← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge
Thread ID: 12625 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2004-03-03
2004-03-03 02:25 | User Profile
[SIZE=5]Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about design[/SIZE]
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue]1. DESIGN DETECTION.[/COLOR] [/SIZE][/B]
If the universe, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how could we know it?
Do reliable methods for detecting design exist? What are they?
Are such methods employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis? Could they conceivably detect design in biological systems?
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue]2. RELEVANCE OF SETI.[/COLOR] [/SIZE][/B]
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research program that searches for signs of non-human intelligence from distant space.
Should biologists likewise search for signs of non-human intelligence in biological systems?
Why or why not?
[B][SIZE=3] [COLOR=Blue]3. BIOLOGYââ¬â¢S INFORMATION PROBLEM. [/COLOR] [/SIZE][/B]
What explains the origin of complex information-rich patterns in biological systems?
Could biological systems exhibit informational patterns that cannot be adequately be explained by natural selection and other material mechanisms?
What would such patterns look like?
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue]4. MOLECULAR MACHINES.[/COLOR] [/SIZE][/B]
Can you give examples of structures in the cell that resemble machines designed by humans?
Does the complexity of these molecular machines rival artifactual machines made by humans?
Is there any solid evidence that such machines could have arisen apart from actual design?
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue]5. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. [/COLOR] [/SIZE] [/B]
Are there complex biological systems whose parts are all indispensable for the systems to perform their functions?
If so, are such ââ¬Åirreducibly complexââ¬Â systems evidence of intelligent design? If not, why not?
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue]6. REUSABLE PARTS. [/COLOR] [/SIZE][/B]
Human designers reuse designs that work well. Life forms likewise reuse of structures that work well (the camera eye, for example).
Is this evidence for common descent, evolutionary convergence, common design, or a combination of these?
How do we decide among these options?
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue]7. REVERSE ENGINEERING. [/COLOR] [/SIZE][/B]
In other words, they start with functional biological systems and then use their knowledge of engineering to determine how the systems could have been designed and built. Is this evidence that the systems were engineered to begin with?
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue] 8. PREDICTIONS. [/COLOR] [/SIZE] [/B]
Do intelligent design theory and neo-Darwinian theory make different predictions? Consider, for instance, junk DNA. For which of the two theories would the idea that large stretches of DNA are junk be more plausible?
Which theory is more likely to look for unknown uses of seemingly useless biological structures?
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue] 9. FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE. [/COLOR] [/SIZE][/B]
What evidence would convince you that intelligent design is true and that neo-Darwinism is false? Could such evidence even exist?
What would it look like? If no such evidence exists or indeed can exist, how can neo-Darwinism be a testable scientific theory?
[B][SIZE=3][COLOR=Blue] 10. IDENTIFYING THE DESIGNER. [/COLOR] [/SIZE][/B]
Can we determine whether an object is designed without knowing anything about its designer?
If an unidentified intelligence was responsible for designing biological systems, how could we know it?
See The Design Revolution by William A. Dembski for detailed background regarding these questions. To order this book or read other articles by William Dembski, visit the Access Research Network website at [url]www.arn.org[/url].
2004-03-03 09:01 | User Profile
While I'm pretty certain that man was created through evolution, I'm not at all certain whether or not God had a direct hand in the process. I think it is quite plausible that God could have simply laid down the "ground rules" for the universe in the form of the laws of physics, then "wound up the machine" and allowed it to run on its own.
As is made clear by studies of cellular automata, amazingly intricate patterns CAN emerge from just a few simple "laws" of local interactions between elements in a system -- patterns which seem to contain "information" that is undetectable by examination of the laws themselves. (See Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind Of Science for some great examples.) In fact, the answers to some of the questions in your post might be provided (if not now, then perhaps in the future) by the work of groups such as the following:
[url]http://www.santafe.edu/projects/evca/[/url]
If evolution can happen purely by random chance -- and I'm not claiming any certainty that it can -- then it should be amenable to computer modeling and even provable by such means. Would that rule out the existence of God? Obviously not. But neither would proof of intelligent design be tantamount to proof that God as described by Christianity is behind the creation of life.
2004-03-03 16:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]As is made clear by studies of cellular automata, amazingly intricate patterns CAN emerge from just a few simple "laws" of local interactions between elements in a system -- patterns which seem to contain "information" that is undetectable by examination of the laws themselves.
How about a pithy example of pattern that seems to contain more information that is detectable in the laws that create that pattern? (I know you provided a link to a website, but I don't want spend a long time looking for something I don't believe exists.)
A simple mathematical formula can produce the irrational number pi, an endless string of non-repeating digits. An infinite amount of information from a simple expression? It's still just a single point on a number line. It is not creative, but 100% determinate.
If evolution can happen purely by random chance -- and I'm not claiming any certainty that it can -- then it should be amenable to computer modeling and even provable by such means.
Indeed, a great amount of effort to reproduce Evolution in a computer has been done. But, it all has failed to support Evolution (no matter what the Evolutionist program creators claim).
The weakest part of Evolution is the inability to re-create Evolution, either in the real world or a virtual world. Thousands of studies on millions of generations of rapidly reproducing and mutating organisms has utterly failed to supply even a hint of Evolution (unless your definition of Evolution is so crass as to include any genetic variation).
For example, bacterial resistance to some antibiotics is about the most any Evolutionist can point to -- never an accumulation of changes that produce a new machine to create the resistance, but a single mutation that produces the resistance, and usually that is accomplished by breaking an existing machine so the bacteria is no longer efficient enough to process the antibiotic (i.e. the bacteria becomes sickly and is relatively unfit in a normal population sans the antibiotic). This can happen in a single generation, thousands more of observed generations won't produce the smallest bit of additional progress, so why would thousands of unobserved additional generations?
Computer programs likewise show the same unwillingness of nature to create with selection applied to random variation. Like calculating pi, these programs head toward a predictable level where they stop (in the lousier programs, this level is an openly pre-selected goal), usually at a very simplistic level. Computers can brute-force "billions of years" of evolution in a single run of a program, but Evolutionists are still left with nothing to put in their propaganda Evolution chapter in biology text books.
One can be impressed by the great diversity of life (and of fossils) and the underlying similarity (however, if such similarity did not exist, the lack of such would be central argument against the idea of a common designer). This circumstantial evidence is psychologically compelling for Evolution. But, when it comes to the science of creating or reproducing Evolution, the naked emperor is exposed. Evolution requires magic (becaues the just-so argument that selection and mutation is creative doesn't work).
2004-03-04 02:31 | User Profile
How about a pithy example of pattern that seems to contain more information that is detectable in the laws that create that pattern? (I know you provided a link to a website, but I don't want spend a long time looking for something I don't believe exists.) Okay. Here's a simple example of a cellular automaton from that book I mentioned:
[url]http://www.wolframscience.com/preview/nks_pages/?NKS0032.gif[/url]
What's happening in the picture is you have a set of eight rules that determine the color of each square in the grid by the colors of the three nearest squares above it. The rules are shown near the lower left of the page.
Note the black "band" with the white "polka-dots" extending downward and to the right near the bottom of the pattern. It appears after There is no known way to predict the creation of such a structure from the eight rules themselves without actually running the program. It takes more than 100 iterations for the band to start forming.
Many more sample pages and examples can be found here: [url]http://www.wolframscience.com/preview/[/url]
The above examples are perfectly deterministic; no randomness comes into play whatsoever. Nevertheless, there is clearly some structural information implicit in the "rules of the game" that cannot be seen by a mere inspection of the rules themselves.
With that in mind, my question is this: Why could such "implicitly encoded information" not emerge from the much more complicated physical laws of the universe? If there can be meaning and information deeply hidden in such an extremely simple scenario as shown above, then it's even more plausible that hidden information can emerge from more complex rules -- particularly if laws involving probability distributions can come into play (as in quantum mechanics).
What needs to be stressed that evolution -- at least in my non-expert understanding -- is not claimed to be the spontaneous production of information from pure randomness. The information is, in a sense, encoded in the system to begin with; it is only observed as it emerges. Evolution is actually deterministic in a "global" sense. You have deterministic laws and associated forces acting upon a system of many individual units; and while the behavior of those individual units may be random to a large extent, the properties of the system as a whole will tend to evolve deterministically in response to whatever forces may be acting on the system.
Computers can brute-force "billions of years" of evolution in a single run of a program, but Evolutionists are still left with nothing to put in their propaganda Evolution chapter in biology text books. I'm not familiar with the failed computer-based experiments you mention here; do you have any examples? Also, if evolutionists merely seek to disseminate "propaganda," then what do you suppose is their motive?
2004-03-04 02:36 | User Profile
What's a "Christian Mathematician"? Is there "Christian math"?
The AntiYuppie's thesis about religion and science not being in harmonious relationship finds perfect confirmation in threads like this.
To all asking for "proof" of evolution, I guess I should ask them about proof of God's existance :lol:
2004-03-04 02:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]What's a "Christian Mathematician"? Is there "Christian math"?[/QUOTE]
Of course not. A Christian mathematician is just that -- a scientist who happens to be a Christian.
The AntiYuppie's thesis about religion and science not being in harmonious relationship finds perfect confirmation in threads like this.
Are you suggesting that the above posted questions are somehow illegitimate or evidence of ignorance?
To all asking for "proof" of evolution, I guess I should ask them about proof of God's existance :lol:
You should read some of Dembski's arguments. The short answer is that the universe itself is the best evidence of God's existence.
2004-03-04 02:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Also, if evolutionists merely seek to disseminate "propaganda," then what do you suppose is their motive?[/QUOTE]
Some disseminate Darwinist propaganda through honest error, but I suspect many just want to protect their status. After all, many evolutionists would be out of job is word got around that their advanced degrees in evolutionary biology are worth less than the toilet paper in a public bathroom.
2004-03-04 03:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Indeed, a great amount of effort to reproduce Evolution in a computer has been done. But, it all has failed to support Evolution (no matter what the Evolutionist program creators claim).
The weakest part of Evolution is the inability to re-create Evolution, either in the real world or a virtual world. Thousands of studies on millions of generations of rapidly reproducing and mutating organisms has utterly failed to supply even a hint of Evolution (unless your definition of Evolution is so crass as to include any genetic variation). [/QUOTE]
One thing's for sure -- evolution has never been observed in the real world. That one fact alone should be sufficient for the Darwinist enterprise to be overthrown. Unfortunately many scientist have bought into the false religion of materalism, and their commitment to this religion has blinded them to the truth.
As for recreating evolution in the virtual world, even if the Darwinist succeed in that enterprise, all it would prove is that a Designer is required to get the ball rolling.
2004-03-04 03:14 | User Profile
Of all the questions on this list, I'd like to see OD's evolutionists answer these:
What evidence would convince you that neo-Darwinism is false?
Could such evidence even exist? What would it look like?
If no such evidence exists or indeed can exist, how can neo-Darwinism be a testable scientific theory?
2004-03-04 03:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]One thing's for sure -- evolution has never been observed in the real world. [/QUOTE]
Hominid skulls demonstrate evolution.
Presently we see selection taking place all around us and guess who is being selected against?
Isn't the eyeball considered to be an evolutionary conundrum? How could random mutation through time create such an intricate organ? Where is the pre-eye?
I think it is safe to say that God [I]is[/I] the universe.
2004-03-04 04:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]One thing's for sure -- evolution has never been observed in the real world. That one fact alone should be sufficient for the Darwinist enterprise to be overthrown. Unfortunately many scientist have bought into the false religion of materalism, and their commitment to this religion has blinded them to the truth. [/QUOTE]
The theory of evolution IS built on observations. Not of the world as it's happening, as the time scale for evolution is much larger than the length of the time the theory existed.
Scientists haven't bought into anything, you have to understand how science works. Not on mental masturbation but on facts.
2004-03-04 04:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]The theory of evolution IS built on observations.
So? Copernicus's theories were built on observation too. The issue here is whether the observations Darwinist's claim support their theory actually do.
2004-03-04 05:16 | User Profile
I am sure as soon as God is postulated the progress of science will become unstoppable.
If not for your belief in God, would you have been interested in the topic at all? I am sure scientists have to entertain your doubts just because you believe they are wrong.
Now Okie seems like an example of sanity -- the forum has clearly improved as it's become "Christian Nationalist", praise the Lord.
2004-03-04 05:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Okay. Here's a simple example of a cellular automaton from that book I mentioned:
That example is like my pi example. Mathematics provides endless simple equations that can produce, when graphing iterations, complex and beautiful patterns. But, this is not demonstrative of Evolution because it has nothing to do with selection of random variation.
I think DNA code works in a similar fashion. A human being is probably far more complex than one would guess knowing the number of genes that actually contribute to our design.
With that in mind, my question is this: Why could such "implicitly encoded information" not emerge from the much more complicated physical laws of the universe? If there can be meaning and information deeply hidden in such an extremely simple scenario as shown above, then it's even more plausible that hidden information can emerge from more complex rules -- particularly if laws involving probability distributions can come into play (as in quantum mechanics).
I don't know that "hidden" is the right word, but it'll do. But, your reasoning is solid. And, you'll have no dispute from me that what happens today is the unfolding of information that already existed.
Incidently, probabilty is what we use to describe populations, especially those that are too complex for us to consider all the factors, or that we don't know all the factors. I don't believe that quantum mechanics has anything to do with probability, beyond our limited analysis of it. What determines the length of the half-life of an unstable element?
What needs to be stressed that evolution -- at least in my non-expert understanding -- is not claimed to be the spontaneous production of information from pure randomness.
On the contrary, the purpose of Evolution is to explain the origin of information. In the theory, the direction of Evolution may be deterministic, but the new information that Evolution works with is created randomly (ex nihilo).
I'm not familiar with the failed computer-based experiments you mention here; do you have any examples? Also, if evolutionists merely seek to disseminate "propaganda," then what do you suppose is their motive?[/QUOTE]
There's no point in giving an example of a failed experiment. That's like asking for me to show you an example of a place without a living dinosaur. What would be impressive is an example of a living dinosaur (an experiment that didn't fail).
Several books on Evolution have used the example of a program that generates random letters that are selected to form the word "Evolution" in only a few iterations. But, the information for "Evolution" already exists in the program; it's the template that the random letters are selected against.
More sophesticated programs have virtual creatures that reproductively compete.
What is their motive for propaganda? People usually want to spread their religious beliefs.
2004-03-04 06:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Hominid skulls demonstrate evolution.
Suppose you put a hominid skull on my desk. If I looked at it, how would I know it's an evolutionary link rather than just the skull of an extinct primate, extinct viration within an existing species, or a mal-developed skull of a living or extinct species?
Presently we see selection taking place all around us and guess who is being selected against?
Even the animal world is full of examples of "inferior" members being selected. Nature seems to prefer simplicty. In fact, everytime you hear of a beneficial mutation or variation spreading through a population, you are probably hearing an example of nature choosing the simpler members of a population.
Isn't the eyeball considered to be an evolutionary conundrum? How could random mutation through time create such an intricate organ? Where is the pre-eye?
If your understanding of the eye is very simplistic, you might be convinced that incremental improvements could turn a patch of skin into an eye, as if fine-tuning skin cells creates an eye.
Consider the trilobite. There billions of these in the fossil record. There are no multicellular fossils that predate trilobites. Trilobites go back to the start of the fossil record (along with most major groups of marine invertabrates). Trilobites have compound eyes. Their eyes have a number of retinas and lenses. If the eye evolved, there is not the slightest trace of that development between bacteria and the compound eye. There is not even a trace of any animals between bacteria and trilobites that could have sported the developing eyes. Billions of eyes and not a trace of their history.
Not only is there this one gap as big as the grand canyon, but Evolutionists themselves have conceded that eyes must have evolved many (dozens of) separate times because of fundamental differences in eye designs of varous creatures. For example, squid and human eyes develop from different embryonic tissue and are wired in opposite manners.
I think it is safe to say that God [I]is[/I] the universe.[/QUOTE]
God cannot be the explanation for the universe unless he is outside of the universe.
2004-03-04 06:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Suppose you put a hominid skull on my desk. If I looked at it, how would I know it's an evolutionary link rather than just the skull of an extinct primate, extinct viration within an existing species, or a mal-developed skull of a living or extinct species? I believe that's where DNA analysis comes into play. If I'm not mistaken, DNA is extracted from the bone, then run through some kind of sequencing process (probably something similar to the kind used in forensics, paternity tests, etc.). The resulting sequence is then compared side-by-side with sequences obtained from the most similar skulls available to see where the differences are. Then predictions can be made about the possible future discovery of some intermediate fossil that might link two that are already in inventory.
2004-03-04 17:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]There are multicellular fossils that predate trilobites by well over 100 million years (worm-like and jellyfish like creatures). Do a google search for "Ediacaran fossils." Fossil kelp-like algae go back even further (predating trilobites by half a billion years). So there's plenty there between bacteria and trilobites, which makes me wonder where on earth you're getting your information from.
Do you think the algea and jellyfish-like creatures sported the trilobite's nascent eyes? Do you think kelp-like algae links bacteria to trilobites? If not, what's your point? My comments are on the origin of the trilobite's eyes, not on whether there are any multicellular organisms in the precambrian.
Anyway, there are so few edicaran fossils that their interpretation is even in great dispute within evolutionist circles.
Furthermore, there are plenty of intermediates between eyeless and "eyed" animals. Flatworms have simple eyespots that can differentiate between light and dark but not much else.
Do those flatworms link bacteria to trilobites? Are those flatworms the worm-like ediacaran fossils you mentioned? If not, what's your point?
I know that different kinds of animals have eyes of different levels of complexity. But, it's a con game to line them up, without regard for the order they appear in the fossil record, and then present them as a historical example of the evolution of the eye.
It also is not an argument from reason to take two things, a thousand miles apart and of different natures and treat them as if they're of the same nature and right next to each other. Which is what you'd be doing if you were to compare a trilobite's eye to flatworm's eye.
2004-03-04 17:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]I believe that's where DNA analysis comes into play. [/QUOTE]
Yes, bring on the DNA analysis. However, observed rates of DNA decay (hydrolysis) tends to rule out any fossil with DNA as a transitional fossil in the first place.
2004-03-04 19:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]In any case, the "Intelligent Design" argument is probably the most specious argument against evolution that I've heard, and perhaps the most annoying because it is so pretentious. Their basic claim is "living organisms or so complex, we can't explain how it all works and how it all came to be, therefore they must be a miracle of creation." Arguing from a negative simply doesn't work, because yesterday's inexplicable is today's commonplace, and it's a fallacy of the first order to ascribe the miraculous to that which we aren't clever enough to explain today. By the same logic, one could "prove" some centuries ago that Zeus or Thor exist because we had no explanation for static electricity, so we could always attribute lighting bolts to Zeus (or any other deity).[/QUOTE]
Actually, Dembski addresses this objection at length in his work. If you're dismissing it on that basis alone, you really should read what he actually says before making a final decision on intelligent design.
Not to make a fallacious argument from authority, but do you really think a man with two PH.Ds, one in math and one in philosophy, would make such an elementary error?
2004-03-04 19:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]If not for your belief in God, would you have been interested in the topic at all?
Yes. I'm a former atheist, and Dembski's work helped bring me back into the fold.
I am sure scientists have to entertain your doubts just because you believe they are wrong.
I don't "believe" anything. I know evolution is false because the facts don't support it. My religious convictions have nothing to do with it. Random, undirected natural forces can't turn swirling gasses of hydrogen into people. Statistically, there is more of chance that a monkey will bang out Hamlet by accident than there is a chance that evolution happened. And that's not just my opinion either -- it's a mathematical certainly, and the last time I checked math is still considered a science.
Furthermore, speciation has never been observed, and there is not a single transitional fossil in the fossil record that is absolutely, unequivocally "transitional." The list of deficiencies in this so-called scientific theory is a long one; the only reason people hold onto to neo-Darwinism is because:
1) They're ignorant and have never investigated the issues. This category includes scientists as well as lay people. Why should the opinion of a physicist on evolution carry any more weight than the opinion of any other non-specialist?
2) They subscribe to the religion of atheistic materialism, and therefore discount anything other than natural causation based on their fundamental religious beliefs, though you could call them philosophical assumptions, I suppose.
Now Okie seems like an example of sanity -- the forum has clearly improved as it's become "Christian Nationalist", praise the Lord.[/QUOTE]
Okie may very well be right. In the last few days, I've come more around to his way of thinking on this issue.
2004-03-04 19:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]Evolution has been observed within your lifetime and mine. Since we were born, mosquitoes have evolved resistance to various pesticides, and Staph bacteria have evolved resistance to the latest antibiotics.[/QUOTE]
That's not an example of speciation. The mosquitoes you mention are still mosquitoes -- biologists haven't classed them as a new species just because they've developed resistances. This also applies to your dog breed examples.
Question: When has speciation ever been observed?
Answer: Never - yet neo-Darwinism is said to be a scientific theory based on observation.
As a side note, I almost hate to use a term like "speciation," because I have come to believe that using jargon from the field of biology obscures the magnitude of what neo-Darwinists are the claiming: that given enough time animals will turn into other animals.
That means that under the right circumstances -- and neo-Darwinists really claim in all seriousness that this happened -- that some life forms will turn into ants and some into Blue Whales, all under the guidance of random, undirected, natural forces.
2004-03-04 21:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Yes, bring on the DNA analysis. However, observed rates of DNA decay (hydrolysis) tends to rule out any fossil with DNA as a transitional fossil in the first place.[/QUOTE]That's incorrect. The rate of decay is dependent on the conditions of preservation, as explained in the following Nature article:
[url]http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/HofreiterAncDNA_NatRev2001.pdf[/url]
If DNA preservation were such a problematic issue, then obviously no scientist would use it as a means of support -- he would be immediately exposed if he tried to pull a fast one. Science is a competitive field; competition for research funds is intense, and no scientist is going to cut his competitors a break solely on the basis of philosophical bias when he sees them fudging or fabricating evidence.
Look at it this way: Evolutionary scientists come from all sorts of religious and philosophical backgrounds. Creationists come from religious fundamentalist backgrounds exclusively. Which group is more likely to be self-deluded for religious reasons? Which group is more likely to be uniform in its bias?
Creationism would be a lot more respectable, I think, if its adherents would actually present some empirical evidence in support of their own views rather than incessantly pointing out apparent difficulties with evolution (no one denies that such difficulties exist, but those difficulties do not disprove the theory; they are merely due to the present incompleteness of the evidence). For example: Where is the geological evidence of the great flood? Where is the angel with the fiery sword who guards the entrance to Eden? If that garden is not on earth, then why does it need to be guarded? (Heck, why does God need any lesser creature to do anything for Him?) Where are the ruins of the Tower of Babel? Where are the foundations of the earth that God set down? Something...anything...just a few shreds of evidence would be nice. Even if evolution were debunked tomorrow, that would not lend one iota of support to the Genesis view of creation. The latter needs its very own supporting evidence in order to be taken seriously.
2004-03-04 21:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Question: When has speciation ever been observed?
Answer: Never - yet neo-Darwinism is said to be a scientific theory based on observation. It is based on observation -- indirect observation. Obviously no person has lived long enough to watch evolution take place -- no one lives for millions of years. How can that be viewed as a flaw in the theory?
No one has ever seen an electromagnetic wave, yet we know they exist. No one has ever been anywhere near the sun or even viewed its interior, yet we know for a fact that it sustains itself through nuclear reactions. How do we know this? Because scientific theories are validated based on (1) how well they fit what can be observed, and (2) on how well they predict future observations. Evolution has been used to predict future discoveries, and some of those discoveries have already been made. That is how scientists know it's correct. What scientists admit they don't know are all the details of how evolution happened.
As a side note, I almost hate to use a term like "speciation," because I have come to believe that using jargon from the field of biology obscures the magnitude of what neo-Darwinists are the claiming: that given enough time animals will turn into other animals.
That means that under the right circumstances -- and neo-Darwinists really claim in all seriousness that this happened -- that some life forms will turn into ants and some into Blue Whales, all under the guidance of random, undirected, natural forces.[/QUOTE]That's not what evolution claims; you're drawing a caricature of the theory. For example, evolution does NOT say that apes "turned into" humans; it says that apes and humans share a common ancestor. Furthermore, many evolutionists believe that God directs evolution, so it's not accurate to claim that all evolutionists hold that the forces behind evolution are "undirected."
You really ought to read this article: [url]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2[/url]
2004-03-05 00:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]What's a "Christian Mathematician"? Is there "Christian math"?
The AntiYuppie's thesis about religion and science not being in harmonious relationship finds perfect confirmation in threads like this.
[COLOR=Red][I]To all asking for "proof" of evolution, I guess I should ask them about proof of God's existance :lol[/I][/COLOR]:[/QUOTE]http://www.geocities.com/sector114/htm/review.htm Below is the Introduction
[QUOTE]Mathematical Proof for God's Existence Book Review
Types, Tableaus and Godel's God
By: Melvin Fitting - Professor of mathematics and logic
City University of New York, Lehman College
From back cover Godel's modal ontological argument is the centerpiece of an extensive examination of intensional logic. First, classical type theory is presented semantically, tableau rules for it are introduced, and the Prawitz/Takahashi completeness proof is given. Then modal machinery is added, semantically and through tableau rules, to produce a modified version of Montague/Gallin intensional logic. Extensionality. rigidity, equality, identity, and definite descriptions are investigated. Finally, various ontological proofs for the existence of God are discussed informally, and the Godel argument is fully formalised. Objections to the Godel argument are examined, including one due to Howard Sobel showing Godel's assumptions are so strong that the modal logic collapses. It is shown that this argument depends critically on whether properties are understood intensionally or extensionally.
Parts of the book are mathematical, parts philosophical. A reader interested in (modal) type theory can safely skip ontological issues, just as one interested in Godel's argument can omit the more mathematical portions, such as the completeness proof for tableaus. There should be something for everybody (and perhaps everything for somebody).[/QUOTE]My choice for the author of the most important intellectual achievement of the 20th century, Kurt Godel, did provide a proof. If you wish, you could comment.