fact, he has an entire section on his website about landoverbaptist.

Here's the fiction. It's pretty awful. And violent.
htt p://w ww.cross-nation.co m/dficfaithutmost.h tml
ht tp://w ww.cross-nation.co m/dficpersian.htm l

[Orangutan]

Well I've done my first ever nomination because I really liked this post

oops. I just nominated it as well.
:)

[Dr Adequate]

Also, let's not forget Dawkin's famous line:

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." He also made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian. It was no atheist who wrote that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution (http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Nothing_in_biology_makes_sense_except_in_the_light _of_evolution)".

[Madalch]

You might like to talk about bacteria that have evolved the ability to digest nylon (http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm).
That's a great page. If I ever get around to changing my sig, I'm going to add:
"(abstract (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v425/n6959/abs/425679a_fs.html), PDF of paper (http://www.bio.indiana.edu/courses/S318-brodie/handouts%20to%20download/Ueshima%202003%20Nature.pdf) - WARNING! GRAPHIC PICTURES OF SNAIL SEX)"

[Art Vandelay]

oops. I just nominated it as well.
:)Thanks. It's good to know it's still inspiring nominations.

[Art Vandelay]

I have the following response to his "Answer":

Well, I apologize for assuming that the grammatical errors were your own. As I myself have been the victim of similar editing errors, I should have considered the possibility. If your original essay was not lacking in the areas that I mentioned, then your website provides an obvious means of presenting your full argument. However, as it stands, your essay is so deficient in rational thought that it throws into question your suitability for a college degree. If you persist in showing contempt towards people by presenting them with irrational positions backed by illogical “arguments”, you should not be surprised when they respond in kind. It is hypocritical to complain of insults, when you insult the intelligence of your readers with blatantly fallacious rhetoric.

Also, I wonder why it is that you found time to create an entire webpage detailing what you claim is a rebuttal to the points made against you on this website, but have not bothered actually registering here to present your “argument” in person. If nothing else, I find the font here to be more legible than the one you used. Other details that bothered me include your failure to indent your quotes, as is customary with passages longer than one paragraph, and using the word “Apologetics” when you apparently meant “Apologists”.

Now, on to the actual meat of your response. Your sentence “A new argument that I noticed amongst your postings was that of denying the whole matter of this being an origins debate” kicked off a series of errors. First, this is hardly a new distinction. Secondly, you don’t even address that issue, but instead drift over to the issue of whether the origins issue is settled. Then you engage in the well-worn creationist tactic of quoting evolutionists, and then declaring them to agree with you. You conclude with the rhetorical question “If these are not claims on life origins, then what are they?” So… first you indicate that you are arguing that this is a new distinction. Then you’re arguing that the puzzle is solved. And finally, you end up arguing that there are claims on life origins. Well, now, that’s yet another change of the subject, isn’t it? Making claims about life origins is quite different from completely solving the puzzle, isn’t it? As is often the case with creationists, it’s difficult to rebut your position, as you apparently can’t even decide what your position is. You assert one claim, yet present evidence for yet another one.

Your inability to keep track of the subject at hand is displayed again when you quote CurtC as declaring there to be numerous transitional fossils, then introduce the restriction to human transitional forms out of thin air. As for the claim that hominid fossils can fit on a dinner-table, I found a list of discoveries in which just one entry is the unearthing of nine Neanderthals skeletons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Key_dates. You then present a quote that, really, makes no claim other than that the fossil record is not quite as good as what Darwin might have wanted. Not exactly a damning criticism. Next, you make the common creationist error of mistaking criticism of gradualist evolution for criticism of evolution is general. After introducing the restriction to human evolution, you then drop it again to declare “So, according to Gould, Darwin, Raup and New Scientist, the vast wealth of transitional fossils is actually a minor savings account at best.“ This is simply not supported by the quotes. That we don’t have every single intermediary form hardly makes the fossil record “minor”.

Now how about your claim that “Yet there is an obvious disparity between the evidence for the American Civil War and the Roman Empire and the evidence for Evolution.” Really? And how do you quantify the respective amounts of evidence? Going just by the informational content of all the genomes found, there is more data on evolution than in all the hard-drives in the world. Furthermore, this comparison highlights a hypocrisy on the part of Creationists: they claim that we need to consider the possibility of a supernatural being creating life, but do not apply this principle elsewhere. How much evidence is there for the Civil War, if we must throw out everything that conceivably could have been created by a supernatural being? None, that’s how much. Using the same standard for both (restricting ourselves to possibilities that can be scientifically investigated) every animal in the world, living or dead, constitutes evidence for evolution, as there is no other explanation for its existence. What is this “obvious” disparity? As for whether evolution has stopped, no it hasn’t. But the evolutionary change in humans since the Civil War is so small as to be insignificant. Your next quote is quite bizarre. People have written fantastical books? Uh… is there a point in here somewhere? The TV show Lost is a show about islands based more on fantasy than fact. Does that mean that islands do not in fact exist? Then there’s your final quote on this subject. I can no longer access your original article, so I don’t know whether you previously attributed the quote, but here you present a quote with no author, no context, and no support. Is that what passes for evidence in your world? An anonymous declaration, with no evidence backing it, that your opponents’ reasoning is flawed?

Now, on to the issue of mutations. Despite being presented with numerous examples of additional information, you stubbornly cling to the manifestly absurd notion that it is impossible. In response to the mosquitoes’ adaptation to repellent, you respond that there is no new body part. I’m sorry, this is supposed to be a discussion of evolution, not a non sequitur contest. Yet again you forget what the issue is. The claim was that there is no new genetic information, not that there is no body part or no new species. You also make the absurd claim that it is natural selection, not evolution, indicating ignorance of the fact that natural selection is part of evolution. Then, when discussing the nylon-digesting bacteria, you make an unexplained distinction between “adapt” and “evolve”. You dismiss lambda bacteriophages with another non sequitur, saying that it is a symbiotic relationship, as if that somehow rules out evolution. You dismiss repeated CAG sequences as “merely” duplication, but duplication and pruning are the only forces needed to form a new genome. If I take the sequence “CAGT”, repeat it an infinite number of times, and then delete any nucleotide that I wish, I can form any sequence desired. Then you present yet another non sequitur, saying that because a particular alteration resulted in death, that somehow magically means that every alteration results in death. Your position has been soundly defeated. Every sequence can be created through duplication and pruning. Why do you refuse to admit this fact?

Your original article contained no valid argument against evolution or for creationism, and your “response” doesn’t rebut a single point that I made against your original article. While you pretended to argue against statements made by other posters, in the end you simply engaged in the usual sort of dancing around the issues that I’ve come to expect form creationists, wildly jumping from one claim to another, and acting as if you expect us to not notice that the claim “disproved” is completely different from the one that was actually quoted.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Subbing.

[Art Vandelay]

I emailed this response to him:

I’ve prepared a response to your "answer" to the Randi Forum. I'm providing a link to the thread, since you did not see fit to do so.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52376&page=2

Looking around your website, I’ve found additional inconsistencies. You list one of the Commandments as prohibiting the likeness of anything in heaven or earth, yet your website has multiple pictures, a clear violation of that Commandment. I also wonder whether you refrain from work (where "work" includes any use of fire, electricity, or combustion vehicles) on Saturday, as required by another Commandment. You say that the Bible condemns slavery, but in yet another example of your tactic of asserting one claim and then proving a completely different one, you quote the Bible condemning kidnapping. The fact is, the Bible clearly supports slavery, as well as genocide, and murdering people over differences in religion or sexuality. If you believe in the Bible, then you believe that it's okay to murder homosexuals. In my book, that makes you an agent of evil. At the end of your "Answer", you say "This time around, try and be nice." You want us to be nice? How about you first stop supporting an ideology of murder?

Your claim that Christian Fundamentalists have nothing in common with Muslim Fundamentalists is absurd. While Christians are generally less virulent, and usually don’t resort to murder, they have made it quite clear that they are willing to use the State to engage in vicious violence against anyone who doesn’t think exactly like them. Just half a century ago, Jehovah Witnesses were imprisoned for their religious beliefs, and had the Supreme Court not intervened, religious fundamentalists might still be forcing people to participate in religious ceremonies that are offensive to their consciences. As it is, schoolchildren today are required, every day, to listen to a Pledge perverted for the specific purpose of insulting atheists. When I was called to jury duty, I was legally required to swear an oath, and I was required to swear by a God in which I don’t believe. Until relatively recently, it was a felony to engage in sodomy. Since many states prohibit felons from voting, this meant that fundamentalists were not only oppressing homosexuals, but subverting the democratic process by reserving the franchise to those who shared their "morality". Another blatant violation of liberty that was stopped only by the Supreme Court intervening was the prohibition of contraceptives. Items currently on the fundamentalist agenda include prohibiting states from deciding for themselves whether to allow same-sex marriage, coercing stores into acknowledging Christmas, getting rid of sex education that includes information about contraception and disease prevention, promoting lies about evolution, using tax payer dollars to force public school students to participate in prayer, and reinstating prohibitions against sexual "immorality".

Fundamentalists are no friend of freedom. They clearly are intent on violating the rights of others, and on using widespread violence to force others to accept their intolerant agenda. That, quite simply, is terrorism, and anyone who contributes to their cause is an accessory to terrorism. There is simply no objective difference between engaging in violence against someone because they insult Mohammed, and engaging in violence because they are homosexual.

[Dabljuh]

Evolution is a truism. A tautology. It can't be false. This is often a sign for bad science, but as with most such cases, evolution requires a few assumptions to work and become a tautology. These assumption themselves are falsifiable and scientific, making evolution a scientific truism. These assumptions are:

- Reproduction
- Mutation
- Selection

Every single one of the assumptions that Evolution is based upon is scientific in nature, this means, it's falsifiable, and can be demonstrated and tested. Each single one of these mechanisms has been demonstrated over and over, so nobody really doubts them.

If evolution *was* wrong, and creationists had any sort of brains in them, they'd not attack "evolution" (which is a tautology) but they'd attack the underlying assumptions that make it a truism. I.e. they would demonstrate that either reproduction, mutation, or selection don't work.

Even *if* creationism was right and god created all that stuff 6000 years ago, the *value* of a scientific theory always lays in its *predictive* value. If we can demonstrate evolution today, and on the other hand there is no demonstrated reason to believe that god did anything to the world since those 6000 years ago, evolution would still be the better Theorie due to the predictive value.

Even *if* god created the world 6000 years ago and did arrange all the fossils in such a way to delude people into thinking there were dinosaurs and the world was billions of years and what not, even then, evolution would be a better scientific theory since it *can* make testable and accurate predictions on what kind of fossils we would find in what layers. Creationism doesn't make any testable predictions that cannot be explained by evolution. Ergo, evolution is the better scientific theory even if creationism was true and the world was created 6000 years ago, because it has more explanatory value.

Please stop wasting time on creationism, already.

[Art Vandelay]

There's a distinction, however, between evolution as a process and evolution as an explanation. That evolution exists is obvious. But what's at issue is that it is reponsible for the diversity of life.

[Dabljuh]

There's a distinction, however, between evolution as a process and evolution as an explanation. That evolution exists is obvious. But what's at issue is that it is reponsible for the diversity of life.
I just told you: Nobody cares about whether evolution is responsible for the way the world looks like. You can't make testable propositions about the past. You can make testable propositions about what type of fossils you would find in a layer of rock, today. And that's the only thing that matters, basically.

You can't prove whether something happened like this and this in the past. Its unscientific. You can only make testable predictions about the present or the future. That what differs science from THE TRUTH(tm)

[Roboramma]

I just told you: Nobody cares about whether evolution is responsible for the way the world looks like. I am. I figure most biologists are too. To say that evolution is a process that happens sometimes offers us little. To have a testable, well supported, theory that tells us the it is responsible for the diversity of life is very valuable. It means that we can look at life in that context. It gives us questions to ask and a framework in which to look for explanations. It leads to new science.

You can't make testable propositions about the past. You can make testable propositions about what type of fossils you would find in a layer of rock, today. And that's the only thing that matters, basically. How is that not making a testable proposition about the past?
Proposition (about the past): Life on earth evolved through the process of evolution by natural selection.
If this is true: We should expect to find transitional fossils.
Test: We look at the fossil record and find transitional fossils.

Of course the theory of evolution is supported by much more evidence than this.

You can't prove whether something happened like this and this in the past. Its unscientific. You can only make testable predictions about the present or the future. That what differs science from THE TRUTH(tm) I don't see the distinction. How is the prediction: "If general relatively is correct, we will make such and such an observation during this eclipse" any different from, "If such and such things happened in the past, we will make such and such an observation in the present"?

[Dabljuh]

Ever heard of "the church of last Thursday"? Scientifically, you can't prove them wrong, they're making a statement about the past, which is not falsifiable by the means of science.

The thing is, most of the time, people use the method of induction: "Today the laws of nature were pretty much the same as yesterday, hence we are going to assume the laws of nature will be precisely the same tomorrow"

But you can't prove induction, its circular: We use induction because it has worked for us in the past. But this may be just as preposterous as to assume that the laws of nature were Whack 6000 years ago.

[Art Vandelay]

If you're going allow that level of solipsism, then nothing can be proven. You give finding fossils as an example of testable phenemenon. But how do we know that the fossils are there? Unless we unearth each one ourselves, we don't know that there's a massive conspiracy to misrepresent the fossil record. Even if we do unearth them ourselves, how do we know it's a fossil? We can test it in a lab, but that relies on our assumptions our lab tests. We can't prove that fossils act a certain way is response to tests. All of science depends on assuming that the laws work in a coherent manner.

[Roboramma]

Dabljuh, I still don't see the distinction between the two predictions I presented.

I understand the point about induction, but I don't see how it only applies to statements made about the past (see art's post above for more on that).

Anyway, this is a bit of a derail.

[Dabljuh]

Its not solipsism. Its critical rationalism. You can't make a testable statement about the past, there is no ultimate truth, no ultimate proof. There's only "qualified uncertainty"

Most of our science bases on induction. If we find induction to not work as good as an alternative assumption [about the basis of science], we throw it away and use the alternative.

What can be said that so far, induction seems to be the way to go. Not "ultimate proof wise" but "reasonably good certainty" and using induction in reverse, we assume the same laws of nature were in effect in the past.

Then ultimately we can come to the reasonable conclusion that e.g. the world is probably some 4 billion years old and there were dinosaurs and all that stuff long before humanoids appeared.

All of that is pretty reasonable to assume. It is also reasonable to assume that selection works the way demonstrated, and that mutation and reproduction also are not fallacious theories, so we end up with the Theory of Evolution and the past with dinosaurs n stuff as being the best theory we can currently come up with

The idea of science is to generate good, useful knowledge. There's no other goal behind it. Useful, how? We can predict what kind of fossils are in a layer, we can predict that what happens on earth could happen on any other planet with an atmosphere, that isn't too close to supernovas, we could predict that if we were to slaughter all people who don't have a pitch black skin color that eventually only pitch black people will be born. We have testable hypothesises.

Now creationism. Creationism isn't the best theory we can come up with: Its basic paradigm is not "induction" (which basically could be interpreted as the abscence of a god) but instead a wondrous world full of unicorns and miracles. It doesn't predict anything that the theory of evolution predicts. Basically the only thing it predicts, and is also its basic assumption, is that god is real and vengeful and stuff and that the rapture will devour the world because obviously every letter of the bible is true.

Using induction, we can test biblical predictions. I.e. "PI is 3" or "The world is flat and rectangular" - And of course they all turn out false. If we are to dismiss induction as the basic premise and embrace unicorns, there may not be any testable phenomenons, and in fact, this very post may be written by a mongolian nun who is also doing stand up comedy near the russian border.

There is no "ultimate" proof that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. But there are some damn good signs that evolution is a lot better as a scientific theory than creation, that means, better at predicting stuff, and with more explanatory value.

The biggest mistake any scientist could make, when confronted with a dogmatic insistence that opinion X is correct, is to himself adhere dogmatically to anything.

Or to explain this in Theism vs Atheism terms: Neither of them are good or bad, the problem is actually dogmatism.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I just told you: Nobody cares about whether evolution is responsible for the way the world looks like. You can't make testable propositions about the past. You can make testable propositions about what type of fossils you would find in a layer of rock, today. And that's the only thing that matters, basically.

But those fossils didn't appear in the rock today. The wound up in that strata x number of years ago, and we can draw conclusions about the environment, diet etc. from those fossils. Ever hear of coprolites?

[Dabljuh]

But those fossils didn't appear in the rock today. The wound up in that strata x number of years ago, and we can draw conclusions about the environment, diet etc. from those fossils. Ever hear of coprolites?
No, but that's missing the point. If you abandon induction and use Magic and Unicorns and literal interpretation of the bible as the basis for your way of gathering scientific knowledge, then a devious creator may as well have planted these fossils in there yesterday because he knew you'd dig there today.

The question is, what's the basic assumption of your science? Unicorns or Induction?

Neither is "Right" or "ultimately proven", the question is which one is more useful. As far as I understand, you can't predict what kind of fossils are in what layer when using Unicorns and Creationism. You can - to a respectable degree - do so when using Induction and Evolution. This is why most scientists (The people who want to gather useful knowledge) use induction instead of magic. None other. Its not about what's true - you might never know for certain - its about what's more useful as the basis for your scientific investigations.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The question is, what's the basic assumption of your science? Unicorns or Induction?

Sorry to snip so much but I want to concentrate on this point. We're not assuming or using any powers of reasoning to find out if fossils that lie in a certain strata are of a particular age, we're using quantifiable methods like radiometric dating. There's no philosophy involved, either X strata is Y years old or it's not and our dating methods are faulty. Creationists try and suggest that data is up to "interpretation" but that is little more than suggesting that 1+1 can equal 3 in certain situations.

I agree with Art Vandelay, if we start going down a philsophical road that we cannot trust what our senses tell us about the age of strata and that tranistional fossils found in that strata is of a certain age and fits into a morphological phylogeny that evolutionary theory predicts, then we can't know anything and we're travelling down a solopistic road towards brains in vats and the Matrix.

There's a great irony in the position taken by Creationists in that they claim to have "absolute truth" but engage in extremes of Post-Modernism and that they reject an approach to studying "the Creation" held by the Christians who developed the modern scientific method and instead embrace an approach to reality that it might not be as we see it to be which is a Weltanschauung of Buddhists and Hindus.

I simply cannot accept that we cannot know mountains dated to 125,000,000 years old to be "tentatively" that old except within the error bars of radiometric dating. To me it's simply not scientific to even consider them being made Last Thursday or 6,000 years ago with the appearance of 125 million years.

[Dabljuh]

Of course you are right. But it isn't scientific to dismiss things such as the church of last thursday on the basis of impossibility. Its not impossible, from a theoretical science point of view. It is, after all, merely unuseful. And science should not waste everyone's time with useless things.

Sorry to snip so much but I want to concentrate on this point. We're not assuming or using any powers of reasoning to find out if fossils that lie in a certain strata are of a particular age, we're using quantifiable methods like radiometric dating. There's no philosophy involved, either X strata is Y years old or it's not and our dating methods are faulty. Creationists try and suggest that data is up to "interpretation" but that is little more than suggesting that 1+1 can equal 3 in certain situations.The creationists actually got it wrong, if they knew science, they'd argue differently. It doesn't matter what you interpret out of the data. You can't make any scientifically testable statement about the past.

Radiometric dating is good, but it still assumes induction - like everything else in what you and I would call science. We can test induction in the future, but we cannot test whether induction has always been in place. We cannot test if god came down 6000 years ago and created the world out of a booger. All we can test is the here and now and quite possibly the future.

Again, this is not solipsism, its critical rationalism by Hans Albert and Karl Popper. I don't think anyone here is a brain in a vat or anything. All that I do claim is that there is no ultimate proof of anything. Instead, we use ideas based solely on the measure of how well they work (i.e. explain or predict things)

Consider the following: Quantum physics and the Theory of Relativity. Both contradict each other (on different scales) but both explain things, both make testable and accurate predictions. Using both contradicting theories at the same time is the best thing we've come up so far. I seriously hope we will eventually come up with a theory that obsoletes both, but until we do, we know: Both theories are incomplete but still the best thing we've come up with so far.

You must be able to use the same logic for creationism as well as the Quantum Physics / Relativity problem.

Ultimately the question isn't "Is creationism right?" it is: Which of the two theories, creationism and evolution, is probably less false by what we've encountered so far, and thus more useful as a tool to explain and predict things.

I simply cannot accept that we cannot know mountains dated to 125,000,000 years old to be "tentatively" that old except within the error bars of radiometric dating. Define "know" - Using induction, which is the best thing we've come up with so far, we can safely assume that the mountains are some 125'000'000 years old. But if you mean "know" as "definite and irrevocable truth" then you'll probably have to kill yourself or something when the mountain turns out to be only 12 million years old because the guy who operated the measure device was high and dropped a digit.

[Roboramma]

Dabljuh, I still don't see the distinction between the two predictions I presented.

To clean them up a bit and repeat:
I don't see the distinction. How is the prediction: "If general relatively is correct, we will make such and such an observation during this eclipse" any different from, "If natural selection operated in the past and is responsible for the diversity of life we will find transitional fossils"?
Both allow us to go out and actually look for data to test our theories. So, what exactly is the distinction? Or is there not one?

To make myself more clear - theories about the past make predictions about the present and the future which are (at least sometimes, and with good theories) testable.

[Dabljuh]

Dabljuh, I still don't see the distinction between the two predictions I presented.

To clean them up a bit and repeat:
I don't see the distinction. How is the prediction: "If general relatively is correct, we will make such and such an observation during this eclipse" any different from, "If natural selection operated in the past and is responsible for the diversity of life we will find transitional fossils"?
Both allow us to go out and actually look for data to test our theories. So, what exactly is the distinction? Or is there not one?

To make myself more clear - theories about the past make predictions about the present and the future which are (at least sometimes, and with good theories) testable.
There is no qualitative distinction.

The question is purely the alternative theory. In the case of relativistic physics, the alternative is newtonian physics. Both make a prediction, and empiric study of eclipses and the such has showed that relativistic physics is better at predicting that kind of thing. I.e. it predicts that the light from the star would show up 0.3s earlier than it would without a gravitational lensing effect [In newtonian physics], and turned out to be right.

Basically relativism abandoned euclidian geometry of space, with a Riemann [manifold] geometry. If we assume that space *must* be euclidian, then we'd want to find an alternative explanation for the 0.3s divergence phenomenon observed. Basically, people didn't bother and readily believed that space [and time] was a manifold given that evidence.

In the case of creationism, the alternative theory is evolution and induction. If we abandon induction, basically everything scientific becomes useless, because everything we do in science uses induction. If we argue that we can't prove induction and therefore shouldn't easily dismiss alternative theories, then the church of last thursday paradigm becomes an untestable, but realistic hypothesis. With creationism: Does creationism actually make any predictions at all? Could we use creationism to predict what kinds of fossils we would find in what layer? It is my understanding that creationism doesn't actually make any sort of prediction and instead just claims that the past was such-and-such and that anyone who says otherwise is an infidel who should be burned at the stake.

Creationism does not make a testable statement about what kinds of fossils we would find in what layer. If we want to believe in creationism, we have to abandon induction, and thus ALL of the natural sciences, and what do we gain? An untestable statement about the past. That's a pretty bad deal from a scientific, I-want-to-learn point of view.

Its not that creationism or evolution can be proven right. Its that creationism is simply so bad a theory, that no sane scientists would ever want to use it.

But there is no qualitative distinction to relativity vs newtonian physics: Newtonian physics and euclidian space just are worse as predictive tools when tested scientifically. I'd say, creationism is much worse as a scientific theory compared to evolution, than euclidian space geometry is to Riemann space geometry.

Creationism is a "theory" of the creation of earth that has basically been obsolete for 4000 years. [Old egyptians and such] Newtonian physics has been obsolete for less than a hundred years now, its just more ridiculous that people have less problems hanging on to creationism than abandoning euclidian space geometry.

There is no fundamental qualitative difference, between the two distinctions, we just have two outdated and bad theories where we have better theories available. The quantitative difference in the "value of the theory", of course, is pretty big.

[Roboramma]

Hey, cool. I think we agree.