"Pretty much done" can also mean "Close to being completed." As in, "Almost released." Since that's the exact opposite of what the article actually says, maybe the editors should pay a little more attention to detail?
I see. I assumed that you were advocating the teaching of strong ID, and I apologize--my contempt for creationism makes me disagreeable sometimes.
I disagree still, but more civilly. I think that empiricism is the highest value in science and science education; while the philosophy is interesting, it's merely philosophy, and has yet to demonstrate why reliance on empiricism is not useful, productive, and (in the wriggliest sense) "true". But I will freely admit that I have never studied philosophy, other than the philosophy of science, and may be too quick to dismiss it. I agree that it is a valuable field, and applicable to the practice and teaching of science.
But, and it's a big but, the argument that the philosophical underpinnings must be taught at an pre-college level seems wrong to me, for two reasons. First, I think the field is not as useful or as important as teaching the basic facts and processes of science. There simply aren't enough credit hours being put into science education as it is, in my opinion, and focusing on philosophy would dilute more important lessons. Second, the teaching of the philosophy of science opens a wide side door for pseudoscience, which I have argued elsewhere is dangerous. Advocates of pseudoscience are sophisticated enough now to manipulate such a discussion to introduce the teaching of falsified, dishonest, or simply politically convenient material, and I am no postmodernist. I contend that, at least at the primary level, it is much more important, and much more useful, to teach the basics of practical science than the abstruse philosophy that attempts to describe it.
But I think your arguments are very interesting. I apologize again for misunderstanding you earlier. I would suggest, if you don't mind, that you use caution when discussing "intelligent design." Because ID is propped up by a highly organized and sophisticated think tank and group of advocates that manipulate the debate on a larger scale, it is difficult to discuss its implications without bringing in the extra baggage. Perhaps "theistic evolution" would be a better term? That is the term generally used to describe the approach you seem to be taking, if I understand you correctly; it is a weaker description, but not as burdened by external implications.
I reply to an anonymous (and vapid) coward only to note that I failed to distinguish between the proper scientific use of the term "macroevolution" and the creationist drivel use of the term, with which the parent AC seems enamored.
Here is a brief explanation, from a different section of my favorite FAQ, that describes the difference:
"Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.
Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet."
It is, in the classic creationist style, redefining terms in order to minimize the damage done by actual science to predetermined conclusions.
I disagree strongly, because I think you severely underestimate the corrosive effects of Intelligent Design. ID isn't intended to create an honest debate about evolution, it is intended to deceive laypeople into believing that there is legitimate science behind creationism. Insofar as the debate teaches people more about biology, I'm ecstatic, and I agree with you that we should cheer whatever positive effects come from the brouhaha. But I think they're strongly outweighed by the fact that the more the discussion is highlighted, the more the Dembskis and Behes of the world can lie through their teeth by saying, 'Look! There is a valid discussion going on about the accuracy of evolutionary theory!' The publicity is knowingly manipulated in a sophisticated attempt to mislead people, which is unfortunately, in my opinion, easier and more successful than the educational effects of that same publicity. Essentially, science education is hard, while dishonest bloviation is very easy---and, for most people, more fun to read.
but the central point remains that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID have both been placed under the harsh light of truth, and it is ID, not evolution, that is shrivelling away.
I wish that were true, but I don't think it is. I think ID has been weakened by recent legal developments, but that high-profile discoveries are essentially meaningless to it. Understanding the impact of a discovery such as this takes some basic background in science and, more importantly, a willingness to understand the issues objectively. And what we hear over and over again is that the most fertile ground for the development of creationism is home schooling and conservative school boards, where the decisionmakers don't have those qualities.
(NB, I'm not saying that home schoolers or conservative boards are inherently dishonest or uneducated. I merely point out that creationism flourishes there, in a high-visibilitiy minority of instances.)
Anyway, this latest news is great....now I finally have something solid to point to when my fundie friends stick their fingers in their ears and chant 'missing link! missing link!'.
My case in point, really. You've always had something solid to point to. There were solid instances to which you could point before you were born. Before your parents were born. Those scientific discoveries didn't sway fundamentalists, and neither will these.
Rationality will triumph....it's just going to take us longer than we'd like.
I agree completely. But I don't think that it will be the march of sophisticated and abstruse discoveries that will do it; they are too difficult for laypeople to understand, and too easy for the Dembskis of the world to lie their way around. Rather, it's important to sit on creationism in the educational process as thoroughly as possible, to inculcate the value of objectivity and empiricism in scientific inquiry.
"Intelligent Design is not science, it is not a theory, it is not something testable by the scientific method. It is a proposal for a minor change in the philosophical underpinnings of modern science."
Incorrect and misleading. If ID simply said, "Empirically detectable forces may have a supernatural cause that may or may not be empirically detectable" then your statement would be true. But ID, as pimped by the Discovery Institute, says that the supernatural creator is empirically detectable, and produces egregiously false arguments and dishonest media and political outreach efforts in an attempt to convince laypeople that they have, in fact, detected design. Because objective science fails to produce the results they want, they attack it wherever possible: ID is an attempt to suppress the teaching of mainstream and objective evolutionary theory for religious purposes.
The issue at stake is to teach rational and sound thought in learning rather than as another poster said "fact after fact".
"Rational and sound thought" sounds great, but ID offers neither. It is a media and political ministry intended to support Christianity against a perceived assault by "secular science." I refer you to the infamous Wedge Document.
Considering Intelligent Design forces us to not take for granted the philosophical underpinnings of current scientific inquiry.
What, methodological naturalism? When you can objectively demonstrate supernatural forces at work, then it's time to reconsider the value of empiricism as a philosophical underpinning of scientific inquiry. Until then, the false debate is merely an attempt to sneak religious extremism in through the back door, because it cannot offer the validation required by objective scientific processes.
Knowing this can make us more aware of the exploitation and more resilient to its efforts to sway public opinion.
How Orwellian. Look again to the Wedge Document, the long-term strategy of the DI (chief architect and champion of ID creationism). How much does the document focus on research? How much on media outreach? How much on political advocacy? More to the point, how much does the DI spend on research as compared to media outreach and political advocacy? Intelligent Design is, at its core, an "effort to sway public opinion." It offers nothing else - no research program, no results, no discoveries.
ID gets a chip to play at the "lets discuss the basic processes of science" table when it has some relevance to science. Until then, its demands to be taken seriously as a legitimate alternative are nothing more than the plaintive complaints of a theology that can't compete with actual research.
The idea that there is a substantive difference between macroevolution and microevolution is creationist drivel. See, for instance, the FAQ.
Moreover, there is no "link" between "PIGS" and "APES," in the sense that you imply. Pigs and apes share a common ancestor, one did not evolve from the other.
I have a similar store of old photos, but they're already water damaged. I still have the negatives, though, which appear to be in decent condition. I've looked into commercial negative scanning, but it's prohibitively expensive, and the negative scanning attachment for my scanner only does one at a time. Can anyone recommend a simple automatic feed negative scanner?
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I did not criticize organized religion, nor religion in general. I have no qualms about religious scientists, or religious people, or people that believe that God created all reality. My criticisms are reserved solely for those who seek to suppress scientific research and understanding based on their religious inclinations, which is a small minority of religious persons.
I agree that science and faith are not exclusive areas of human experience. They not only coexist in peace, they are very often complementary. If you're looking to fight with someone about that, look for another post; you're reading criticisms that I didn't write.
You are, in fact, entirely ignorant of the issue. I am not surprised; Intelligent Design was created with the intention of deceiving people, and it is very successful. The vaunted list you're pimping suffers from two critical flaws. The first is that it is overwhelmingly made up of lay persons with no special training in biology, as another commenter made clear.
Second, and more importantly, the list's statement is an expression of just the sort of ignorance that is characteristic of creationists. Any scientist could honestly sign the statement, because "it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too." Most scientists won't sign it, however, because they understand that it is a political tool used to attack objective science and support the suppression of scientific education. The DI list is a carefully constructed tool for deceiving laypeople, intended to create the false impression that there is a legitimate debate over the reality of evolution in scientific circles. There is not, and your belief that there is betrays colossol ignorance on your part.
(Incidentally, the list is also dwarfed by "Project Steve," a list of professional scientists who support objective science and evolution, but only accepts signatories named "Steven" or "Stephanie" in honor of Steven J. Gould. When the DI's list is a little over half the size of JUST the scientists named Steve who understand and support objective science, it shows how poorly they are viewed by professionals.)
In short, your criticism betrays just the sort of ignorance you don't want me pointing out in creationists generally. The problem is that it's not just a rhetorical claim; creationism really is dependent on ignorance. The list is a good example--it seems like a valid argument only as long as you don't know what you're talking about. Please do read up on the subject, but remember that you cannot get accurate information from creationists; the success of their theories depends on the suppression of information, not the dissemination of it.
Then I apologize if I was rude or unduly confrontational. The best advice I can give you is not to trust creationist sources; intelligent design was constructed from first principles as a way to deceive people without a solid grounding in biology and advance a particular religious perspective rather than an objective scientific conclusion. Always double check any fact or assertion made by creationists (or anyone else, of course). You will be amazed at how many creationist tropes, especially the underlying tenets of Intelligent Design, are unsupported by any legitimate research or are just flat-out lies. Again, the FAQ is an excellent resource.
"I was simply stating that evolution as compared to physics are two different kinds of theories."
Well, it's a good thing that you're simply stating it, because you'd have a hard time defending that statement as any sort of meaningful conclusion. Your assertion is meaningless. Evolution is not equivalent to "physics" in the sense that you mean. Evolutionary theory is to biology as atomic theory is to physics. Both have been exhaustively proven by legitimate scientists, and both offer crucial insights that underlie their overarching fields. Unfortunately, one of the two theories runs counter to the teachings of a narrow strata of religious zealots, and so suffers from the hands of a particularly aggressive strain of ignorance. But there are crackpots in both fields. Antievolutionists are pretty much the biology version of the Timecube guy.
Also, and again, your assertion that predictive power is only meaningful if the event being predicted list in the future is just goofy. See, for instance, an entire FAQ entry expressly dealing with this particularly silly idea.
The Talk Origins FAQ I've linked to is comprehensive, easily searched, and quite objective. Even better, it points the way to more in depth books, articles, and sources--you can, if you choose, go from a one-page FAQ summary all the way to the primary evidence. Otherwise, I would recommend a book such as Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is." Much more difficult than the FAQ, and a tiny bit dated, but also much more rewarding.
"My own education aside...there are plenty of doctorates degree toting morons out there I wouldn't trust with my peanut butter jar."
You trust those doctorates (and any number of intelligent, rational people with other degrees) with your health and safety whenever you climb into an automobile, go into surgery, or ride an elevator. Subjectively believing that you are truckproof, that your cancer won't spread, or that you can fly won't make those things true. The experts that you are trusting in those situations, like evolutionary biologists, put their faith is solid and objective results, not empty and sophomorical rhetoric. That is why people roll their eyes when fools say things like, "The sooner we realize that faith in evolution is no more scientific than those damn bible thumping fools, then the sooner we can just quit arguing and realize that our way is not the way."
Proving the accuracy of a testable prediction is one of the things that makes evolutionary theory not "faith."
"Physics is able to predict the future outcome of an experiment. Evolution is only able to predict the past."
Untrue, and a little bit ridiculous. One very easy example: Evolutionary theory is used to predict how organisms (such as, say, the Ebola pathogen) will evolve.
Moreover, it would be sufficient if evolutionary biology *did* simply make accurate predictions about the past. That is, of course, more than creationism can do. We look to the making and testing of predictions as a way of gauging whether a field is legitimately scientific; whether the event underlying the prediction has occured or will occur is not relevant, so long as the theory makes a prediction about an unknown outcome and that prediction can be tested.
"If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are."
Really? Because the biologists--you know, the guys who actually do the math to figure that sort of thing out--say otherwise. I don't mean to suggest that your casual inference is somehow not as persuasive as the life labors of scientists who waste their time with experiments, observations, professional collaborations, and measly testable predictions. Your unsupported hand-waving is certainly good enough for me. But just in case anyone reading your comment thinks that it in any way represents an educated opinion, you might want to read the FAQ.
I've already said it once in these comments, but it bears repeating. The ignorance required to be a creationist is stunning in its own right. But it's the arrogance that really knocks my socks off. It's one thing to just not know how a complicated science works - very few people do. It's quite another to assume that the well-educated, hard-working specialists who unanimously disagree with you also don't know anything, simply because you don't like the facts they discover.
Sweet Zombie Jesus, you have to be kidding. ID is BS. Period. An educated and honest human being has no excuse for pandering to such an invidiously ignorant ideology. A quick reply to your frankly ridiculous bullet points:
1. Evolution is a biological phenomenon. It has no answer for this question, because this question is not relevant to the evolution of species. Inasmuch as you are indicting all of objective science, I'll simply note that ID has no better answer than consensus physics. "Jesus did it" (or Unnameddesignerwhowewon'tcallGodeventhoughweallkno wthat'swhowe'retalkingabout) is not a testable or falsifiable answer, and is a statement of faith rather than a scientific hypothesis.
2. Sea creatures did not "decide" to become amphibious. Evolution is not a directed process in which species consider their options and choose one. Nor do species evolve "towards" a higher form. That sort of teleology is, again, not a scientific hypothesis. This question is particularly egregious; even a primary school education should have taught you that creatures don't "decide" on how to evolve. I'll charitably assume that you mean, "How did aquatic species become amphibious and then terrestrial species?" The answer is complicated, because science is hard. Read a book. Preferably one by a real scientist, or at least someone with a biology degree. The shortest and easiest (and therefore oversimplified) version is that organisms capable of thriving in more and more marginal environments reproduced more successfully, preserving and spreading their inheritable successful traits.
3. Again, this question betrays remarkable ignorance. Darwin proposed an evolutionary chain for the development of the eye well over a century ago, and evolutionary biology has demonstrated that the eye evolved early and often. (There's a pithy quote to that effect, but I can't recall to whom it should be attributed.) Even basic light-sensitive skin cells can confer an advantage, and the development of those cells into complex lens-bearing eyes is hardly the deep and overpowering mystery that hacks like Behe would like credulous fools to believe that it is. Again, please read a book by someone who *isn't* a creationist. You will be amazed how much there is to learn.
Obviously, I am very contemptuous of your ignorance. But it's more than just that--what is so aggravating to me is the classic creationist arrogance. You assume that your questions are great traps to confound scientists and educated people, when in fact they are literally so foolish that a child could answer them. Do you really think that you know better than specialists who have spent their entire adult lives studying the field? Do you really think that they will be unable to answer your questions? Why haven't you learned the answers to those questions by now yourself? I suspect that the problem may be that you're getting your information from biased sources, such as ID blogs. Someone has badly misled you. But as impoverished as your understanding of the issue is, I'm even more disappointed by the moderators who rated your questions as "interesting." Honestly, the exposure of such rank ignorance on a site geared towards highly educated and presumably intelligent people is disillusioning.
I need a drink. You need a book. Let's hope we both get what we need.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you come up with any interesting candidates?
"Pretty much done" can also mean "Close to being completed." As in, "Almost released." Since that's the exact opposite of what the article actually says, maybe the editors should pay a little more attention to detail?
Listen, pal, if there's life on Mars we're going to wind up bombing the hell out of it sooner or later. They might as well get used to it now.
How does the software detect a commercial? Is there an underlying signal the machine picks up, or does it go by volume/brightness cues?
To be fair, you're also getting software updates.
I see. I assumed that you were advocating the teaching of strong ID, and I apologize--my contempt for creationism makes me disagreeable sometimes.
I disagree still, but more civilly. I think that empiricism is the highest value in science and science education; while the philosophy is interesting, it's merely philosophy, and has yet to demonstrate why reliance on empiricism is not useful, productive, and (in the wriggliest sense) "true". But I will freely admit that I have never studied philosophy, other than the philosophy of science, and may be too quick to dismiss it. I agree that it is a valuable field, and applicable to the practice and teaching of science.
But, and it's a big but, the argument that the philosophical underpinnings must be taught at an pre-college level seems wrong to me, for two reasons. First, I think the field is not as useful or as important as teaching the basic facts and processes of science. There simply aren't enough credit hours being put into science education as it is, in my opinion, and focusing on philosophy would dilute more important lessons. Second, the teaching of the philosophy of science opens a wide side door for pseudoscience, which I have argued elsewhere is dangerous. Advocates of pseudoscience are sophisticated enough now to manipulate such a discussion to introduce the teaching of falsified, dishonest, or simply politically convenient material, and I am no postmodernist. I contend that, at least at the primary level, it is much more important, and much more useful, to teach the basics of practical science than the abstruse philosophy that attempts to describe it.
But I think your arguments are very interesting. I apologize again for misunderstanding you earlier. I would suggest, if you don't mind, that you use caution when discussing "intelligent design." Because ID is propped up by a highly organized and sophisticated think tank and group of advocates that manipulate the debate on a larger scale, it is difficult to discuss its implications without bringing in the extra baggage. Perhaps "theistic evolution" would be a better term? That is the term generally used to describe the approach you seem to be taking, if I understand you correctly; it is a weaker description, but not as burdened by external implications.
I reply to an anonymous (and vapid) coward only to note that I failed to distinguish between the proper scientific use of the term "macroevolution" and the creationist drivel use of the term, with which the parent AC seems enamored.
Here is a brief explanation, from a different section of my favorite FAQ, that describes the difference:
"Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.
Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet."
It is, in the classic creationist style, redefining terms in order to minimize the damage done by actual science to predetermined conclusions.
I disagree strongly, because I think you severely underestimate the corrosive effects of Intelligent Design. ID isn't intended to create an honest debate about evolution, it is intended to deceive laypeople into believing that there is legitimate science behind creationism. Insofar as the debate teaches people more about biology, I'm ecstatic, and I agree with you that we should cheer whatever positive effects come from the brouhaha. But I think they're strongly outweighed by the fact that the more the discussion is highlighted, the more the Dembskis and Behes of the world can lie through their teeth by saying, 'Look! There is a valid discussion going on about the accuracy of evolutionary theory!' The publicity is knowingly manipulated in a sophisticated attempt to mislead people, which is unfortunately, in my opinion, easier and more successful than the educational effects of that same publicity. Essentially, science education is hard, while dishonest bloviation is very easy---and, for most people, more fun to read.
but the central point remains that the theory of evolution and the theory of ID have both been placed under the harsh light of truth, and it is ID, not evolution, that is shrivelling away.
I wish that were true, but I don't think it is. I think ID has been weakened by recent legal developments, but that high-profile discoveries are essentially meaningless to it. Understanding the impact of a discovery such as this takes some basic background in science and, more importantly, a willingness to understand the issues objectively. And what we hear over and over again is that the most fertile ground for the development of creationism is home schooling and conservative school boards, where the decisionmakers don't have those qualities.
(NB, I'm not saying that home schoolers or conservative boards are inherently dishonest or uneducated. I merely point out that creationism flourishes there, in a high-visibilitiy minority of instances.)
Anyway, this latest news is great....now I finally have something solid to point to when my fundie friends stick their fingers in their ears and chant 'missing link! missing link!'.
My case in point, really. You've always had something solid to point to. There were solid instances to which you could point before you were born. Before your parents were born. Those scientific discoveries didn't sway fundamentalists, and neither will these.
Rationality will triumph....it's just going to take us longer than we'd like.
I agree completely. But I don't think that it will be the march of sophisticated and abstruse discoveries that will do it; they are too difficult for laypeople to understand, and too easy for the Dembskis of the world to lie their way around. Rather, it's important to sit on creationism in the educational process as thoroughly as possible, to inculcate the value of objectivity and empiricism in scientific inquiry.
"Intelligent Design is not science, it is not a theory, it is not something testable by the scientific method. It is a proposal for a minor change in the philosophical underpinnings of modern science."
Incorrect and misleading. If ID simply said, "Empirically detectable forces may have a supernatural cause that may or may not be empirically detectable" then your statement would be true. But ID, as pimped by the Discovery Institute, says that the supernatural creator is empirically detectable, and produces egregiously false arguments and dishonest media and political outreach efforts in an attempt to convince laypeople that they have, in fact, detected design. Because objective science fails to produce the results they want, they attack it wherever possible: ID is an attempt to suppress the teaching of mainstream and objective evolutionary theory for religious purposes.
The issue at stake is to teach rational and sound thought in learning rather than as another poster said "fact after fact".
"Rational and sound thought" sounds great, but ID offers neither. It is a media and political ministry intended to support Christianity against a perceived assault by "secular science." I refer you to the infamous Wedge Document.
Considering Intelligent Design forces us to not take for granted the philosophical underpinnings of current scientific inquiry.
What, methodological naturalism? When you can objectively demonstrate supernatural forces at work, then it's time to reconsider the value of empiricism as a philosophical underpinning of scientific inquiry. Until then, the false debate is merely an attempt to sneak religious extremism in through the back door, because it cannot offer the validation required by objective scientific processes.
Knowing this can make us more aware of the exploitation and more resilient to its efforts to sway public opinion.
How Orwellian. Look again to the Wedge Document, the long-term strategy of the DI (chief architect and champion of ID creationism). How much does the document focus on research? How much on media outreach? How much on political advocacy? More to the point, how much does the DI spend on research as compared to media outreach and political advocacy? Intelligent Design is, at its core, an "effort to sway public opinion." It offers nothing else - no research program, no results, no discoveries.
ID gets a chip to play at the "lets discuss the basic processes of science" table when it has some relevance to science. Until then, its demands to be taken seriously as a legitimate alternative are nothing more than the plaintive complaints of a theology that can't compete with actual research.
The idea that there is a substantive difference between macroevolution and microevolution is creationist drivel. See, for instance, the FAQ.
Moreover, there is no "link" between "PIGS" and "APES," in the sense that you imply. Pigs and apes share a common ancestor, one did not evolve from the other.
I have a similar store of old photos, but they're already water damaged. I still have the negatives, though, which appear to be in decent condition. I've looked into commercial negative scanning, but it's prohibitively expensive, and the negative scanning attachment for my scanner only does one at a time. Can anyone recommend a simple automatic feed negative scanner?
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I did not criticize organized religion, nor religion in general. I have no qualms about religious scientists, or religious people, or people that believe that God created all reality. My criticisms are reserved solely for those who seek to suppress scientific research and understanding based on their religious inclinations, which is a small minority of religious persons.
I agree that science and faith are not exclusive areas of human experience. They not only coexist in peace, they are very often complementary. If you're looking to fight with someone about that, look for another post; you're reading criticisms that I didn't write.
You are, in fact, entirely ignorant of the issue. I am not surprised; Intelligent Design was created with the intention of deceiving people, and it is very successful. The vaunted list you're pimping suffers from two critical flaws. The first is that it is overwhelmingly made up of lay persons with no special training in biology, as another commenter made clear.
Second, and more importantly, the list's statement is an expression of just the sort of ignorance that is characteristic of creationists. Any scientist could honestly sign the statement, because "it is well known that random mutation and natural selection are not the only mechanisms contributing to the complexity of life; other mechanisms such as genetic drift and symbiosis are important, too." Most scientists won't sign it, however, because they understand that it is a political tool used to attack objective science and support the suppression of scientific education. The DI list is a carefully constructed tool for deceiving laypeople, intended to create the false impression that there is a legitimate debate over the reality of evolution in scientific circles. There is not, and your belief that there is betrays colossol ignorance on your part.
(Incidentally, the list is also dwarfed by "Project Steve," a list of professional scientists who support objective science and evolution, but only accepts signatories named "Steven" or "Stephanie" in honor of Steven J. Gould. When the DI's list is a little over half the size of JUST the scientists named Steve who understand and support objective science, it shows how poorly they are viewed by professionals.)
In short, your criticism betrays just the sort of ignorance you don't want me pointing out in creationists generally. The problem is that it's not just a rhetorical claim; creationism really is dependent on ignorance. The list is a good example--it seems like a valid argument only as long as you don't know what you're talking about. Please do read up on the subject, but remember that you cannot get accurate information from creationists; the success of their theories depends on the suppression of information, not the dissemination of it.
Replying to myself - I overlooked your statement that you are not a creationist. I apologize for implying that you are.
Then I apologize if I was rude or unduly confrontational. The best advice I can give you is not to trust creationist sources; intelligent design was constructed from first principles as a way to deceive people without a solid grounding in biology and advance a particular religious perspective rather than an objective scientific conclusion. Always double check any fact or assertion made by creationists (or anyone else, of course). You will be amazed at how many creationist tropes, especially the underlying tenets of Intelligent Design, are unsupported by any legitimate research or are just flat-out lies. Again, the FAQ is an excellent resource.
"I was simply stating that evolution as compared to physics are two different kinds of theories."
Well, it's a good thing that you're simply stating it, because you'd have a hard time defending that statement as any sort of meaningful conclusion. Your assertion is meaningless. Evolution is not equivalent to "physics" in the sense that you mean. Evolutionary theory is to biology as atomic theory is to physics. Both have been exhaustively proven by legitimate scientists, and both offer crucial insights that underlie their overarching fields. Unfortunately, one of the two theories runs counter to the teachings of a narrow strata of religious zealots, and so suffers from the hands of a particularly aggressive strain of ignorance. But there are crackpots in both fields. Antievolutionists are pretty much the biology version of the Timecube guy.
Also, and again, your assertion that predictive power is only meaningful if the event being predicted list in the future is just goofy. See, for instance, an entire FAQ entry expressly dealing with this particularly silly idea.
Yes, beneficial mutations are often observed.
The Talk Origins FAQ I've linked to is comprehensive, easily searched, and quite objective. Even better, it points the way to more in depth books, articles, and sources--you can, if you choose, go from a one-page FAQ summary all the way to the primary evidence. Otherwise, I would recommend a book such as Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution Is." Much more difficult than the FAQ, and a tiny bit dated, but also much more rewarding.
"My own education aside...there are plenty of doctorates degree toting morons out there I wouldn't trust with my peanut butter jar."
You trust those doctorates (and any number of intelligent, rational people with other degrees) with your health and safety whenever you climb into an automobile, go into surgery, or ride an elevator. Subjectively believing that you are truckproof, that your cancer won't spread, or that you can fly won't make those things true. The experts that you are trusting in those situations, like evolutionary biologists, put their faith is solid and objective results, not empty and sophomorical rhetoric. That is why people roll their eyes when fools say things like, "The sooner we realize that faith in evolution is no more scientific than those damn bible thumping fools, then the sooner we can just quit arguing and realize that our way is not the way."
Proving the accuracy of a testable prediction is one of the things that makes evolutionary theory not "faith."
I was halfway through a reply of my own when I saw yours. A choice quotation, and well placed.
"Evolution on a cosmic level has never been observed and it's not much more than an educated guess."
Two serious mistakes in one sentence. Evolution has been observed, and is much, much more than an 'educated guess.'
(And, incidentally, "Evolution on a cosmic level"? What does that even mean?)
"Physics is able to predict the future outcome of an experiment. Evolution is only able to predict the past."
Untrue, and a little bit ridiculous. One very easy example: Evolutionary theory is used to predict how organisms (such as, say, the Ebola pathogen) will evolve.
Moreover, it would be sufficient if evolutionary biology *did* simply make accurate predictions about the past. That is, of course, more than creationism can do. We look to the making and testing of predictions as a way of gauging whether a field is legitimately scientific; whether the event underlying the prediction has occured or will occur is not relevant, so long as the theory makes a prediction about an unknown outcome and that prediction can be tested.
"Flame mod me. I dare you moderators. Flame me for injecting my life encounters with higher education and fraudulent teachings"
Flame? No way! Your rambling, inarticulate anecdote that goes nowhere is clearly a troll, not a flame.
"If evolution, as they say, takes so long, there WOULD be fossils that we COULD conclusively show are directly linked to other species - without missing links - and they would be found just as easily as dinosaur fossils are."
Really? Because the biologists--you know, the guys who actually do the math to figure that sort of thing out--say otherwise. I don't mean to suggest that your casual inference is somehow not as persuasive as the life labors of scientists who waste their time with experiments, observations, professional collaborations, and measly testable predictions. Your unsupported hand-waving is certainly good enough for me. But just in case anyone reading your comment thinks that it in any way represents an educated opinion, you might want to read the FAQ.
I've already said it once in these comments, but it bears repeating. The ignorance required to be a creationist is stunning in its own right. But it's the arrogance that really knocks my socks off. It's one thing to just not know how a complicated science works - very few people do. It's quite another to assume that the well-educated, hard-working specialists who unanimously disagree with you also don't know anything, simply because you don't like the facts they discover.
Sweet Zombie Jesus, you have to be kidding. ID is BS. Period. An educated and honest human being has no excuse for pandering to such an invidiously ignorant ideology. A quick reply to your frankly ridiculous bullet points:
o wthat'swhowe'retalkingabout) is not a testable or falsifiable answer, and is a statement of faith rather than a scientific hypothesis.
1. Evolution is a biological phenomenon. It has no answer for this question, because this question is not relevant to the evolution of species. Inasmuch as you are indicting all of objective science, I'll simply note that ID has no better answer than consensus physics. "Jesus did it" (or Unnameddesignerwhowewon'tcallGodeventhoughweallkn
2. Sea creatures did not "decide" to become amphibious. Evolution is not a directed process in which species consider their options and choose one. Nor do species evolve "towards" a higher form. That sort of teleology is, again, not a scientific hypothesis. This question is particularly egregious; even a primary school education should have taught you that creatures don't "decide" on how to evolve. I'll charitably assume that you mean, "How did aquatic species become amphibious and then terrestrial species?" The answer is complicated, because science is hard. Read a book. Preferably one by a real scientist, or at least someone with a biology degree. The shortest and easiest (and therefore oversimplified) version is that organisms capable of thriving in more and more marginal environments reproduced more successfully, preserving and spreading their inheritable successful traits.
3. Again, this question betrays remarkable ignorance. Darwin proposed an evolutionary chain for the development of the eye well over a century ago, and evolutionary biology has demonstrated that the eye evolved early and often. (There's a pithy quote to that effect, but I can't recall to whom it should be attributed.) Even basic light-sensitive skin cells can confer an advantage, and the development of those cells into complex lens-bearing eyes is hardly the deep and overpowering mystery that hacks like Behe would like credulous fools to believe that it is. Again, please read a book by someone who *isn't* a creationist. You will be amazed how much there is to learn.
Obviously, I am very contemptuous of your ignorance. But it's more than just that--what is so aggravating to me is the classic creationist arrogance. You assume that your questions are great traps to confound scientists and educated people, when in fact they are literally so foolish that a child could answer them. Do you really think that you know better than specialists who have spent their entire adult lives studying the field? Do you really think that they will be unable to answer your questions? Why haven't you learned the answers to those questions by now yourself? I suspect that the problem may be that you're getting your information from biased sources, such as ID blogs. Someone has badly misled you. But as impoverished as your understanding of the issue is, I'm even more disappointed by the moderators who rated your questions as "interesting." Honestly, the exposure of such rank ignorance on a site geared towards highly educated and presumably intelligent people is disillusioning.
I need a drink. You need a book. Let's hope we both get what we need.
The fact that the Stanford team used a 'tailgating' strategy is the best surprise in the article.
Not anymore.