Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[Freethinker]

Hmmm... As I understand it, our most ancient images are from about a billion years after the Big Bonk, e.g., an article on black holes shaping galaxies in Discover , 1/05. But the mechanics, the shape of galaxies, their levels and types of organization, their general nature, and probably other characteristics don't seem to have undergone any meaningful change. Sure, they expand, spin, collide, and get farther apart, but (if I'm right in my description), I haven't seen anything that shows processes in galactic evolution that would be analogous to an increase in complexity, speciation, population effects, or other life enhancements characteristic of evolution in the biological realm.

That they (other galaxies) exist is proof of "an increase in complexity". That they exist in every manner we would expect (recent findings of perhaps "younger than expected" or unusual shapes do not violate "process", just timing) them to would add support to expecting other aspects of cosmological evolution to be the same.

As always, thanks for your responses. I like feeling my ideas change as they collide tectonically with those of other thoughtful people! :)

And the unthinking! :-)

 

Yes that is why we all love this site!

[Freethinker]

OK, perhaps not all.

[Freethinker]

OK, perhaps ten of us?

[Biochemist]

There is not a single other SCIENTIFIC process to challenge Evolution Not a single one.

 

Unless someone here is the first in the world ever to offer a viable, factually supported, predictive, falsifiable alternative.

 

 

Both of these statements/suggestions are fundamentally untrue.

1) the core argument of the Intelligent Design folks is that the numerous examples of irreducible complexity (i.e., complex life-form structures or processes that are not favored incrementally) make the odds of species-to-species variation through serial natural selection implausable. No one is obligated to agree with this, but it is a credible, evaluatable argument. I personally believe that if evolutionists do not respect this line of thinking, they are obviating the scientific method.

2) Per the scientific method, it is not necessary to offer a theoretical alternative in order to refute (or critique) a theory. An individual who believes that the fundamental theses within Darwinian evolution are weak does not become a creationist, nor an Intelligent Design theorist. He/she is merely a critic of evolution.

3) Perhaps relatedly, individuals who elect to group Intelligent Design theorists with Creationists should expect at least a little derision. These two groups are only very weakly associated. To my knowledgte, no ID advocates use any Biblical construct (Genesis or otherwise) to bolster their positions.

[Biochemist]

well... if creationism is taught, biology would be gone. no one in that school would be able to take bio thus would have a huge disadventage going into fields in college that deals with medical, chemical, biological stuffs.

 

""Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," "

yep, thats right...it would mess the whole biology class up.

 

 

It would be useful if critics of Intelligent Design used slightly more articulate arguments.

 

1) I don't actually know any Creationists, but I do know lots of Intelligent Design theorists. I suggest we not get them mixed up. The court cases in play (as of this writing) are about Intelligent Design, not Creationism.

2) Many (perhaps a majority) of classis scientists (e.g., Gallileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein) were theists that believed fundamentally that we live in a rational world because it was created by a rational God. To suggest that being a theist removes any incentive to articulate case-and-effect by the scientifric method would come as quite a surprise to these four scientists.

3) Copernicus, in particular, disagreed with the Church, and did so speaking as a theist. He critiqued the reigning dogma based on a credible experiment. He did not reject God, he advocated heliocentricity. The Church attacked him as a heretic, even though he clearly was not. One could argue (credibly) that evolutionist attacks on Intelligent Design theorists are analogous to the Church attacking Copernicus. The Intelligent Designers have credible arguments. The evolutionists could certainly modify their theoretical constructs (as they have often in the past) to address these arguments, but so far it looks like it is easier to ridicule (as with Copernicus.)

[Biochemist]

The US is falling behind the rest of the world in Science and it is directly related to Fundies trying to stop true Science from being taught in our schools.

 

Hmmmm. A smart guy offers a completely unsupported hypothesis as a postulate. And this is in a discussion about the Scientific method? :cup:

[Biochemist]

One method teachers cn use, and if they are scientists at all, they are aware of the principle of falsifiability For an assertion to be falsifiable, in principle it must be possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. For example, the assertion "All crows are black" could be falsified by observing one red crow. Any thinking person can relate to this. Try to falsify one of the ID assertions.

 

The core ID assertions are falsifiable. The test models for falsification are complex. And just like any attempt to provide counterexamples, they themsleves would be open to falsification.

 

As one of many falsification threads, evolutionsists could attempt to refute the assertion of irreducible complexity of the mamalian sodium ion cell wall pump (or the urea cycle, or beta oxidation of fats, or glycolysis, or sex hormone homeostasis, etc, etc, etc, etc) . This would (probably) require reasonably sophisiticated computer models that would integrate mulltiple physical experiments. Evolutionists would need to demonstratre that natural selection (or whatever chance-oriented model preferred) is not hampered by the fact that the biological systems fails if any one of hundreds of separate elements fail.

 

It is not clear why evolutionists regard ID as a non scientific position. It is true that there are not many peer-reviewed articles advocating irreducible complexity of specific complex systems, but that does not obviate the fact that it is a credible assertion.

 

Evolutionists should also recognize the difficulty inherent inr any ID scientist trying to get funding for their portion of the falsification thread. The political weight of dogma on evolution is large. Basis scientists would probably risk career standing if they aggressively pursued irreducible complexity defense models. They are in much the same position that Copernicus was.

[C1ay]

I think a key point is really ignored in the whole argument between evolution and creationism.

 

Evolution does not rely on any particular beginning of life. It is about the constant change of life. It is a predictable, testable, scientific theory. It does not require a study of the beginning of life or a particular belief in how life started. It is not based, nor does it rely, on the premise that life began with abiogenesis or creation.

 

Creationism, and ID by the fact that it does rely on creationism, is a philosophical belief about where life began. It is not predictable or testable as scientific theory. At the very least, it requires a leap of faith and is therefore a belief system, i.e. philosophy.

 

IMO, evolution belongs in the science classroom since it qualifies as science. Creationism does not, it is a belief. I think creationism and ID both qualify as philosophy and I do not particularly object to them being discussed in the philosophy classroom. Until such time as creation or ID can meet the true tests of scientific principle, they should not be taught as science.

[Tormod]

Evolutionists should also recognize the political weight on any ID scientist trying to get funding for their portion of the falsification thread. The political weight of dogma on evolution is large. Basis scientists would probably risk career standing if they aggressively pursued irreduceable complexity defense models. They are in much the same position that Copernicus was.

 

Weeeeeeeell. ID-ers like to play martyr. Up until _very_ recently the teaching of evolution was not particularly welcome. The first evolution class was taught about 75 years ago in the US. The ID movement is there to "crush Darwinism" for all it's worth, and is based on fundamentalist Christian principles. Who is on a crusade?

[Tormod]

To my knowledgte, no ID advocates use any Biblical construct (Genesis or otherwise) to bolster their positions.

 

Then you should check your facts. The Discovery Institute does indeed vehemently oppose that they have anything to do with creationism. They are not particularly successful in my eyes.

 

Read this interesting article in Wired:

The Crusade Against Evolution

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html?pg=1&topic=evolution&topic_set=

 

and also the Discovery Institute's retractment of their own wording in the so-called "Wedge" document which almost revealed their "non-secret" agenda.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&program=CSC%20Responses&id=2101

 

(Note it's a PDF file without the .pdf ending so it needs to be renames).

[TeleMad]

Freethinker: There is not a single other SCIENTIFIC process to challenge Evolution Not a single one.

 

Both of these statements/suggestions are fundamentally untrue [because they ignore Intelligent Design].

 

Just happen to have a handy-dandy poll about this.

 

Many of us know about polls of the general public in the US showing a strong belief in God and a supernatural creation of humans just a few thousand years ago. But the general public is largely uneducated: they don’t hold college degrees in science. Here’s an interesting poll about evolution, intelligent design, and God: but this time among professors of science. Amazing what a difference an education can make!

 

“An e-mail invitation to participate in this web-based survey was sent to all professors (approximately 1500) currently on the faculty in four-year, public and private colleges and universities in Ohio for the following fields: Astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and other natural sciences. Their e-mail addresses were identified through a combination of listings on the various college and departmental websites, supplemented by further examination of other university information sources. Four hundred and sixty (460) professors responded to the e-mail invitation, a response rate of 31%.

 

The sampling error for a sample size of 460 cases is approximately plus or minus 4.5%. As in any other survey, in addition to sampling error, other sources of error such as non-response and the wording and context of the questions asked can affect the results and conclusions of the study.

 

The results reported here for the Internet survey of Ohio science professors were based on the following questions (Note: Percentages Rounded)

 

1. Are you aware of any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution?

1. Yes -- 4%

2. No -- 93

3. Not Sure -- 2

 

 

2. The concept of “Intelligent Design” is that life and the universe are too complex to have developed without the intervention of a purposeful being or force to guide the development of life. Which of the following do you think best describes “Intelligent Design”?

1. It is strongly supported by scientific evidence -- 2%

2. It is partly supported by scientific evidence -- 5

3. It is not supported at all by scientific evidence -- 90

4. Not Sure -- 3

 

 

3. Do you think the concept of “Intelligent Design” is primarily a religious view?”

1. Yes -- 91%

2. No -- 5

3. Not Sure -- 4

 

 

4. Do you think Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate?

1. Yes -- 92%

2. No -- 4

3. Not Sure -- 3

 

 

5. Do you think Ohio high school students should be tested on their knowledge of the concept of “Intelligent Design” in order to graduate?

1. Yes -- 6%

2. No -- 90

3. Not Sure -- 4

 

 

6. Do you use the concept of Intelligent Design in your research?

1. Yes -- 2%

2. No -- 97

3. Not Sure -- 1

 

 

7. Do you think accepting the theory of evolution is consistent with believing in God?

a. Yes -- 84%

b. No -- 9

c. Not Sure -- 7

 

October 15, 2002

(http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/733_ohio_scientists39_intellige_10_15_2002.asp)

[Biochemist]

Creationism, and ID by the fact that it does rely on creationism, is a philosophical belief about where life began. It is not predictable or testable as scientific theory. At the very least, it requires a leap of faith and is therefore a belief system, i.e. philosophy.

 

IMO, evolution belongs in the science classroom since it qualifies as science. Creationism does not, it is a belief. I think creationism and ID both qualify as philosophy and I do not particularly object to them being discussed in the philosophy classroom. Until such time as creation or ID can meet the true tests of scientific principle, they should not be taught as science.

 

Again, a little terminology. ID does rely on a deity. It most certainly does not rely on Creationism. Creationism is a poorly ciircumscribed body of thought related to assertions from Genesis 1.

 

I think it is reasonable to suggest that ANY analytical method requires an underlying philsophy. It is not reasonable to suggest that we could launch into a sequence of study based on the scientific method and pretend that we do not have postulates. A set of postulates is unavoidably a philosophy. There is absolutlely nothing wrong with postulates in the scientific method. The process error is in contending that the researcher does not have any.

 

It is perfectly reasonable to contend (as a postulate) that all things happen by chance/random and to use that framework for analysis. When a researcher pretends that he/she is working "only on facts" in the absence of underlying postulates, this is self delusion. I think the hardest part of basic science is remembering your fundamental postulates. They just might be invalid, and you then need to rework all of the thought upon which invalid postulates were based.

[Biochemist]

Weeeeeeeell. ID-ers like to play martyr. Up until _very_ recently the teaching of evolution was not particularly welcome. The first evolution class was taught about 75 years ago in the US. The ID movement is there to "crush Darwinism" for all it's worth, and is based on fundamentalist Christian principles. Who is on a crusade?

 

Interesting point. I agree that there was a point in history when elements of Darwinism were blocked (somewhat thoughtlessly) by Creationists. However, just because it has happenned to Darwinists does not grant them the right to return the favor to ID advocates.

 

We should be open to the notion that ID advocates are not homogeneous (nor are cancer researchers or quantum physicists.) Some ID folks are well versed in the scientific method. It is reasonable to recognize that there are real stumbling blocks to research frunding for hypotheses that are perceived as supporting ID. Not meannt to be an excuse, just an observation that appears to be factual.

[C1ay]

Again, a little terminology. ID does rely on a deity. It most certainly does not rely on Creationism.

 

So you are saying that ID does not advocate that life was created? Does that mean that abiogenesis is a valid beginning of life according to ID?

[Biochemist]

Just happen to have a handy-dandy poll about this.

 

Many of us know about polls of the general public in the US showing a strong belief in God and a supernatural creation of humans just a few thousand years ago. But the general public is largely uneducated: they don’t hold college degrees in science. Here’s an interesting poll about evolution, intelligent design, and God: but this time among professors of science. Amazing what a difference an education can make!

 

Interesting survey, but I am not certain I understand your assertion (not picking on you, I just didn't notice one.) It is reasonable to expect that anyone surveyed would see ID as a point of view of people who are theists, just as you might expect anyone that is an atheist (as a postulate) would not advocate ID. It is also true that the body of peer-reviewed research on ID is small, ergo most academics would not have seen it (nor care about it). It is also true that most research (particularly from the academic specialties you cited) would not often need to reference a framework that requred presuppositions related to ID.

 

Your point?

[Queso]

The deity would be the creator, in biochemists statement, correct? therefore, it is creationism.

[TeleMad]

As one of many falsification threads, evolutionsists could attempt to refute the assertion of irreducible complexity of the mamalian sodium ion cell wall pump (or the urea cycle, or beta oxidation of fats, or glycolysis, or sex hormone homeostasis, etc, etc, etc, etc) .

 

Excuse me, but if you are going to use Behe's term irreducible complexity, you should use it correctly ... and you're not.

 

"You have to be careful. You can't toss around this phrase [irreducible complexity] here and there. You have to be careful: you have to inspect the system. ... But for irreducible complexity, you can't just snap your fingers and say "Boy, look how complex that is, it needs all its parts". You have to go through and understand what the parts are doing, and only then can you say this might be a mixture of necessary parts plus extras. Only after an examination, only when you know what the structure of the system is, then can you say these are the components that are REALLY necessary for the irreducibly complex system, and there might be some extras on there as well." (Michael Behe, Irreducible Complexity: The Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Theory, Access Resource Network, 1997)

 

You've just thrown the term IC around haphazardly.

 

Behe also says...

 

“

******************************

“Here is a complex biochemical system, clearly an excellent hook on which to hang his thesis. Right? However, closer inspection of the literature reveals problems with such a "Krebs cycle is irreducibly complex" hypothesis.”

******************************

 

Behe: Unfortunately, the assertion that the TCA cycle is irreducibly complex is Robison's, not mine. In my book (p. 150-151) I clearly state that an A-->B-->C-->D metabolic pathway may have developed in a Darwinian fashion (although this has not been demonstrated rigorously.) I pointedly do not argue about things like the TCA cycle.”

(http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_toresp.htm )

 

So where's your demonstration that glycolysis is IC, considering that Behe says the TCA cycle, and other A-->B-->C-->D metabolic pathways, aren't?