← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 18649 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2005-06-13
2005-06-13 17:47 | User Profile
The god of evolution is a jealous god.
[url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/13/evolution_science_fight/]US scientists launch evolution fight-back[/url]
By Lucy Sherriff Published Monday 13th June 2005 15:41 GMT
Scientists in the US are going on the attack against anti-evolution campaigners. The National Academy of Sciences has set up a website that serves as a kind of portal for people wanting to access research and information on evolutionary theory, and evolution in education.
The NAS said that it has long supported the inclusion of evolution as a central element of any science education programme. But it warned that there was growing pressure to include "non-scientifically based 'alternatives' in science courses", adding that there are now 40 states or local school districts challenging the teaching of evolution.
Bizarre as this seems to us in the UK, in the states, the teaching of one of science's most robust and well-tested theories is a highly controversial matter.
Many religious fundamentalists believe that evolution should not be taught in schools as fact, as it is just a "theory". They want the biblical story of creation to be given equal footing in the class room. The NAS takes a totally opposing view, and has previously stated that creationism has no place on a science curriculum.
Of course, writing off evolution as a 'mere theory' demonstrates a very clear misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "theory" in science. In everyday language, theory is synonymous with conjecture. Not so in science, where is has a very specific meaning: a theory is an explanation of a set of events, based on proven hypotheses. It will also have been verified many times by unconnected research groups.
But the controversy extends far beyond the classroom. In March this year, IMax cinemas in some of the southern states reportedly refused to show several scientific films, after test audiences objected to the presentation of evolutionary theory as fact, describing it instead as "blasphemous".
A spokeswoman for a cinema in South Carolina told The New York Times that the nature of the audience was a big factor in choosing whether or not to screen a film. "We have definitely a lot more 'creation' public than 'evolution' public," she said at the time.
You can check out the NAS site [url=http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/]here[/url]. î
Boy, those Southrons sure are a bunch of pig ignorant, backwater yokels, aren't they?
2005-06-14 00:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Of course, writing off evolution as a 'mere theory' demonstrates a very clear misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "theory" in science. In everyday language, theory is synonymous with conjecture. Not so in science, where is has a very specific meaning: a theory is an explanation of a set of events, based on proven hypotheses. It will also have been verified many times by unconnected research groups.[/QUOTE]
Evolution is the only "science" that is advanced by constantly calling the critics "ignorant." This coming from people who insist "theory" is just the scientific word for "fact." Darwin called his theory a "theory." Was Darwin ignorant of the meaning of the word theory (calling Darwinism a theory when he first proposes it)?
I don't accuse Evolutionists of being ignorant, just of being liars. Now, how about a factual example of the fact of Evolution?
2005-06-14 01:24 | User Profile
Evolution is the only science constantly attacked by bible thumpers on religious grounds.
2005-06-14 09:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Evolution is the only "science" that is advanced by constantly calling the critics "ignorant." This coming from people who insist "theory" is just the scientific word for "fact." Darwin called his theory a "theory." Was Darwin ignorant of the meaning of the word theory (calling Darwinism a theory when he first proposes it)?
I don't accuse Evolutionists of being ignorant, just of being liars. Now, how about a factual example of the fact of Evolution?[/QUOTE] There are two acceptable avenues for proof of fact in scientific epstimology: the mathematical and the empirical. For obvious reasons the collective theories surrounding phylogenesis canââ¬â¢t be proven by either method. Theories they are and, lacking time travel, theories theyââ¬â¢ll remain.
Although given a choice between creationism and evolution as an explanation biological form and function Iââ¬â¢ll chose the latter, I find ideologues like [url=http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html]Dawkins[/url] distasteful as they promote science or ââ¬Ërationalityââ¬â¢ as a religious worldview. Science is an extremely useful and morally neutral tool; secular priests shouldnââ¬â¢t compromise it.
2005-06-14 18:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Evolution is the only "science" that is advanced by constantly calling the critics "ignorant." This coming from people who insist "theory" is just the scientific word for "fact." Darwin called his theory a "theory." Was Darwin ignorant of the meaning of the word theory (calling Darwinism a theory when he first proposes it)?
I don't accuse Evolutionists of being ignorant, just of being liars. Now, how about a factual example of the fact of Evolution?[/QUOTE]
We should distinguish scientific theory from scientific law. Too often people seem to use them interchangeably especially when discussing Evolution.
Evolution is a theory, not a scientific law such as gravity which can be deduced from experimentation and prediction made on its behavior.
At the same time, Evolution cannot be deduced from experimentation nor can prediction be made about its direction. One reason is Evolution is comprised of many disciplines. However, observation by several qualified people made over a period of time indicates there is a pattern of change in the natural world which has been given the name of Evolution.
On the other hand, Creationists also seem to confuse the words faith and fact. Their faith is not in itself fact. There is no empirical reason to accept the Bible. The Bible is accepted as fact on its face without verification, and without question. Therefore, we are expected to believe God created the earth, Adam and Eve fell from grace and we now must pay the price for their sin, and Jesus died for our sins, and apparently those of Adam and Eve as well. All we have as evidence is the poetry from the Bible. Now, how can one expect others to verify their ideas with facts while not claiming the same standard for their own? I think this is what your opponents would label as ignorant.
2005-06-14 18:52 | User Profile
Evolutionists claim that the world was created by the Big Bang gazillions of years ago. It's taught as fact to impressionable schoolkids exclusively without presenting anything about Creationism.
The Bible contains an actual timeline from Creation to the 1st Century AD, which certainly lends a more believable aspect to it than Evolutionists claims about some fish turned to ape turned to man theory.
If Evolution is real and constant then why aren't human beings flying under their own power by now? Where did the "evolution" of man stop and why?
2005-06-14 22:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]If Evolution is real and constant then why aren't human beings flying under their own power by now? Where did the "evolution" of man stop and why?[/QUOTE]
According to Evolutionary thinking, if you flap your arms you can jump higher. And, if women liked men who jump higher, they'll select the men who can flap the best and over generations, people will start flying. Dawkins would point out that jumping 26 inches is better than jumping 25 inches. Maybe this is how dinosaurs learned to fly (there's no fossil trial revealing how wings and feathers developed, just some exinct birds with teeth so they must be feathered dinos).
But, in reality, humans exhibit the same anti-evolutionary course that all species exhibit. Over time, the human species becomes less fit and less sophisticated. Evolutionists look at the birthrate of the lower class and with ad hoc reasoning, say humans are an exception to the rule. But, there is no evolution for humans to be an exception to.
Every extinction is an obvious loss of genetic information. But, we also observe any species moving toward genetic simplicity (including those not headed for extinction), with a loss of genetic information and a increase in genetic load (genetic defects).
You weigh the loss of the dodo bird (the huge loss of genetic information with birds extinction, and other extinctions in human history) vs. bacteria with broken "digestive" systems that are too defective to consume antibiotics fast enough to kill themselves (or whatever examples of Evolution evolutionists come up with). What do you get when you extrapolate backwards and fowards?
The fossil record is proof of the extinction of numerous species, but not proof of the birth of any new speices.
2005-06-15 03:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ron]At the same time, Evolution cannot be deduced from experimentation nor can prediction be made about its direction.
You and "na Gaeil is gile" are right regarding prehistorical events. But, if nature - natural selection and mutation - can produce increased fitness and sophistication then it should be something we can observe now, and even formulate as a law that is a statistical description of how nature works.
I think this is what your opponents would label as ignorant.[/QUOTE]
In the article that starts this thread is this statement:> Of course, writing off evolution as a 'mere theory' demonstrates a very clear misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "theory" in science. In everyday language, theory is synonymous with conjecture. Not so in science, where is has a very specific meaning: a theory is an explanation of a set of events, based on proven hypotheses. It will also have been verified many times by unconnected research groups.
Here the claim is not that someone is ignorant for believing the Bible, but ignorant of the meaning of the word "theory." In everyday language, theory is not synonymous with conjecture. "Theory" has the same meaning in everyday language as it does in real science. It's the zone between conjecture and established fact.
Scientists, including Darwin about Darwinism when he was first proposing it in his book, frequently use the term "theory" for things that have not "been verified many times by unconnected research groups." Evolutionists simply [I]lie[/I] when they try to equate theory with fact ("a theory is an explanation of a set of events, based on proven[!] hypotheses.")
"Theory" means that something is [I]not[/I] an established fact. This just sticks in the craw of Evolutionists and makes them sick. The alternative is to drop the word "theory" but this would further expose their zealotry (the tact chosen by the late Carl Sagan). To avoid this lose-lose situation, they stick to the oxymoronic "Evolution is a fact and a theory," and they shift their weight as the situation dictates. If anyone notices the duplicity, they just fall back to "you're ignorant."
2005-06-15 04:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Scientists, including Darwin about Darwinism when he was first proposing it in his book, frequently use the term "theory" for things that have not "been verified many times by unconnected research groups." Evolutionists simply [I]lie[/I] when they try to equate theory with fact ("a theory is an explanation of a set of events, based on proven[!] hypotheses.")
"Theory" means that something is [I]not[/I] an established fact. This just sticks in the craw of Evolutionists and makes them sick. The alternative is to drop the word "theory" but this would further expose their zealotry (the tact chosen by the late Carl Sagan). To avoid this lose-lose situation, they stick to the oxymoronic "Evolution is a fact and a theory," and they shift their weight as the situation dictates. If anyone notices the duplicity, they just fall back to "you're ignorant."[/QUOTE] This is a problem not with Evolution, but with the scientific method in general. And it's not even really a problem, it's just one of the limits of empirical knowledge.
No scientific theory can attain the standard of "established fact", if you take that to mean 100% proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with no possibility of being called into doubt. All scientific theories must be falsifiable, which means that observations could in principle be made that overturn the theory. If they weren't falsifiable, they wouldn't be valid scientific theories. Since they are falsifiable, they can never move beyond the status of "theory" because there always exists the possibility of new evidence coming to light that disproves them.
All theories have to be tentative because they only explain the data encountered thus far. Of course, the more and more observational data that confirms a theory, the more likely it is to be correct, but in principle it is never 100% proven. No scientific theory ever can be. The only place you will ever find absolute proof of any proposition is in mathematics or pure logic. If you look for it elsewhere you will only be disappointed.
If you demand 100% proof of evolution before accepting it, then you will never be convinced. You are setting the standard of proof in such a way as to guarantee that it is never met.
FWIW, it's good enough for me that Evolution provides a plausible explanation of observed phenomena that competing theories (e.g. Creationism) are unable to explain. That is all that is required. Absolute proof is not necessary and in any case, is unattainable.
2005-06-15 04:48 | User Profile
OK, I have to answer this or it's going to bug me and I won't get any work done :lol:
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]According to Evolutionary thinking, if you flap your arms you can jump higher. And, if women liked men who jump higher, they'll select the men who can flap the best and over generations, people will start flying. Dawkins would point out that jumping 26 inches is better than jumping 25 inches. Maybe this is how dinosaurs learned to fly (there's no fossil trial revealing how wings and feathers developed, just some exinct birds with teeth so they must be feathered dinos). [/QUOTE] Is this really what evolutionists say? Or just creationists trying to parody evolutionist beliefs? It is quite possible that human beings are unable to evolve wings, because there is no series of viable intermediary steps from "here" to "there" with each intermediate step offering a small adaptive advantage over the last, and each step being viable in and of itself. Dawkins explains this in Climbing Mount Improbable with an analogy to hills and valleys. You can think of hills as "more adaptive" and valleys as "less adaptive" forms. Since evolution can only work in one direction, it is not possible for a lifeform to get less adaptive in order to get more adaptive later. So human beings and birdmen are equivalent to two mountain ridges, with us sitting on one ridge and looking across to the other, wondering how to get there. If the only way there is to go down into a valley and then scale the other side, it won't happen. [QUOTE=Happy Hacker]But, in reality, humans exhibit the same anti-evolutionary course that all species exhibit. Over time, the human species becomes less fit and less sophisticated. Evolutionists look at the birthrate of the lower class and with ad hoc reasoning, say humans are an exception to the rule. But, there is no evolution for humans to be an exception to.[/QUOTE] Humans are not an exception. The problem is that you are inventing your own notions of "fitness" and "sophistication" and applying them to the lower class. The only measure of fitness that is important is how many offspring they produce. Also note that what is "fit" depends heavily on the environment. If the current environment allows the lower class to have more children, they are better adapted and hence more fit.
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Every extinction is an obvious loss of genetic information. But, we also observe any species moving toward genetic simplicity (including those not headed for extinction), with a loss of genetic information and a increase in genetic load (genetic defects).
You weigh the loss of the dodo bird (the huge loss of genetic information with birds extinction, and other extinctions in human history) vs. bacteria with broken "digestive" systems that are too defective to consume antibiotics fast enough to kill themselves (or whatever examples of Evolution evolutionists come up with). What do you get when you extrapolate backwards and fowards?[/QUOTE] There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says the sum total of all genetic information has to be increasing at all times. There have been several mass extinctions throughout the history of the Earth, we happen to be living through another. [QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The fossil record is proof of the extinction of numerous species, but not proof of the birth of any new speices.[/QUOTE] This is easily shown to be false. Most species are not present in the deepest, most ancient fossil strata, they only start to appear in the recent strata. If species only become extinct and new species never appear, why aren't these species present in the older fossil strata?
2005-06-16 19:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]No scientific theory can attain the standard of "established fact", if you take that to mean 100% proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, with no possibility of being called into doubt.
Yes, scientific theories can be proven. A good theory tells us where to look to make something a fact. If a guy, seeing his first horseless carriage, theorized it ran an internal combustion engine, he could test his theory by observing the car. But, popping the hood would turn the theory into a fact. If someone could build a time machine, the Evolutionist's "theory" of prehistory could be proven. If Evolution is how nature works, we need only observe mutations and selection leading to increased fitness and sophistication to turn the process of Evolution into a fact of nature.
Most Evolutionists are not the least bit tentative in their belief that Evolution is a fact. In fact, they violently oppose any scientific knowledge being shared in public schools that could lead any student to suspect that there is anything tentative about Evolution.
All scientific theories must be falsifiable,
If the theory is any good, it's falsifiable. Evolutionists have rejected all of Darwin's proposed falsifications (e.g. irreducible complexity and gaps in the fossil record). Anything they propose now have nothing to do with whether Evolution is true or false (if 2+2=5, or if bunny rabbits were made of nothing but uranium, or if an animals conveyed themselves on wheels).
But, once you observe something, it becomes data, and no longer theory.
FWIW, it's good enough for me that Evolution provides a plausible explanation of observed phenomena that competing theories (e.g. Creationism) are unable to explain.
Until someone can demonstrate the creativity of nature, Evolution is not plausible. Ignoring all other things, what is more plausible, the belief that apes gave birth to humans or that humans gave birth to humans? Do you have anything you'd call a plausible explanation for the origin of life?
2005-06-16 19:27 | User Profile
"[B]Creation-Evolution Headlines'[/B]" commentary on this issue:
[url]http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200506.htm[/url]
[COLOR=DarkGreen]Bruce Alberts is like the out-of-touch king in the Wizard of Id cartoon. A frantic messenger runs into the castle, breathlessly shouting, ââ¬ÅThe peasants are revolting!ââ¬Â Unalarmed and undeterred, the king responds, ââ¬ÅThey certainly are.ââ¬Â
So he sends out his PR Philistines to mop up the rebels. Some of his advisors know not to underestimate the field (see 02/27/2004 entry). The NAS Goliath can boast, but he had better be a match for stones of evidence. Observing the Philistine ranks, Brad Harrub at Apologetics Press smells fear in the air.
The new NAS website, with all the charm of a bureaucratic office building, may please academia but will probably backfire with the public. [B] In the first place, its publications are old. It is still touting its very one-sided 1999 report Science and Creationism with all its fallacies and obfuscations. [/B] It even advertises a 1990 report ââ¬ÅThe Search for Lifeââ¬â¢s Origins,ââ¬Â when much of the interesting biochemistry, and much of the contradiction to evolutionary assumptions, is more recent (see 02/06/2005 and 01/28/2004 entries). [B]Secondly, the website is completely one-sided, offering no debate. Nowhere are evolution critics allowed to present their case in their own words.[/B] Readers are expected to hear all the terms of the controversy spun by the Darwin Party hacks, complete with the usual straw man, equivocation, bandwagon, extrapolation and false dichotomy fallacies.*
If the NAS wonââ¬â¢t stand up to the debate plate and answer the critics instead of disqualifying them out of court, this website is going to be perceived as nothing more than a power play, and will get no respect outside the Party Faithful. There are too many people out there who will no longer take bluffing and evasion for an answer. [B]Yet bluffing and evasion appears to be official NAS policy. Quote: ââ¬ÅGiven the organizational skills, experience, and political astuteness of those who promote creationism and Intelligent Design, it is suggested that you NOT agree to enter into direct debates with the proponents if you have not been involved with such activities beforeââ¬Â (ââ¬ÅTeaching the Science [sic] of Evolutionââ¬Â). [/B]
The very next sentence says, ââ¬ÅCell and molecular biologists have provided some of the most compelling evidence to support the theory of evolution and should therefore be among those who raise their voices the loudest to support science curricula that help students understand the processes of evolution.ââ¬Â Ha! In a day of molecular motors and machines, that is astonishing (see 05/18/2005, 05/17/2005, 04/04/2005, 03/14/2005 and 04/30/2005 entries for recent examples). Does this paper provide any of said evidence? Dead silence. If these two quotes do not illustrate bluffing and evasion, let them come clean and show us how the process of science is served by avoiding debate and making sweeping, unsupported generalizations contrary to the evidence.
[B]Most anti-evolution websites freely quote the very best Darwinists and critique their original sources; Creation-Evolution Headlines, for instance, frequently provides extended quotes, in context, on both sides. Why wonââ¬â¢t the Darwinists do better than caricature their opposition?[/B] Anti-evolution websites are mushrooming because people are tired of Darwinian dogmatism. Weââ¬â¢re waiting, NAS: we want to hear the latest Tinkerbell Tale about the origin of life, the origin of complex language translation and error correction by chance, the origin of molecular machines without an engineer, and the explosion of body plans in the fossil record. That will at least make your new website entertaining.
*Examples:
Straw man: caricaturing the opposition as religious kooks, even when they have PhDs in science. Equivocation: defining science as naturalism; defining evolution as change; winning the debate by definition. Bandwagon: claiming that all scientists accept evolution (see also Big Lie). Extrapolation: assuming that because we observe microevolution, complete molecules-to-man Darwinism is established. False dichotomy: compartmentalizing science and religion as non-overlapping domains, yet treating evolution as if it answers the big questions of religion/philosophy. [/COLOR]
2005-06-16 19:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Is this really what evolutionists say? Or just creationists trying to parody evolutionist beliefs?
It's just what I said, without trying to give the explanation a coat of plausibility paint. The Evolutionist makes a totally implausible claim and then tries to make it sound plausible.
Evolutionists believe that dinosuar arms turned into feathered wings. It has been suggested "birds used their wings as large nets to trap insects as they ran" and that's how flight developed. The advocate of this absurdity would then tell a story about a small feathered dino catching insects in the feathers. See, it almost sounds reasonable, as long as we ignore the Evolutionist's misdirection. How about we start with a dinosuar that doesn't have any feathers to refine into a net. Isn't a net design exclusive of a flight design? Doesn't the net slow the dinosaur up and make it easier prey and making it hard "run" and catch insects? Do any living birds use their wings as nets to catch insects? I won't even bother to ask for any fossil evidence.
How is my story of a man flapping his arms to fly a parody rather than an accurate example of Evolutionist reasoning? It has been suggested that flight might have developed by dinosaurs trying to leap unto the air to catch prey. My story, but substituting humans for dinosaurs, is exacly the same mechanism some Evolutionists have suggested (have you hever seen a puny chicken leg, or any bird try to jump high. One wonders why Evolution took the path of wings instead of jumping legs to help dinos jump higher).
It is quite possible that human beings are unable to evolve wings, because there is no series of viable intermediary steps from "here" to "there"
Isn't jumping 26 inches into the air better than jumping 25 inches into the air?
"Irreducible complexity" is a "no viable intermediary steps" argument. Maybe there are no viable intermediary steps between birds and dinosaurs, between apes and humans, between regular humans and flying humans.
The only measure of fitness that is important is how many offspring they produce.
If number of offspring is the only measure of fitness, then the concept of fitness is nothing but a worthless tautology. Those that survive, survive; those that don't, don't.
There is nothing in evolutionary theory that says the sum total of all genetic information has to be increasing at all times.
It's easy to declare that evolutionary theory doesn't say something. What I'd be interested in is knowing anything that it does say. "Those that survive, survive." What else does evolutionary theory say?
Of course, evolution doesn't require total information to always increase. But, it does require an increase in information, even if there's a greater loss of information elsewhere. I was actually trying to make a point that there is a greal deal of indisputable net information loss. Whatever degree of creativity nature has had during human history, it is absolutely insufficient to account for the diversity and complexity of life that now exists if it is extrapolated on.
This is easily shown to be false. Most species are not present in the deepest, most ancient fossil strata, they only start to appear in the recent strata. If species only become extinct and new species never appear, why aren't these species present in the older fossil strata?[/QUOTE]
A species in the fossil record that doesn't exist now, like a T-rex is proof of an extinction. The failure of the fossil record to have a fossil at any given locaton is not nearly proof of a new species. There are animals believed to have existed for a very long time, but have left no fossils for a long time (for some examples, see "living fossils" like the coelacanth). And, of course, you must believe there are thousands of intermediary species that existed but left no fossils (ignoring that all fossils should be intermediary, if Evolution is true). If there can be species with no fossils, then there can be species before there were fossils of those species. This is all the more so if the fossil record isn't the gradual time-line cross-section of the whole of life that Evolutionists assume it is.