Slashdot Mirror
Evolution Named Scientific Achievement of 2005
lazy_hp writes "The BBC reports that research into evolution's inner working has been named rtop science achievement of 2005 From the article: 'The prestigious US journal Science publishes its top 10 list of major endeavours at the end of each year. The number one spot was awarded jointly to several studies that illuminated the intricate workings of evolution. The announcement comes in the same week that a US court banned the teaching of intelligent design in classrooms.'"
Nominated for 2006, GRAVITY!!!!
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
What I find saddest about the ID movement is that they have the wrong-headed idea that evolution rules out an Intelligent Designer. Nothing about evolution implies it is random and undirected. While each generation is certainly full of mutations that have no purpose, over the long run all species evolve traits that assure their survival, a form of genetic "intelligence" itself.
ID proponents would be better served examining how evolution *validates* their viewpoint. Just because evolution doesn't specify an Intelligent Designer doesn't mean there isn't one, just that we can't prove one scientifically. For some reason, being unable to prove something scientifically means, to some people, it just doesn't exist.
I'm not a Christian, and I don't have a firm belief in any kind of God, but ID supporters are clearly looking at evolution the wrong way.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
For example,"I think the planets should be renamed because they're named after fake gods."
Given that you Christians believe in one God (or is it three?), won't it get rather confusing if you name all the planets after him?
You won't be able to tell Uranus from Urelbow.
But ID and evolution are not equivalent. One *assumes* an Intelligent Designer. The other does not. That evolution doesn't *require* such a Designer doesn't mean one doesn't exist, only that the theory does not rely on one.
Your argument actually collapses on itself, because you have essentially said ID does nothing but add a layer of complexity to evolution--a layer that is unnecessary, does not aid our understanding of the evolutionary process, and does not alter observational results.
That is exactly why I oppose ID being taught as an "alternative" or "replacement" for evolution. It is not, it is simply an ill-conceived modification designed to inject monotheistic dogma into a realm where it has no place.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
The elements that created everything had to come from somewhere.
Where did the Intelligent being come from? The elements that comprise the being had to come from somewhere.
Whatever you reply to this "he always existed" or whatever, is the same reply I'll give you to you about where the elements came from. It's just as logical as yours.
The root problem with Intelligent Design is that it is compatible with all possible observations. Or, to put it another way, it has no explanatory power. In that alone it is meaningless to science. If you can't make predictions, if you can't formulate tests to falsify it, if any data gathered or potentially to be gathered, fits within the model, then you really don't have a model at all. ID was formulated intentionally in this manner, because it's part of the Big Tent strategy that the Discovery Institute and its allies have formulated. It's a political and legal strategy to get as many diverse groups whose only real commonality is "God did it" (where "it" can mean anything from special creation to theistic evolution).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"I think the planets should be renamed because they're named after fake gods."
You are free to call the planets whatever you wish.
But clearly what you really want is the power (through government dictate) to force others to use names that are approved by your particular religion.
I hear a lot of Christians complain about how oppressed they are.
In the end the complaints turn out to be about wanting the power to control others.
This is where ID really fails in my mind. They say that because we don't fully understand evolution, and because of the gaps, that it must of been an intelligent being who did it. This sounds a lot to me like Mercury dragging the sun accross the sky in a chariot as an explanation because we didn't understand why the sun moved accross the sky. Just because we don't understand something fully, does not give any proof that an intelligent being was at work. This explanation has been used throughout history for things we don't understand, and it has been proven wrong. Unless there is real evidence that an intelligent being is doing something, which there never is, then you can't say that something is happening because of the intelligent being.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
the ancient greeks did for sure. And the dimentions they gave was pretty close.
r se.htm /it's elephants all the way down
In fact during the middle ages most people I understand thought it round as well.
The middle-eastern view seems to be that it was flat.
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUnive
The other assumes an Unintelligent Designer instead- Random Chance.
Most mutations are the result of damage caused by disease, radiation, and transcription errors. Combining genes (as in sexual reproduction) can also produce unexpected effects. None of these rely on a designer, and "randomness" is an essential feature of our universe (per quantum mechanics).
And yet, the way it's been taught in the last 50 years- it does rely on one. It relies on random mutation as a driving creator. So does ID by the way- except in that case it's God doing trial and error testing. Without a creator, intelligent or unintelligent, pushing change- both ID and evolution would find a stable state and the changes would simply stop.
Except randomness is not an agent, it's a concept. It implies someone with intent is responsible for our evolution. Natural processes have no intent.
And why would God need to do trial-and-error testing to begin with? I should think He'd already know what to do.
Evolution never stops because the environment is not stable. Natural selection occurs in response to an ever-changing environment. If a group of people were isolated in an environment devoid of any change--in terms of population, knowledge, climate, anything--they would only evolve to optimally survive in that environment, then stop. We do not live in such a world.
Nope- because God is no more complex than the concept of a random and indeterministic universe. The two concepts are equally complex.
But randomness is observed, as we see the lack of a pattern. You can't observe God, which makes the idea useless to science.
Incorrect- without that motivating layer, whether intelligent as in ID or random as in evolution, there's no way for natural selection to happen. Life in the universe as we know it would reach a steady state- and never again evolve.
See my statements above about constantly-changing environments.
Then the idea of a random, indeterministic universe, which is ALSO a monotheistic, or maybe a better word would be ANTI-theistic, dogma, should not be injected into that realm either- in which case you can't teach evolution. The basic theory *does* require a motivator- the only argument is over what that motivator is.
I don't understand how the lack of mention of God makes something anti-theistic. At best, it makes it agnostic--it does not know if a God exists, nor does it attempt to prove one.
The burden of proof is on Intelligent Design to show us why evolution could only have happened with the aid of a Designer. ID proponents have yet to provide such evidence, while evolution has demonstrated amply that random mutation results in natural selection, without the need for a higher entity guiding the process.
As I said before, ID assumes a being with intent. Natural selection does not. And don't confuse random input with random output. The results of evolution are anything but random, which is the whole point of natural selection.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Yes there is. The more intellegent people are, the less likely they are to be religious. Pointers to plenty of studies that show this can be found here. The fact that there are indeed famous intelligent and religious people is not a proof of the contrary (as any intelligent person will know :-).
Besides, when refering to people like Da Vinci, one has to take into account the society that they lived in and the corresponding education that they recieved.
Linux user since early January 1992.
The point is that ID brings nothing to the table. It explains nothing.
And so it is nothing but a waste of time in science class.