Texas State Board of Education- trouble ahead?

[ca3799]

The Texas SBOE (State Board of Education) is due for elections in November.

The board has asked the state Attorney General to turn over the 1995 law that limits the boards authority over textbooks and to return the selection of textbook content back to the SBOE. Far right members are attempting to take over the board and want to censor textbooks on issues such as evolution, civil rights, sex education and environmental issues.

Currently 6 of the 15 board members are considered fundamentalists (Miller, Cargill, Bradley, Leo, Lowe, and McLeroy). Other fundamentalists running will be Dunbar and Mercer. Dunbar and Mercer support the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in public schools. If the board can get two more fundamentalists, they will hold an 8-7 majority. The science textbooks are due for review in 2007.

There has been much funding of campaigns by a guy named James Leninger- a San Antonio millionaire conservative republican who is pro-voucher, and very political. He personally has contributed 10 million dollars in 2005-2006 to two PAC's he's created to further his pro-voucher goals, and nearly 3 million during 2005-2006 to help unseat moderate republicans from various offices in other elections in favor of more conservative candidates. I'm not clear on his other goals or why this is so important to him- I suspect religious or financial reasons.

Texans who are interested in public education- please pay attention the the SBOE elections coming soon.

[CP489]

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths religious people will go to to hinder the progress of mankind.:mad:

[ca3799]

Leninger is not the only big contributor with an agenda for the school board, but he is an interesting one.

Here is some info about him:
from here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_R._Leininger

Organizations Founded by Leninger:
Committee for Governmental Integrity, a PAC
Entertainment PAC
Texans for Governmental Integrity, a PAC
Texans for Judicial Integrity, a PAC
Texans for Justice, "a political action committee (PAC) that advocates for tort reform (with limits on the awards consumers may receive from companies in liability suits)."
Texas Justice Foundation, "a Texas Public Policy Foundation spin-off, advances a conservative agenda through the courts."
Texas Public Policy Foundation, in 1989, "using the Heritage Foundation as a model for a conservative 'think tank'."


Organizations Funded by Leininger:
American Family Association
Christian Pro-Life Foundation
Family Research Council
Focus on the Family
FreePAC
Heidi Group
Institute for Basic Life Principles
Republican National Coalition for Life PAC
San Antonio Christian Pro Life
The Justice Foundation


Business Affiliations:
The Beginner's Bible, "holds the trademark license" and to "its supplemental coloring books for children."
Focus Direct, Owner; "a direct mail company hired by conservative Republican candidates statewide – often with money Leininger has donated to them"; "Clients include Delta Airlines, Ralston-Purina, the Texas Republican Party, Oregon Public Radio, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)/Klan Watch, an Alabama-based nonprofit that monitors far-right, potentially violent groups."
Home Court America, Part owner; "San Antonio basketball and gymnasium facility located in the northwest suburbs."
Kinetic Concepts International (KCI), Third owner; "medical bed and supply company" sold and no longer publicly-held.
Mission City Food Co., Co-owner; "a parent company of Promised Land Dairy and other food-processing groups such as Sunday House smoked turkey."
Mission City Properties, Owner; "a San Antonio-based commercial real estate company. He houses many of his political action committees and other groups in these properties."
Mission City Television, "San Antonio company produces videotapes for commercials and other TV formats."
The Spurs, "Leininger holds an estimated 10% interest in the San Antonio basketball team."
Sunday House, Co-owner; "Fredericksburg company that makes and markets smoked turkeys."
TXN, started and/or financed "the failed 'The News of Texas', a 24-hour Texas news cable network."
Whole Foods private label milk.
Winning Strategies, controlling interest; "a political consulting company with a client list that includes the Christian Coalition."

There is another married couple who is similarly interested in Texas schools

[Lamuella]

Obviously, some of the lessons of Dover were not learned.

However, with the precedent set in Dover, this would be a walk at trial for a plaintiff.

[hammegk]

The only prededent set in Dover was that the current Behe-Dembski approach to support ID was not found to be defensible.

At some point, neo-Darwinism supporters may get an opportunity to explain in a court of law why it is not just another religion with a different priesthood. :p

[Lamuella]

I can answer that one:

Because it makes no claims about the spiritual whatsoever.

Did I get it right?

[strathmeyer]

I believe it only claims to make no claim.

[aerosolben]

At some point, neo-Darwinism supporters may get an opportunity to explain in a court of law why it is not just another religion with a different priesthood. :p
They may also get a chance to explain why gremlins are stealing socks out of my dryer. There was definitely a pair of them when they went in.

[Polaris]

I'll be registered to vote by November - I'll do my part to help kill this.

In the meantime, may Fred Phelps die of colo-rectal cancer.

[ca3799]

Thanks, Polaris.

My, what a squabbly group!!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The only prededent set in Dover was that the current Behe-Dembski approach to support ID was not found to be defensible.
Possibly so, but the Behe-Dembski approach was the only thing about ID that even pretended to be science. So now the IDers have either to say "We think it should be taught in science class ... just because," or they have to conjure up some new pseudoscience to support it. I don't think Dembski has another pseudoscientific approach in him, so they new a new guy.

~~ Paul

[blutoski]

The only prededent set in Dover was that the current Behe-Dembski approach to support ID was not found to be defensible.

At some point, neo-Darwinism supporters may get an opportunity to explain in a court of law why it is not just another religion with a different priesthood. :p

I think that's exactly what was demonstrated in several trials. Specifically: the 'equal time' trials where Creationism was put forward as evolution's equal. Or, more to the point, evolution was characterized as a pseudoreligion.

These cases all lost, because there is a set of tests that law in the US applies to theories in order to classify them as religious. Scientific theories sometimes conform to this test, and are described as religious: for example, Scientology passes the test, and can apply for tax breaks.

The Creationists were unable to convince the courts that evolutionary theory has sufficient religious elements to be considered a type of religion.



It should be pointed out that the Dover trial did not come to its ruling so much because ID was characterized as a religion, but because ID failed to demonstrate that it had any scientific validity. That is was obviously a religious scheme was informative and embarassing, but not pivotal.

[thaiboxerken]

Scientology isn't a scientific theory at all.

[Chaos]

Scientology isn't a scientific theory at all.

I don´t think that was the point.

The point - as I see it - is, the procedure for defining religions has made Scientology a religion, which it really isn´t - it´s a scam -, so it is apparently biased towards generating false positives. However, despite the propensity towards fals positives, evolution *still* didn´t pass, which, I think blutoski is trying to say, shows again that evolution is not a religion, claims to the contrary be damned.

[hammegk]

I think that's exactly what was demonstrated in several trials. Specifically: the 'equal time' trials where Creationism was put forward as evolution's equal.
You conflate "creationism" with ID. I'd posit that as time passes fewer and fewer of your opponents will do so.


Or, more to the point, evolution was characterized as a pseudoreligion.

I admit that is not what I understand from history including Dover.


Before the rude interruption:
Originally Posted by drkitten :
They got that opportunity already at Dover.

And in Epperson.

And McLean.

And Segraves.

And Edwards.

And Freiler.

And LeVake.

And....

So so far, the court has considered this argument seven times and found in favor of evolutionary theory seven times.

The Court has been known to change its mind, and iirc those cases all deemed creationism=Id=Religion. Do you think no other methods of attack exist?

POTUS refused to hear LeVake; I posit the question posed -- can teachers even mention weakpoints in neo-Darwinism -- will again be put to them.

[thaiboxerken]

ID is Creationism, Hammy. You may now STFU.

[wollery]

You conflate "creationism" with ID. I'd posit that as time passes fewer and fewer of your opponents will do so.It's a weasel move to try to say that ID is not the same as creationism. ID necessitates a designer of some kind. ID proponents may claim that they aren't speculating on what form that designer may have, but if it isn't God then it must be some being(s) equally as complex as humans, which must also have a designer, and so on ad nauseum. Either the Universe must be infinitely old, with an infinite series of designers, or Goddidit. Guess which IDers prefer. Ergo ID is creationism in a very thin disguise.

[hammegk]

Today, the courts agree with you. The Behe-Dembski approach doesn't convince me either.

You are of the opinion US courts will never be presented a viable alternative. I suggest future challenges will occur, and courts are increasingly willing to split hairs more and more finely.

This remains the cutting edge of two absolutely antithetical philosophies, although few seem to understand that, yet. The Texas School board's rehash of a stale approach is also doomed to fail, imo.

[drkitten]

You are of the opinion US courts will never be presented a viable alternative.


In the same sense that the US courts will never be presented with a viable alternative to the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease, yes.

I suggest future challenges will occur, and courts are increasingly willing to split hairs more and more finely.

Courts are willing to split hairs-- but only on the basis of reason and evidence.

There is no evidence against the theory of evolution, despite your protestations to the contrary.

There is no expectation of evidence against the theory of evolution, despite your protestations to the contrary.

There are not even any substantive weaknesses in the theory of evolution beyond those inherent in the scientific enterprise itself.

And if your expectations are that the courts will abandon the principles of reason and evidence in order to take a position hostile to science per se, I am comfortable dismising your expectations out of hand. Recent court decisions (see, in particular, Daubert and Kumho Tire) have shown the courts being more willing, not less, to recognize scientific epistemology as a preferred method of inquiry.

This remains the cutting edge of two absolutely antithetical philosophies

I understand that entirely. What you fail to understand that only one of those two "antithetical philosophies" has any evidentiary support whatsoever. There is no reason for the court to decide in any other way than in favor of the theory of evolution, nor do I expect such a reason to develop.

[Lamuella]

You conflate "creationism" with ID. I'd posit that as time passes fewer and fewer of your opponents will do so.


I think that the Dover case showed quite clearly that intelligent design was a cloaking device for creationism. Look at the book "Of Pandas And People". All it took to change it from a "creationism" textbook to an "intelligent design" textbook was a find-and-replace on a couple of key terms. Barbara Forrest showed that this was exactly what they had done. At times, they didn't even do this very well, as is shown by the infamous "cdesign proponentsists" (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html) draft of the book. The authors of Of Pandas And People and their financial backers clearly meant to change the name of their movement to "intelligent design" while doing nothing about what the movement actually stood for.

It's not a coincidence that "intelligent design" as a phrase was coined so quickly after Edwards v Aguillard. It was a rebranding of a movement, not a repositioning of its aims.

[Skeptic]

You conflate "creationism" with ID. I'd posit that as time passes fewer and fewer of your opponents will do so.

Well, creationism says that in the beginning, the Lord God had breathed the breath of life into the dust of the ground in order to make a living man.

ID, on the other hand, says that in some time in the remote past , an unnamed intelligent designer had created biological systems from inorganic material in order to, er, eventually evolve into a homo sapiens.

Obviously, these are two completely different systems with utterly different claims, and every relation between the two is completely coincidential.

[Lamuella]

the problem is that ID's position isn't even as clear as that. Not all of them accept common descent. Many ID advocates have the stated opinion that nothing evolved into humanity, man was instead designed in his current form.

[Blondin]

This remains the cutting edge of two absolutely antithetical philosophies, although few seem to understand that, yet. The Texas School board's rehash of a stale approach is also doomed to fail, imo.

But surely that is exactly what Dover and these other cases were about. Is it two antithetical philosophies or is it dogs vs bicycles?

Evolution is to science as ID is to not-science. If the discussion is about what to teach in science class then ...?

[lumos]

Thanks for the info! I'm a Texan and I'm tired of these ridiculously corrupt republicans getting very little accomplished that is beneficial to the state. What's been done over the past few years? Tom DeLay illegally redistricted the state and gerrymandered democrats out of office. Another republican tried to pass legislation to prevent cheerleaders from dancing! These idiots try to force there warped moral laws onto the population and these fools keep getting re-elected. (Then again, Ray Nagin just got re-elected and he is truly unqualified and has proven that, oh, and he's a racist.) The Texas govt. was doing this when they should have been restructuring the school funding as ordered by the state supreme court. I guess they feel that they are above the law. I could go on.

I'll do what I can to force these religious extremests from tromping on our constitutional right and vote for folks that won't force lies on our kids.

Do we have any valid alternavtive candidated to vote for?

[hammegk]

Evolution is to science as ID is to not-science. If the discussion is about what to teach in science class then ...?
Not what. How.

For example. Evolution assumes the existence of rna/dna life. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that examines the beginning of rna/dna life; although no life has yet been manufactured in the lab.

It is a fact that rna/dna life mutates and changes, and those changes are inheritable.

It is a fact that random genetic changes and random changes of environment are proposed as a mechanism that could explain all the life we see around us, and all lifeforms that have ever lived.

[Zbu]

Thanks for the info! I'm a Texan and I'm tired of these ridiculously corrupt republicans getting very little accomplished that is beneficial to the state. What's been done over the past few years? Tom DeLay illegally redistricted the state and gerrymandered democrats out of office. Another republican tried to pass legislation to prevent cheerleaders from dancing! These idiots try to force there warped moral laws onto the population and these fools keep getting re-elected. (Then again, Ray Nagin just got re-elected and he is truly unqualified and has proven that, oh, and he's a racist.) The Texas govt. was doing this when they should have been restructuring the school funding as ordered by the state supreme court. I guess they feel that they are above the law. I could go on.

I'll do what I can to force these religious extremests from tromping on our constitutional right and vote for folks that won't force lies on our kids.

Do we have any valid alternavtive candidated to vote for?

I keep getting the feeling that the only way to solve this is to just treat the stupid like the stupid. It's obvious that people who don't want to believe something 'just because' should get what's coming to them. If they don't like science, feel free to go ahead and shun medicine and die. You don't like the lack of good 'moral' people running your lives? Go shuffle off and die happily under some monarch while beating your chest about how gosh darn American you think you are. If you're too stupid to realize that anybody with a brain can hide behind a Bible and preach anything on the basis of some nonexistent American ideal just to play to your insecurities about aging and general change, then you deserve what you get.

Sorry, just had to vent.

[Blondin]

Not what. How.

For example. Evolution assumes the existence of rna/dna life. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that examines the beginning of rna/dna life; although no life has yet been manufactured in the lab.

It is a fact that rna/dna life mutates and changes, and those changes are inheritable.

It is a fact that random genetic changes and random changes of environment are proposed as a mechanism that could explain all the life we see around us, and all lifeforms that have ever lived.
Yes and those facts are the result of many years of gathering and analyzing data, observations and experiments. Formulating hypotheses, testing, modifying and all that. That's science. That's whould should be taught in science - the scientific method and scientific consensus. And it should be understood that it is only consensus and subject to modification.

ID is a story. It has no more business being taught in science classes than Maori creation mythology, Shakespeare or Grimm's fairy tales.

[HeyLeroy]

In the same sense that the US courts will never be presented with a viable alternative to the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease, yes.



Courts are willing to split hairs-- but only on the basis of reason and evidence.

There is no evidence against the theory of evolution, despite your protestations to the contrary.

There is no expectation of evidence against the theory of evolution, despite your protestations to the contrary.

There are not even any substantive weaknesses in the theory of evolution beyond those inherent in the scientific enterprise itself.

And if your expectations are that the courts will abandon the principles of reason and evidence in order to take a position hostile to science per se, I am comfortable dismising your expectations out of hand. Recent court decisions (see, in particular, Daubert and Kumho Tire) have shown the courts being more willing, not less, to recognize scientific epistemology as a preferred method of inquiry.



I understand that entirely. What you fail to understand that only one of those two "antithetical philosophies" has any evidentiary support whatsoever. There is no reason for the court to decide in any other way than in favor of the theory of evolution, nor do I expect such a reason to develop.

Well, creationism says that in the beginning, the Lord God had breathed the breath of life into the dust of the ground in order to make a living man.

ID, on the other hand, says that in some time in the remote past , an unnamed intelligent designer had created biological systems from inorganic material in order to, er, eventually evolve into a homo sapiens.

Obviously, these are two completely different systems with utterly different claims, and every relation between the two is completely coincidential.


:clap: :clap: :clap:

I love you guys! (In a non-Brokeback Mountain kinda way)

[hammegk]

Yes and those facts are the result of many years of gathering and analyzing data, observations and experiments.

So the inclusion of my words at beginning and end of each session teaching evolution would be acceptable, right?

" Evolution assumes the existence of rna/dna life. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that examines the beginning of rna/dna life; although no life has yet been manufactured in the lab.

It is a fact that rna/dna life mutates and changes, and those changes are inheritable.

It is a fact that random genetic changes and random changes of environment are proposed as a mechanism that could explain all the life we see around us, and all lifeforms that have ever lived. "

If not, why not?

[Pidge]

If not, why not?
I think you're making the same mistake those unfortunate ID'ers make, in confusing the meaning of "theory" in the context of science as being the same as its meaning in general use, which it isn't. The general meaning of "theory" is (barely) the equivalent of a scientific hypothesis. A scientific theory is a hyposthesis which has been repeatedly tested and verified, and is regarded as having been proved, although it may have corrections as new verified evidence comes to light, or superceeded (e.g. classical mechanics vs quantum mechanics and relativity), but it very, very rarely shown to be completely incorrect after its elevation to "theory".

Going by what you are wanting to have happen with classes on evolution, a similar statement should be invoked at the start of a class on ANY subject, science or otherwise.

In other words, redundant and a waste of the student's and teacher's time.

[hammegk]

Do you see the words 'theory' or 'hypothesis' in my statement? :)


Going by what you are wanting to have happen with classes on evolution, a similar statement should be invoked at the start of a class on ANY subject, science or otherwise.
Why would you think so? Do you sense controversy, or potential controversy, in other science courses -- or any courses --similar to the evolution hot-button?



In other words, redundant and a waste of the student's and teacher's time.
An opinion shared by a relatively small fraction of people who have children in school, sfaik.

[aerosolben]

So the inclusion of my words at beginning and end of each session teaching evolution would be acceptable, right?
When controversy in a particular class is expected, it would be better if the teacher reserves some time to answer students questions about the sceince of evolution. This allows answers to be given with context (something your statement largely lacks). For example, to the uninitiated, your statement about abiogenesis may sound like it's just being made up, and your use of the word proposed makes it appear as if there significant controversy (in the scientific community) - neither of which is the case.

Everything else should come up as part of the class anyway. Given that, reading such a statement is worthless and a waste of time.

[Roadtoad]

I started to read this thread. And there are a few times when I actually do enjoy reading Hammegk's remarks, and there are a few times when I agree with him.

This time, it's neither.

I should have known better. :hb:

[Pidge]

Do you see the words 'theory' or 'hypothesis' in my statement? :)
By golly, you're right! I think I may unconciously insterted it after "Evolution" ala the silly sticker in biology text books fiasco.

I'm trying to see where you are coming from. Maybe I've missed something somewhere else in the thread.


Evolution assumes the existence of rna/dna life.
My goodness, Evolution is really going out on a limb here, isn't it. There's not many of those rna/dna lifeforms scurrying around.

oh, wait, hang on a minute...

That statement is seems to me like saying arithmetic assumes 1+1=2. It's quite a fundamental statement one could learn by wrote. Admittedly, it would also make for a very good evolution exam question topic.


Abiogenesis is the scientific field that examines the beginning of rna/dna life; although no life has yet been manufactured in the lab
Sorry, Scientists don't have a spare billion or two years and a planet to replicate what has apparently already occurred. We might be able try to provide a more conducive environments in a lab to hurry those molecules to get their jiggy on, but somehow I think having an entire planet and a billion years handy might get results faster.

How about this, we go get a Creator or Designer to whip up another Earth complete with life while we watch. Does that sound like a fair comparison?


it is a fact that rna/dna life mutates and changes, and those changes are inheritable.

It is a fact that random genetic changes and random changes of environment are proposed as a mechanism that could explain all the life we see around us, and all lifeforms that have ever lived.

Let me see, you're getting this readout in a each class being taught evolutionary theory, right? It's a science class? If the students have no idea about the scientific method, those statements make sense to deliver. If they do know about the scientific method, it's an insult to their intelligence, if you need to repeat them.

BUT, all the above aside, they are a very good statement of the current state of Evolutionary Theory and Abiogenesis for the ill-informed.

[hammegk]

When controversy in a particular class is expected, it would be better if the teacher reserves some time to answer students questions about the sceince of evolution. ....

Everything else should come up as part of the class anyway. Given that, reading such a statement is worthless and a waste of time.
An opinion shared by most here, the courts at the moment, and few of the citizenry with a dog in the fight.

Were I you I'd pretend there is no problem except from a bunch of dummies who know no better, too. :)

BUT, all the above aside, they are a very good statement of the current state of Evolutionary Theory and Abiogenesis for the ill-informed.
Yes, I know. All those who are not Bright.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Evolution assumes the existence of rna/dna life. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that examines the beginning of rna/dna life; although no life has yet been manufactured in the lab.
This is simply wrong. Here is what evolution assumes:

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

---Marvin Minsky
Abiogenesis investigates the beginning of life from, uh, the beginning. I have actual books with actual articles about life other than RNA/DNA life.


It is a fact that random genetic changes and random changes of environment are proposed as a mechanism that could explain all the life we see around us, and all lifeforms that have ever lived.
This is misleading, as usual, since the selection of the random genetic changes is not random with respect to the random environmental changes.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Were I you I'd pretend there is no problem except from a bunch of dummies who know no better, too.
I don't pretend there is no problem. What is the problem?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

This is simply wrong. Here is what evolution assumes:
Sorry you didn't understand the second single sentence paragraph.


Abiogenesis investigates the beginning of life from, uh, the beginning. I have actual books with actual articles about life other than RNA/DNA life.
And ???


This is misleading, as usual, since the selection of the random genetic changes is not random with respect to the random environmental changes.
Nor did I say it was.


What is the problem?
Your comprehension. Maybe? :confused: :D ;) :)

[athon]

I started to read this thread. And there are a few times when I actually do enjoy reading Hammegk's remarks, and there are a few times when I agree with him.

This time, it's neither.

I should have known better. :hb:

It's just sad that there's always somebody new who doesn't know any better who actually starts to argue with him.

Same old rhetoric, same old nonsense. Why people feed him is beyond me.

Athon

[hammegk]

It's just sad that there's always somebody new who doesn't know any better who actually starts to argue with him.

Same old rhetoric, same old nonsense. Why people feed him is beyond me.

Athon
Or, stated the correct way, my position hasn't changed, and you and other toadies don't agree with it. :)

[Mojo]

The problem is that it hasn't changed despite the evidence that has been pointed out to you.

[hammegk]

The real problem -- for you, not me -- is that alternative interpretations of given facts can be possible.

The last facts I learned -- assuming I understood them -- re terran life is that all forms of it demonstrate the same chirality, although many combinations of chirality exist in non-living substances.

The standard model says "see, common ancestor proven -- fact". I just note other interpretations also fit those facts. That is, terran life is rna/dna based.

[nescafe]

The last facts I learned -- assuming I understood them -- re terran life is that all forms of it demonstrate the same chirality, although many combinations of chirality exist in non-living substances.

The standard model says "see, common ancestor proven -- fact". I just note other interpretations also fit those facts. That is, terran life is rna/dna based.

I do not think that the standard model says "see, common ancestor proven -- fact". Rather, I think it says something like this: "Given the N different ways that the various nucleic acids could have formed RNA/DNA analouges, and the M different ways that the amino acids could have been mapped onto the DNA base-pair triplets that code for them, and that out of the over 500 known amino acids only 20 are coded for by those DNA base-pair triplets, the fact that the overwhelming majority of lifeforms on this planet use one specific combination of the above factors strongly suggests that all life on this planet has a last common ancestor".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Sorry you didn't understand the second single sentence paragraph.
What does that have to do with your first paragraph being wrong:

Evolution assumes the existence of rna/dna life. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that examines the beginning of rna/dna life; although no life has yet been manufactured in the lab.


And ???
And so your above statement about abiogenesis is incorrect.


Nor did I say it was.
I didn't say that you did. I said that your statement is misleading:

It is a fact that random genetic changes and random changes of environment are proposed as a mechanism that could explain all the life we see around us, and all lifeforms that have ever lived.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

What does that have to do with your first paragraph being wrong:
Just that it isn't, unless you care to interpret it so.


And so your above statement about abiogenesis is incorrect.
In the sense you disagree with it.


I didn't say that you did. I said that your statement is misleading:

Guilty. For the uninformed, most statements are misleading ... like the statement "neo-Darwinism is a fact".


nescafe: Who would have a problem with your carefully-worded statement? I don't.

[Mojo]

I do not think that the standard model says "see, common ancestor proven -- fact". He loves those strawmen, doesn't he?

[hammegk]

Oh good. You agree it isn't a fact. That's progress.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Just that it isn't, unless you care to interpret it so.
You said:

Evolution assumes the existence of rna/dna life. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that examines the beginning of rna/dna life; although no life has yet been manufactured in the lab.
That's wrong. Neither evolution nor abiogenesis has to assume the existence of RNA/DNA life from the get-go.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

For possible life, elsewhere in the universe, you could be right. For known life on earth, you're wrong.

[Admiral]

Oh good. You agree it isn't a fact. That's progress.

Do we really have to go through the "what the word 'theory' means in science" dance? And the "theories in science don't 'become facts'" speech?

Seriously, get informed. Evolution is a theory. So is the theory of relativity, atomic theory, germ theory, and quantum theory. It is the basis of entire fields of biology.

Take a look at

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Evolution_is_just_a_Theory.


Seriously.

[SezMe]

The last facts I learned -- assuming I understood them -- re terran life is that all forms of it demonstrate the same chirality, although many combinations of chirality exist in non-living substances.
I don't understand this. Dictionary.com defines chirality as, "Of or relating to the structural characteristic of a molecule that makes it impossible to superimpose it on its mirror image."

I get that. But I don't get your statement in light of that definition. Or do you have your own meaning?

[hammegk]

Just the usual definition. Do a search for posts over the last month; it's a topic of recent discussion.

Do we really have to go through the "what the word 'theory' means in science" dance? And the "theories in science don't 'become facts'" speech?
Nope. Not for me. Just for the kiddies introductory science courses, and continuing onward through their educations.

And stop the un-informed preachers of scientism from parroting "Evolution is a Fact" every chance they get.




Seriously.


eta: spel-chek error

[Mojo]

And stop the uniformed preachers of scientism from parroting "Evolution is a Fact" every chance they get. Nice red uniforms?

[hammegk]

Whoops. Damn spel-cheker.

Uniformed, uninformed ... only one letter wrong ... ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

For possible life, elsewhere in the universe, you could be right. For known life on earth, you're wrong.
So all the researchers doing work on the origin of life before RNA/DNA are working on the planet Neptune?

Sometimes I don't even know what the hell you're talking about, Hammy.

~~ Paul

[Overman]

Early ID texts had the words creation and creationism all thru them until they realized this was bad strategy...It is the same.

[hammegk]

So all the researchers doing work on the origin of life before RNA/DNA are working on the planet Neptune?
Until they arrive at "living" stuff that isn't rna.dna, farther afield than that.

Sometimes I don't even know what the hell you're talking about, Hammy.

~~ Paul
Agreed. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Hammy won't give credence to abiogenesis theory until a living being is created in the lab. Actually, at that point, he'll move goalposts and say something to the affect of "now create life from nothing."

[hammegk]

Hammy won't give credence to abiogenesis theory until a living being is created in the lab.
How would you rate a theory of abiogenesis that does not provide at least that much evidence of usefulness?


Actually, at that point, he'll move goalposts and say something to the affect of "now create life from nothing."
I'd have to actually see the experiment to comment on it; but since I tend to consider "nothing itsself" as "life", you may be right. :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How would you rate a theory of abiogenesis that does not provide at least that much evidence of usefulness?
Same way I'd rate any other historical science.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

I'd think the butterfly collections were more useful.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can't make a universe, either. I guess that blows off cosmology.

~~ Paul

[thaiboxerken]

If you can't create a star in a lab, then a god must've made them.<--- this is Hammy's logic.

[hammegk]

Y'all might even think those are valid analogies. They're not. Do the words "category error" mean anything to you?

[wollery]

Y'all might even think those are valid analogies. They're not. Do the words "category error" mean anything to you?Actually the star formation analogy is ideal.

We've never seen a star form. We can look at clouds of interstellar gas and say, "well they have all the right constituents". We can look at infra-red emitting dense clouds and say, "well, according to our theories a cloud that has collapsed under self-gravity to the point where hydrogen fusion occurs in its core should look something like that". We can measure atomic abundances and surface gravities and say, "That star formed before that star and is X billion years old". We can't form a star in the lab and nobody has ever actually seen star formation, from interstellar cloud to main-sequence. It's all theory and models. Excellent theory, and models that produce results that we see reflected in nature.

Likewise, nobody has seen abiogenesis. They've produced basic amino acids (see Miller-Urey), and they have good evidence that the early conditions on the Earth were right for such experiments to be valid. We also know with a fair degree of certainty that life came to exist on Earth. Beyond that it's theory and models.

Category Error? I think not.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Y'all might even think those are valid analogies. They're not. Do the words "category error" mean anything to you?
They didn't mean anything to me last time you used them, and you did not deign to explain them. Care to this time?

~~ Paul

[jj]

They didn't mean anything to me last time you used them, and you did not deign to explain them. Care to this time?

~~ Paul

It means that he doesn't want to deal with the evidence, Paul.

[hammegk]

It means that he doesn't want to deal with the evidence, Paul.
More irrelevant jj noise.

from WikipediaThe term category mistake was introduced by Gilbert Ryle in his definitive work The Concept of Mind to remove what he argued to be a confusion over the nature of mind born from Cartesian metaphysics. It was alleged to be a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of substance are not meaningful for a collection of dispositions and capacities.

Another frequently occurring category mistake was revealed by John Searle in his "Chinese Room" argument. With the creation of the "chessmaster" computer, many were discussing whether a computer could actually understand language even if it could play chess and carry on a casual conversation. Searle argues that understanding language is not a capacity that a computer could possibly have. He compares it to a person in a room of Chinese boxes with Chinese symbols on them. He is given a manual on how to manipulate the symbols to send them out of the room (output). All the while new symbols are being sent in for him to manipulate (input). It is argued that in the same way that computer does not understand as it cannot understand.


So as usual, beauty and meaning are in the mind of the beholder.

wollery apparently thinks stars have the same characteristics as life, and if he's a real physicalist, why not?

Idealists see the monism 'mind' be effected/affected by the various epiphenomena we perceive as matter, and different structures yield different results. Stars are not "life" in terran form seems to require rna/dna and earth-like conditions.

I have no idea if a star is alive in some way that suits a star, but I'm not waiting expectantly for the first man-to-star-to-man intellectual discussion. I still have hopes for some of you, kind readers.

[EBU]

I'm new here, but I don't see how the term "category error" as defined here applies to the previous arguments. No one claimed that stars could think or were alive. The formation of stars was used as an ANALOGY for the formation of life. Things that are analogous are not supposed to be exactly the same. You may claim that it's an improper analogy, I suppose, because the formation of life is special in some way. I gather that is what the argument is all about? This guy won't accept conjectures about the formation of life unless someone creates life in a lab. But he's OK with conjectures about the formation of stars, even if they can't be created in a lab -- and the reason is that stars aren't alive and life is, well, alive?

I guess being alive is really special (it is to me, anyhow), but is it so special that scientific methods that apply to other disciplines don't apply?

[hammegk]

Apply the principles of scientific reductionism to "life". Let us know what you find when you re-assemble it. ;)

[wollery]

Hammegk, your argument was that abiogenesis hasn't been shown to work in a lab, and that a comparison with something like star formation was spurious. I pointed out why this was wrong.

Are you now saying that life is a special case and therefore can't be treated the same?

That makes your job very easy doesn't it, because if life is a special case then there can be no reasonable analogy, and you can just keep saying "category error" to any analogy that's offered. No need to look for any real flaws that the analogy might have, no need to actually think about anything.

Well I'll give you something else to think about. As a true materialist (physicalist if you must) I see that life on Earth is inextricably linked to the stars. The stuff we are made of was produced in the fusion reactions in their cores, and the explosions of supernovae. We are all made of stardust. The formation of the Sun from a spinning cloud of dust also lead to the formation of the Earth and the other planets. The Sun heats the Earth and makes life possible. The Sun was born of the gas and dust that other stars threw back out into space in their death throes. The Earth was born of the heavier material that didn't settle into the centre of the rotating gas cloud. And life was born of the chemical soup that swirled on and above the cooling surface of the newly formed Earth.

Stars are born and they die, and in between they go through changes. They contribute to the birth of other stars. They come in all shapes and sizes. Some stars never quite make it, and they just slowly fade to blackness. Others shine brilliantly brightly for just a short period of time. Many exist in pairs or groups, sometimes sharing or exchanging the very material that they are made of.

If these aren't analogies for life then I don't know what is.

[hammegk]

So far, the answer remains "nothing is analogous to life".

[wollery]

So far, the answer remains "nothing is analogous to life".From dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/);

a·nal·o·gy Audio pronunciation of "analogy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nl-j)
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

1.
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
Which part of that don't you understand?

[nescafe]

quote of the Chinese Room thought experiment snipped


Ah, the good old Chinese Room argument. What happens to it if/when we map and understand how language is produced in the brain, and then code that understanding into a computer (essentially giving it a deep grammar, to steal an idea from Chomski)?

More to the point, what would your argument be if/when we understand the biochemical basis of life well enough to create some of our own? (referring to the reductionist side of the argument, not the abiogenesis side)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Stars are born and they die, and in between they go through changes. They contribute to the birth of other stars. They come in all shapes and sizes. Some stars never quite make it, and they just slowly fade to blackness. Others shine brilliantly brightly for just a short period of time. Many exist in pairs or groups, sometimes sharing or exchanging the very material that they are made of.
Oh pshaw! Next you'll be trying to convince us that populations of stars might actually evolve.

http://www.sofia.usra.edu/Edu/science/sci_opport_galaxies.html

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Er, yes, the evolutionary cycles of cosmology have precise math to predict them. Values of some required input variables are still being searched for.

A neo-Darwinist's wetdream would be a similar state of understanding for his data points.


Ah, the good old Chinese Room argument. What happens to it if/when we map and understand how language is produced in the brain, and then code that understanding into a computer (essentially giving it a deep grammar, to steal an idea from Chomski)?
Feel free to steal anything from Chimpsky. In the world of reality it's worthless.


More to the point, what would your argument be if/when we understand the biochemical basis of life well enough to create some of our own? (referring to the reductionist side of the argument, not the abiogenesis side)
I've suggested the answer elsewhere numerous times. Before I regurgitate it here, please advise where the line exists separating "life" from "non-life".

[nescafe]

I've suggested the answer elsewhere numerous times. Before I regurgitate it here, please advise where the line exists separating "life" from "non-life".

The distinction is one of definition -- there no dividing line between life and non-life outside of those we use to categorize things as living or nonliving. From a real-world point of view, we are just mindbogglingly complex autocatalytic chemical reactions.

[Lamuella]

So the inclusion of my words at beginning and end of each session teaching evolution would be acceptable, right?

" Evolution assumes the existence of rna/dna life. Abiogenesis is the scientific field that examines the beginning of rna/dna life; although no life has yet been manufactured in the lab.

It is a fact that rna/dna life mutates and changes, and those changes are inheritable.

It is a fact that random genetic changes and random changes of environment are proposed as a mechanism that could explain all the life we see around us, and all lifeforms that have ever lived. "

If not, why not?

OK, I'll accept that, if you accept the following words at the start of every history class that mentions World War II:

" Talking about the holocaust assumes the existence of Nazi death camps. Much has been written on camps such as Auschuitz and Treblinka, although exact figures as to the number said to have died in these camps have not been given.

It is a fact that the Jewish population of the world shrank between the start of the 1930s and the end of the 1940s.

It is a fact that the existence of death camps and gas chambers is presented as a mechanism by which this pupulation shrinkage could have occurred. "

and the following at the start of every class that talks about the solar system:

" Heliocentrism assumes that the earth revolves around the sun. Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of relativity propose a model of the movement of objects such as planets, although there is no unified law to explain the motion of all bodies in motion.

It is a fact that Jupiter has moons which are not consistent with the Aristotelean geocentric model of the universe.

It is a fact that the attraction of masses to each other is proposed as a mechanism that could explain the motion of planets and stars. "

[hammegk]

So you choose to characterize discussion on neo-Darwinism as having the same merit as holocaust denial and settled astronomy? If so, you are a dunce.



From a real-world point of view, we are just mindbogglingly complex autocatalytic chemical reactions.
The truth of that is assumption is what we are discussing.

[Chaos]

So you choose to characterize discussion on neo-Darwinism as having the same merit as holocaust denial and settled astronomy? If so, you are a dunce.
*snip*

Holocaust deniers use exactly the same tactics you do, and their "arguments" have exactly the same merit yours have - none.

[Lamuella]

So you choose to characterize discussion on neo-Darwinism as having the same merit as holocaust denial and settled astronomy? If so, you are a dunce.

aside from obfuscatory existential flimflam, what difference exists between the amount of evidence in favor of heliocentrism and the amount of evidence in favour of the current model of evolutionary biology?

[Kiwiwriter]

So...back to the basics....penmanship, football, home economics, flag-waving, and baton twirling.

And people have trouble understanding why we have shortages of scientists and inventors...and intelligent people in government and business. :boggled:

[hammegk]

aside from obfuscatory existential flimflam, what difference exists between the amount of evidence in favor of heliocentrism and the amount of evidence in favour of the current model of evolutionary biology?
First, the ability to predict the future. "Change happens" is not very satisfactory as a testable prediction imo.


"the current model of evolutionary biology" ... LOL.

How many changes will be made on yesterday's just-so-story based on today's new facts? The fact that there exists a large amount of evidence that favors neo-Darwinism does not make neo-D a fact. Do you suggest heliocentrism is anything but a fact?

History and the actual, specific, 'facts' are another problem, I'll admit. The holocaust in that sense is another just-so-story. Deny it if you wish; today and the future remain.

[Lamuella]

let me revise my question slightly, as you seem to have decided to stick with obfuscatory flimflam

what difference exists between the amount of evidence in favor of the current model of the solar system and the amount of evidence in favour of the current model of evolutionary biology?

[hammegk]

Worry about the specificity and predictive usefulness of the models; your 'amount of evidence' ploy is the obfuscation.

[nescafe]

The truth of that is assumption is what we are discussing.

If we are talking about truth in a mathematical or logical sense, then that statement can only ever be provisionally true -- just like anything else.

However, it is consistent with physical law (as we know it), supported by a huge amount of evidence, and it does not introduce any needless entities, so what is not to like?

Without resorting to unfalsifiability, what explanation should we accept?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Er, yes, the evolutionary cycles of cosmology have precise math to predict them. Values of some required input variables are still being searched for.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention as the mathematics of evolution progresses:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/NOWEVO.html

Of course, if you are looking for perfect predictability, then you'll have to blow off biology, geology, economics, climatology, and numerous other sciences as well.


I've suggested the answer elsewhere numerous times. Before I regurgitate it here, please advise where the line exists separating "life" from "non-life".
Nowhere.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention as the mathematics of evolution progresses:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/NOWEVO.html

From link:
Evolution has become a mathematical theory, Nowak suggests, and any idea of an evolutionary process or mechanism should be studied in the context of the mathematical equations of evolutionary dynamics. His book presents a range of analytical tools that can be used to this end: fitness landscapes, mutation matrices, genomic sequence space, random drift, quasispecies, replicators, the Prisoner's Dilemma, games in finite and infinite populations, evolutionary graph theory, games on grids, evolutionary kaleidoscopes, fractals, and spatial chaos. Nowak then shows how evolutionary dynamics applies to critical real-world problems, including the progression of viral diseases such as AIDS, the virulence of infectious agents, the unpredictable mutations that lead to cancer, the evolution of altruism, and even the evolution of human language.
A good suggestion, no doubt. ;)


Of course, if you are looking for perfect predictability, then you'll have to blow off biology, geology, economics, climatology, and numerous other sciences as well.
Nope. Perfection is unattainable sfaik. I do not write off biology or geology but note they have their own problems, poor recognition of catastrophism very evident. Both are of course part and parcel of neo-Darwinism.

Economics and climatology haven't even reached the butterfly collection stage imo. :)



Nowhere.

We agree.

You, "life", postulate "non-life" is the actual existent. I stick with "life".


However, it is consistent with physical law (as we know it), supported by a huge amount of evidence, and it does not introduce any needless entities, so what is not to like?

Without resorting to unfalsifiability, what explanation should we accept?
See answer above. Who introduces a needless entity?

[nescafe]

Nowhere.


We agree.

You, "life", postulate "non-life" is the actual existent. I stick with "life".


However, it is consistent with physical law (as we know it), supported by a huge amount of evidence, and it does not introduce any needless entities, so what is not to like?

Without resorting to unfalsifiability, what explanation should we accept?


See answer above. Who introduces a needless entity?

So your position is that everything is alive, as opposed to nothing is alive. What a wonderfully.... meaningless position to take, given that we appear to agree that there is no innate distinction between life and non-life to begin with. You appear to be just deliberatly annoying.

*plonk*

[Roadtoad]

So...back to the basics....penmanship, football, home economics, flag-waving, and baton twirling.

And people have trouble understanding why we have shortages of scientists and inventors...and intelligent people in government and business. :boggled:

And then you have guys like me who WANT to go back to school to become engineers and the like... And we can't go. We're too f***ing old.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A good suggestion, no doubt.
Ah, yes, critique by harping on one word ("suggests") from a description of a book. Deep.


You, "life", postulate "non-life" is the actual existent. I stick with "life".
I don't postulate either as the "actual existent," since I just said that there is no demarcation point between non-life and life. They are just two arbitrary points on a spectrum of existence.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Ah, yes, critique by harping on one word ("suggests") from a description of a book. Deep.
I suspect we agree deeper criticisms can be made, even if not by me. I admit I have no interest in reading another learned tome based on a physicalist worldview and used to "Prove" a physicalist worldview is the correct one.


I don't postulate either as the "actual existent," since I just said that there is no demarcation point between non-life and life. They are just two arbitrary points on a spectrum of existence.

~~ Paul
I.E. Don't worry! Be Happy! :)

[fuelair]

OK, hammegk is being silly (I assume from his commentary he is intelligent enough to not actually fall for this). I assume he is arguing because he has plenty of time to do so and enjoys it (I don't and don't so I'm not - repeats of arguments over and over get boring). I'll check back later on how the thread is going. Vote out the anti-evolutionists!!!!!!Get them useful jobs shoveling excrement.

[hammegk]

OK, hammegk is being silly (I assume from his commentary he is intelligent enough to not actually fall for this).
I suspect I can defend physicalism if I chose to. Finding the capability of "choice" in that worldview over and beyond compatabilism -- your pc has that much "choice" -- is a problem.


I assume he is arguing because he has plenty of time to do so and enjoys it ...
;)


Vote out the anti-evolutionists!!!!!!Get them useful jobs shoveling excrement.
Some may think that's what they are already doing as they examine the bits and pieces that comprise neo-Darwinism. :p

[drkitten]

Worry about the specificity and predictive usefulness of the models; your 'amount of evidence' ploy is the obfuscation.

In other words, you've been caught with your evidence around your ankles yet again.

[hammegk]

I didn't realize anyone here was silly enough to interpret it that way. Thanks.

[strathmeyer]

I didn't realize anyone here was silly enough to interpret it that way. Thanks.

How are we supposed to interpret someone who never explains themself?

[Lamuella]

Worry about the specificity and predictive usefulness of the models; your 'amount of evidence' ploy is the obfuscation.

Hammy, is it biologically possible for you to answer a question?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I admit I have no interest in reading another learned tome based on a physicalist worldview and used to "Prove" a physicalist worldview is the correct one.
What?! It's a book about "Exploring the Equations of Life" (to steal the subtitle). I don't think Martin Nowak wrote it as any proof of the physicalist worldview.

Are you suggesting that the idealist worldview has no math to support it?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Lammy, yes.

But not when they are as meaningless as "what difference exists between the amount of evidence in favor of the current model of the solar system and the amount of evidence in favour of the current model of evolutionary biology?".


Paul, math favors neither worldview, and supports objective idealism equally well as it supports physicalism. Math works even for dualists... :p

And Novak may or may not have been doing so. You are attempting to, imo.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, math favors neither worldview, and supports objective idealism equally well as it supports physicalism. Math works even for dualists...
Then why did you say that Nowak was trying to prove physicalism?

And Novak may or may not have been doing so. You are attempting to, imo.
The only thing I cheer for is scientific epistemology. Help yourself to any ontology that rocks your boat.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Then why did you say that Nowak was trying to prove physicalism?
Perhaps that isn't the meaning of "I admit I have no interest in reading another learned tome based on a physicalist worldview and used to "Prove" a physicalist worldview is the correct one.".


The only thing I cheer for is scientific epistemology. Help yourself to any ontology that rocks your boat.

I cheer for scientific epistemology too. Nothing better exists to answer specific questions about many aspects of reality.

I don't agree to discard ontological aspects that may, or may not, effect/affect reality.

[Lamuella]

Lammy, yes.

But not when they are as meaningless as "what difference exists between the amount of evidence in favor of the current model of the solar system and the amount of evidence in favour of the current model of evolutionary biology?".


How is that meaningless?

Do you accept that there is a certain quantifiable weight of evidence in favour of the current model of the solar system?

Do you accept that there is a certain quantifiable weight of evidence in favour of the current model of evolutionary biology?

[hammegk]

Y'all like analogies; here's one.
The solar system model is a perfect pure-white diamond. Neo-Darwinism is a several-solar-systems-size pile of manure, with fresh manure being added constantly.

[Lamuella]

and you are biologically incapable of answering a direct question. Thank you for confirming.

[hammegk]

double post...whoops

[hammegk]

I did answer one that you asked. Ans: "Lammy, yes." :)

Ask another actual question and I'll answer it, too.


As to "quantifiable", you mistake quantity for quality.

[Lamuella]

translation: if I ask another question you're confortable with answering, you'll do so. Understood.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps that isn't the meaning of "I admit I have no interest in reading another learned tome based on a physicalist worldview and used to "Prove" a physicalist worldview is the correct one.".
Well, certainly no one else was using it to prove a physicalist worldview, so you have me stymied, as usual.


I don't agree to discard ontological aspects that may, or may not, effect/affect reality.
Huh?


The solar system model is a perfect pure-white diamond. Neo-Darwinism is a several-solar-systems-size pile of manure, with fresh manure being added constantly.
Those are really metaphors, not analogies.

~~ Paul

[wollery]

Y'all like analogies; here's one.
The solar system model is a perfect pure-white diamond. Neo-Darwinism is a several-solar-systems-size pile of manure, with fresh manure being added constantly.Which merely serves to show how little you know about the state of planet formation theory. Of the two theories, I think that evolution has more data points, more evidence, and better models.

Nobody has yet managed to produce a single coherent model that can create a planetary system that resembles ours. Mostly they look like the sorts of systems that have so far been discovered by the various planet search projects, i.e. relatively close orbiting massive gas giants. So far we only know of one planetary system that looks like ours, and that's, um, ours! One data point for Solar system like systems. That's extremely low signal to noise!

Evolution, on the other hand, has vast numbers of data points. Fossils that display smooth transitions from early homonids to modern man, evidence of feathered structures on apparently flightless dinosaurs, and the list goes on. It's not a mathematical model, but it's pretty well understood.

[hammegk]

Which merely serves to show how little you know about the state of planet formation theory.
Or how carefully you read. :)


Of the two theories, I think that evolution has more data points, more evidence, and better models.
The diamond concerns the current heliocentic model as opposed to earlier models.

I agree that cosmology is in as sad shape as neo-Darwinism, and has even less chance of penetrating the big-bang curtain than neo-D has of building "life" from scratch in a necessary and sufficient manner. Not to mention all that missing matter/energy, etcetc.

So far we only know of one planetary system that looks like ours, and that's, um, ours! One data point for Solar system like systems. That's extremely low signal to noise!
Similar to terran "life", huh?


Evolution, on the other hand, has vast numbers of data points. Fossils that display smooth transitions from early homonids to modern man, evidence of feathered structures on apparently flightless dinosaurs, and the list goes on. It's not a mathematical model, but it's pretty well understood.
Makes a good story, that's for sure. ;)

[wollery]

Or how carefully you read. :)If you were referring purely to the heliocentric model and not to the formation of the Solar system then you should have said so.

The diamond concerns the current heliocentic model as opposed to earlier models.Yes, it's amazing how specific you have to be in order to avoid your analogy being a load of crap. So what you're really saying here is that science progresses and works out the answers. Thank you Newton, Kepler and Einstein, your hard work has shown us that answers can be found by perseverence.

I agree that cosmology is in as sad shape as neo-Darwinism, and has even less chance of penetrating the big-bang curtain than neo-D has of building "life" from scratch in a necessary and sufficient manner. Not to mention all that missing matter/energy, etcetc.As far as I recall, Darwinism, neo-Darwinism or even evolutionary theory have absolutely nothing to say about building life from scratch. But then, talking about abiogenesis would rather dent your ability to make scornful offhand remarks, wouldn't it.

Similar to terran "life", huh?Yes, but we're looking, not just saying, "We've never seen any other examples, God musta dun it!"

Makes a good story, that's for sure. ;)Better than yours, that's for sure. :p

[hammegk]

If you were referring purely to the heliocentric model and not to the formation of the Solar system then you should have said so.
Hmm. I didn't bring up the heliocentric model, just commented after it had been mentioned. And of course I should work out the evolution of the solar system from t=0, although neo-Darwinists do admit when pressed that they require working life as their starting point. I.E. I just started from a "working solar system". Bad me, huh?


Yes, it's amazing how specific you have to be in order to avoid your analogy being a load of crap. So what you're really saying here is that science progresses and works out the answers. Thank you Newton, Kepler and Einstein, your hard work has shown us that answers can be found by perseverence.
I realize you'd like to compare biochemistry and neo-Darwinism to the pristine glory of hard physics. That's why I trotted out my comparison.


As far as I recall, Darwinism, neo-Darwinism or even evolutionary theory have absolutely nothing to say about building life from scratch.
See, we do agree on something.


But then, talking about abiogenesis would rather dent your ability to make scornful offhand remarks, wouldn't it.
Huh?

Yes, but we're looking, not just saying, "We've never seen any other examples, God musta dun it!"
Nor did I.

Better than yours, that's for sure. :p
Now if you just had enough Brights to convince parents and school-boards of that you'd be home free. :)

[wollery]

Hmm. I didn't bring up the heliocentric model, just commented after it had been mentioned. Fair enough.

And of course I should work out the evolution of the solar system from t=0, although neo-Darwinists do admit when pressed that they require working life as their starting point. I.E. I just started from a "working solar system". Bad me, huh?Evolutionary scientists need no pressing to admit that. It isn't part of their science so it rarely gets mentioned up front, but it is an implicit requirement of evolutionary theory that there be extant life in order for life to evolve. It's the ID proponents that keep bringing that particular strawman into the argument. And you of course, you were the one who said that neo-Darwinists had no hope of explaining how life evolved from scratch. They don't try to, that's an entirely separate science, with some fairly good laboratory experimentation to back it up.

I realize you'd like to compare biochemistry and neo-Darwinism to the pristine glory of hard physics. That's why I trotted out my comparison.In as much as they're all sciences, yes.

See, we do agree on something.I'm sure that we would agree on a great many things, if only we ever got round to discussing them.

Huh?

Nor did I.Sorry, Ad hominems, I'll try to refrain myself in future.

Now if you just had enough Brights to convince parents and school-boards of that you'd be home free. :)Doesn't require many, just one to stand in front of the judge and point out that science class should contain science, not religious pseudoscience dressed up as real science. Thus far it's been more than sufficient, and I see no reason why it won't continue to be so. People in the US are free to believe what they want, they just aren't allowed to force thier religion on other people, which is what they're trying to do.

[hammegk]

Doesn't require many, just one to stand in front of the judge and point out that science class should contain science, not religious pseudoscience dressed up as real science.
Agreed.


Thus far it's been more than sufficient, and I see no reason why it won't continue to be so.
Different judges, perhaps?


People in the US are free to believe what they want, they just aren't allowed to force thier religion on other people, ....
We agree ... except the understanding of what "religion" means in today's society has changed for more and more people as time goes by. :)

Some of you seem to think only the Constitution is "living".

[jstro]

First, the ability to predict the future. "Change happens" is not very satisfactory as a testable prediction imo.


Predict the future? Since when has the ability to "predict the future" become a requirement of scientific investigation? Yes, the capability of producing predictions (i.e., hypotheses) that may be tested is a necessary quality of a scientific theory, and the TOE is chock full of such which are not so vague and ambiguous as "change happens". They are quite specific, actually, as they should be. But there is no such requirement that predictions be of a chronological nature. People unfamiliar with science tend to confuse the layman's concept of "prediction" with the scientific definition.