The other assumes an Unintelligent Designer instead- Random Chance
So not having a designer means the same thing as having a designer? The argument you bring to the table isn't about evolution, but about semantics.
Random chance is not an entity that designs. It may result in structures that initially appear designed, but it is hasty to infer a designer when our gut-level feeling of design-recognition is the only evidence. People have been spotting the face of Jesus, Elvis, the Virgin Mary, etc in everything from rust spots to tea leaves--that doesn't mean that the faces are there, just that a random arrangement can fool our eyes.
Nope- because God is no more complex than the concept of a random and indeterministic universe. The two concepts are equally complex.
So positing an invisible, magical, undetectable-by-physical-means elf who orbits Pluto, and who decides all coin tosses and imposes his will on those coin tosses through a mystical, yet completely undetectable force, is no more complex than saying that the result of the coin tosses is random? Both positions are of equivalent complexity, and thus deserving of equivalent attention? Um, no, obviously not. Even aside from proving your assertion, it doesn't hold up to even a little logic. Saying "it was random luck that I was dealt a royal flush that night in Vegas" is manifestly not making an assertion "just as complex" as positing that the Invisible Pink Unicorn willed it so. The two mental models are not even in the same ballpark.
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.
Positing a "motivating layer" necessitates an assumption of motivation, which is an anthropomorphism. Random variation PLUS natural selection is no longer just random. With an environment allowing those with some characteristics to reproduce in higher surviving numbers than those with other characteristics, the genetic makeup of the population is pushed or pulled in one direction or another (metaphorically speaking). That doesn't preclude an overarching consciousness in the universe, but it does make one unnecessary for the purposes of explanation of genetic diversity.
Thus, if both evolution and ID are taught, neutrality is maintained
How do you teach a subject that has no content? As was pointed out in the Kitzmiller decision, ID makes no predictions or propositions of its own. The entire position of ID is "there are problems with evolution." There are certainly controversies within evolutionary theory (the evolution of sex, altruistic behavior, and group selection come to mind) but the problems pointed out by ID (Behe's "irreducible complexity") have already been addressed, and trounced to the point of making them look either ridiculous or dishonest. This was covered in great detail by the Kitzmiller decision.
. . . I eagerly anticipate the day when macroevolution is finally put on trial for being unscientific in comparison and barred from classrooms. . .
What is this macroevolution you speak of? Are you referring to speciation? I've re-read your post several times, and the only conclusion I can reach is that you have a definition of macroevolution that differs dramatically from my any I have come across. The only definition I'm familiar with equates macroevolution with speciation. Speciation is commonplace, both in the wild and in laboratory settings. What is so "unscientific" about speciation?
Most people I know who believe in evolution do so based on a lot of what could be defined as faith, without any real knowledge.
I would it call it confidence, not faith. Even if I know squat about evolutionary theory, the special and general theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc, I can see that these are the best explanations science currently has. Science gave me air conditioning. Science, not religion, builds bridges, cars, airplanes, vaccines, and the internet. So I'm going to put my trust in the whole science thing, even though I know that, as do all human endeavors, it has limitations. This confidence, though you may choose to call it "faith," is not the same kind of faith people have when they pray to Jesus.
A big reason that this one is picked out, or picked on, has to do with the way it is being taught. As a parent (in Kansas, no less), I can tell you that evolution is usually not taught as theory, but as fact.
That is a rampant problem in all fields of science. In medical schools the world over, students are being taught that germ theory is a fact, not a theory. They aren't being presented with any alternative theories as to what causes disease. Schoolkids are also taught that the heliocentric theory of the solar system is a fact, that the general and special theories of relativity are facts, and so on. I find it exceedingly odd that, despite all scientific theories being taught as facts, evolutionary theory is the only one that parents are so concerned about.
For any other science that I know of, if you have data that doesn't fit your theory then you have to go back and rewrite your theory.
What's interesting here is that evolutionary theory is under constant revision. The evolution of sex, for one, is a heavily studied field, and under constant debate. The evolution of altruistic behavior is also hotly debated--not all evolutionary theorists agree with Dawkins and his "selfish gene" ideas. They are rewriting the theory constantly.
Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be under the impression that evolution is a static, dogmatic orthodoxy. That's an easy conclusion to come to if you only read about evolution on creationist/ID websites, books, etc. You really should read a few books from the other side. All the seemingly probing, vital questions posed by creationists have been answered. The "deafening silence" on the "holes in evolution" creationists tell you about isn't there. There is constant research that further refines understanding of evolutionary processes. Even speaking as a layman, it is a very exciting field to read about.
I would recommend that you read a little at talkorigins.org. Not the whole site (it's huge), but just enough to understand the scientific definition of "theory," which would make clear why scientific theories are treated as they are. Your kids are not being lied to by the teachers, rather creationists are playing on a misunderstanding of a few words to scare you.
Of course, if you're already a creationist who thinks that agreeing with the theory of evolution would drag your children into the pit of hell, then there isn't much anyone can do for you. Good luck.
The "fact" of evolution is genetic change in a population over time. Is it an "opinion" that this happens? Scientists do consider this genetic change to be a fact, and use the theory of evolution to explain why and how the genetic change happens.
I agree with you that evolution has not been "proven." No scientific theory has been proven, because proof does not exist outside of mathematics. No theory in biology, physics, chemistry, or in any other field is proven. So I guess we can't believe anything--it's all just opinion, as you say. I don't see why we should stop with evolution. If someone is more comfortable believing that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe, well, those other theories haven't been proven, so I guess it's all just a matter of faith.
I'm only so tenacious because the arguments you are using are, well, strange. You ask for evolution to be proven beyond all doubt, but why just evolution? I can't figure that out. Nothing in science is proven beyond all doubt, so by all logic you should be equally skeptical of all scientific claims. It's all just faith, right?
Actually I said epistemelogical nihilism, not just plain nihilism. Saying "we don't know, because we weren't there, so evolution takes as much faith as creationism" is exhibiting epistemelogical nihilism. Because you and I weren't present at a murder doesn't mean that saying the defendant did it is "takes just as much faith" as saying invisible aliens from Neptune did it. The explanation that relies on natural, known processes is more rational, while the explanation that posits a supernatural, unknown, mysterious force(s) or being(s) is the conclusion that takes faith.
Evolution, as in genetic change over time, is known, speciation is known to occur, phenotypic differences are known to occur, so inferring from this that populations branch into reproductively isolated, genetically incompatible, different populations based on environmental or other selection is the more rational explanation, even if we can't trace the fossilized, perfectly preserved organisms from Brad Pitt to the original replicator. That was long-winded (more than I intended), but essentially I'm saying that the explanation that relies on natural, known processes is more rational than that relying on unknown, supernatural forces or beings that we can never know. That we weren't there at the beginning does not put all conclusions on equal footing.
Saying that all conclusions take the same amount of faith is epistemelogical nihilism, because that argument undermines the idea that we can know anything. The person saying "A Leprechaun did it!" is not on a level playing field with someone trying to understand, via explainable, understandable processes, how we got here.
Most of these examples you give, we can safely trust in our common knowledge of them, because they have indeed been observed by many people and confirmed and measured within our lifetime or at least within the lifetime of people still alive today.
Evolution on the other hand has not been witnessed by anyone in any lifetime. When was the last time we witnessed a fish grow legs and walk out of the ocean.
Evolution, i.e. genetic change in a population over time, has been witnessed, studied, duplicated, folded, starched, and made into a tie-died shirt. It's commonplace and not even remotely controversial. You are using a definition of evolution (a fish growing legs before our eyes and walking away) that is obviously absurd. The good news is that your definition has nothing to do with evolutionary theory--your leg-growing fish would largely disprove evolution, not the other way around.
The critereon used by scientists who study evolution is speciation. Speciation has been observed again and again and again. You seem to be riding in with a new, deliberately absurd, criterion, and then dismissing evolution because it doesn't meet your bizarre standard.
Is it the idea of common descent you're objecting to? Common descent is just inferred from the evidence. Science develops theories that fit the facts, the evidence, and we go from there. I find it strange that so many fields of science (and even everyday human existence) use inference with no risk of controversy, but when we're talking about evolution, suddenly inference becomes useless conjecture.
Human credulity is not calibrated to timescales of hundreds of thousands, much less billions, of years. You are trusting your seat-of-the-pants intuition far too much. Macroevolution is not much more than a lot of microevolution, and I doubt there's much to the definition of macroevolution other than reproductive isolation. I know people come back with the firefly-into-a-rhinocerous demand, but common descent doesn't work that way, or at least evolutionary theory has never indicated that type of change.
I'm not here to try to change your mind about creationism. People trust their gut feeling all the time, which is why casinos always make money. But you really should learn about what evolutionary theory is so you can rephrase the reasons why you don't believe in it. You can find some good, concise (and some brief) explanations at talkorigins.org. Many creationists would profit, if only by looking more credible, if they took evolution seriously enough to at least what the theory does and doesn't posit. Among other things it doesn't posit is a fish growing legs right before your eyes and walking away.
Regarding your quote (which I happen to like very much, I'd be interested in reading the source) "Scientists don't really KNOW any of this. All they have is a theory that happens to fit the facts." I'll agree completely. I just am not convinced of any facts substantiating macro evolution. I'm not unwilling, I just happen to believe it to be more of a leap of faith then believing in a Creator.
I don't remember the source of the quote--it could have been the talkorigins.org feedback page, or usenet, slashdot, or any number of other places. But I'm surprized by the resistance to the idea of macroevolution. Millions of years of constant little changes seems to intuitively add up to a lot of change. The theory, right or wrong, isn't that implausible, unless you outright find the idea of common descent offensive, as many do. If you're morally offended by the very notion of common descent, then no, you will never be convinced. If you have no moral/spiritual feelings concerning common descent, then a lot of little changes adding up to a lot of change seems sort of obvious. That doesn't mean we "know" definitively, absolutely, amen, only that it's the best theory scientists have developed to explain the facts as we know them.
By your logic, all murderers should be released, because we don't know for sure that they did it--we weren't there, after all. Science does not purport to teach final, ultimate answers. It just tries to find the best theory to fit the facts. No field of knowledge at all meets the standard of certitude and proof you are demanding--we don't really know anything with absolute assurance. By your logic:
I don't know that germs exist, because I've never seen them, and even if I had, I don't "know" that they cause disease--it's just a postulate.
I don't know that the Earth is round, because I've never been in space to see the Earth from the right perspective. The apparent roundness that scientists speak of could be an optical illusion, or a mistake--they've made them before, you know.
I don't know that atoms exist. I've never seen them. They're just a postulate that happen to fit the facts.
I don't "know" that WWII happened, or for that matter, whether anything before a certain day in Dec 1969 happened. I wasn't there. I guess I'll withhold judgement on all that other stuff, like Caesar, Jesus, etc. Interesting postulates, though. Maybe someday I'll "know" with absolute certainty that anything outside my own mind exists.
I don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun.
And so on, ad infinitum...
Science does not offer the certitude of religion, but then again, neither does religion. Science is the only flashlight we have available to find out about the world around us. It isn't perfect or all-powerful, and it doesn't address Truth with a capital "T", or for that matter any absolutes at all. I read a criticism of science the other day that I really liked -- "Scientists don't really KNOW any of this. All they have is a theory that happens to fit the facts." That's pretty much true, as long as we keep in mind that scientists are the only ones with a process that involves fact-finding, logic, experiments, and revision to ensure that the theory does, after all, come as close as we can to fitting the facts as we know them. All the other camps are just saying "goddidit" and waving their hands mysteriously. That approach contributes nothing at all to our understanding of the world, and in fact undermines our knowledge by discouraging critical thinking.
Speaking of critical thinking, I find it bizarre that someone can flirt so heavily with epistemelogical nihilism, but only when it comes to this particular scientific theory. I've come across a lot of people who, from their explanations, are only trying to be conscientious skeptics, and they too adopt they whole "hey, we weren't there, so it takes just as much faith as creationism!" line. But they would never apply that "we can't REALLY know" approach to the court system, or to the germ theory (and it is a theory, by the way) when their child is sick, or to any other aspect of human existence. Their epistemelogical nihilism clicks on and off like a lightswitch, and it's only on when they're talking about evolution. By their logic, medical schools should devote equal time to teaching that demonic possession causes illness as they do to this "germ theory." Germ theory is, after all, only a theory, and we don't really know that it's correct--it just happens to fit the facts, and since there is the "element of doubt" in all fields of study, then all are of equivalent value. This position is obviously absurd, and I doubt you could find many creationists or ID advocates to support it, but as soon as we bring up evolution then they want to challenge the very foundations of thought. You never see people run so quickly to question the nature of "knowledge," "facts," and "conclusions" as when their "knowledge" isn't supported by "facts" that support their desired "conclusions." "What do we really know, after all?" can usually be translated as, "the facts do not logically support the conclusion I'm comfortable with."
I've used a flatbed for this type of thing, and it works, but it takes forever and it's frustrating. It isn't hard, mind you, but time-comsuming and mind-numbing. The first 30 pages is easy and then you get really really sick of it. If you do scan it yourself, you don't ned more than 200dpi or so, and you can save as high-quality jpeg. This isn't artwork, and there is no need for perfection. Acrobat will accept any image file. I'd scan with a standalone image program (I use ACDSee and it works well) and then feed the images into Acrobat. But as far as a recommendation...
Have it professionally done, like other people here have recommended. High-end sheetfed scanners are great, but you probably can't afford one, and it wouldn't make sense as a one-time expense for this small of a job. I'm a big fan of just handing someone some money and it's magically accomplished.
Alternatively, use a digital camera and well-lit copy stand. You can improvise a copy stand with a tripod or whatever, but make sure you have a lot of light. It's a lot faster than using a scanner, and the results are acceptable if you have a good camera. The more megapixels the better - don't use the old 1.3mp one you have lying around. 3mp will technically work, but more is better. Ideally a digital SLR pointed straight down at the page, a very well-lit area (a clamp light on either side of the page works nicely), and you sitting there sipping Starbucks while you hit a cable shutter release after you flip every page. You could get a few hundred pages an hour done this way--your only limitation is how fast you can turn the pages. You'd only have to stop to transfer images to your computer, and you only have to do that often if you don't have enough memory cards. After you get all the pages into the computer, feed them into Acrobat and you're done.
If you don't want to use acrobat you could make a web-page with thumbnails linked to the hi-res images. Then your end-users wouldn't need to download the Acrobat reader. I love Acrobat's ubiquity but hate the file sizes and the slow start-up time.
Slashdot Mirror
Random chance is not an entity that designs. It may result in structures that initially appear designed, but it is hasty to infer a designer when our gut-level feeling of design-recognition is the only evidence. People have been spotting the face of Jesus, Elvis, the Virgin Mary, etc in everything from rust spots to tea leaves--that doesn't mean that the faces are there, just that a random arrangement can fool our eyes.
So positing an invisible, magical, undetectable-by-physical-means elf who orbits Pluto, and who decides all coin tosses and imposes his will on those coin tosses through a mystical, yet completely undetectable force, is no more complex than saying that the result of the coin tosses is random? Both positions are of equivalent complexity, and thus deserving of equivalent attention? Um, no, obviously not. Even aside from proving your assertion, it doesn't hold up to even a little logic. Saying "it was random luck that I was dealt a royal flush that night in Vegas" is manifestly not making an assertion "just as complex" as positing that the Invisible Pink Unicorn willed it so. The two mental models are not even in the same ballpark. Positing a "motivating layer" necessitates an assumption of motivation, which is an anthropomorphism. Random variation PLUS natural selection is no longer just random. With an environment allowing those with some characteristics to reproduce in higher surviving numbers than those with other characteristics, the genetic makeup of the population is pushed or pulled in one direction or another (metaphorically speaking). That doesn't preclude an overarching consciousness in the universe, but it does make one unnecessary for the purposes of explanation of genetic diversity.Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to be under the impression that evolution is a static, dogmatic orthodoxy. That's an easy conclusion to come to if you only read about evolution on creationist/ID websites, books, etc. You really should read a few books from the other side. All the seemingly probing, vital questions posed by creationists have been answered. The "deafening silence" on the "holes in evolution" creationists tell you about isn't there. There is constant research that further refines understanding of evolutionary processes. Even speaking as a layman, it is a very exciting field to read about.
I would recommend that you read a little at talkorigins.org. Not the whole site (it's huge), but just enough to understand the scientific definition of "theory," which would make clear why scientific theories are treated as they are. Your kids are not being lied to by the teachers, rather creationists are playing on a misunderstanding of a few words to scare you.
Of course, if you're already a creationist who thinks that agreeing with the theory of evolution would drag your children into the pit of hell, then there isn't much anyone can do for you. Good luck.
I agree with you that evolution has not been "proven." No scientific theory has been proven, because proof does not exist outside of mathematics. No theory in biology, physics, chemistry, or in any other field is proven. So I guess we can't believe anything--it's all just opinion, as you say. I don't see why we should stop with evolution. If someone is more comfortable believing that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe, well, those other theories haven't been proven, so I guess it's all just a matter of faith.
I'm only so tenacious because the arguments you are using are, well, strange. You ask for evolution to be proven beyond all doubt, but why just evolution? I can't figure that out. Nothing in science is proven beyond all doubt, so by all logic you should be equally skeptical of all scientific claims. It's all just faith, right?
Evolution, as in genetic change over time, is known, speciation is known to occur, phenotypic differences are known to occur, so inferring from this that populations branch into reproductively isolated, genetically incompatible, different populations based on environmental or other selection is the more rational explanation, even if we can't trace the fossilized, perfectly preserved organisms from Brad Pitt to the original replicator. That was long-winded (more than I intended), but essentially I'm saying that the explanation that relies on natural, known processes is more rational than that relying on unknown, supernatural forces or beings that we can never know. That we weren't there at the beginning does not put all conclusions on equal footing.
Saying that all conclusions take the same amount of faith is epistemelogical nihilism, because that argument undermines the idea that we can know anything. The person saying "A Leprechaun did it!" is not on a level playing field with someone trying to understand, via explainable, understandable processes, how we got here.
The critereon used by scientists who study evolution is speciation. Speciation has been observed again and again and again. You seem to be riding in with a new, deliberately absurd, criterion, and then dismissing evolution because it doesn't meet your bizarre standard.
Is it the idea of common descent you're objecting to? Common descent is just inferred from the evidence. Science develops theories that fit the facts, the evidence, and we go from there. I find it strange that so many fields of science (and even everyday human existence) use inference with no risk of controversy, but when we're talking about evolution, suddenly inference becomes useless conjecture.
Human credulity is not calibrated to timescales of hundreds of thousands, much less billions, of years. You are trusting your seat-of-the-pants intuition far too much. Macroevolution is not much more than a lot of microevolution, and I doubt there's much to the definition of macroevolution other than reproductive isolation. I know people come back with the firefly-into-a-rhinocerous demand, but common descent doesn't work that way, or at least evolutionary theory has never indicated that type of change.
I'm not here to try to change your mind about creationism. People trust their gut feeling all the time, which is why casinos always make money. But you really should learn about what evolutionary theory is so you can rephrase the reasons why you don't believe in it. You can find some good, concise (and some brief) explanations at talkorigins.org. Many creationists would profit, if only by looking more credible, if they took evolution seriously enough to at least what the theory does and doesn't posit. Among other things it doesn't posit is a fish growing legs right before your eyes and walking away.
I don't remember the source of the quote--it could have been the talkorigins.org feedback page, or usenet, slashdot, or any number of other places. But I'm surprized by the resistance to the idea of macroevolution. Millions of years of constant little changes seems to intuitively add up to a lot of change. The theory, right or wrong, isn't that implausible, unless you outright find the idea of common descent offensive, as many do. If you're morally offended by the very notion of common descent, then no, you will never be convinced. If you have no moral/spiritual feelings concerning common descent, then a lot of little changes adding up to a lot of change seems sort of obvious. That doesn't mean we "know" definitively, absolutely, amen, only that it's the best theory scientists have developed to explain the facts as we know them.- I don't know that germs exist, because I've never seen them, and even if I had, I don't "know" that they cause disease--it's just a postulate.
- I don't know that the Earth is round, because I've never been in space to see the Earth from the right perspective. The apparent roundness that scientists speak of could be an optical illusion, or a mistake--they've made them before, you know.
- I don't know that atoms exist. I've never seen them. They're just a postulate that happen to fit the facts.
- I don't "know" that WWII happened, or for that matter, whether anything before a certain day in Dec 1969 happened. I wasn't there. I guess I'll withhold judgement on all that other stuff, like Caesar, Jesus, etc. Interesting postulates, though. Maybe someday I'll "know" with absolute certainty that anything outside my own mind exists.
- I don't know that the Earth revolves around the sun.
- And so on, ad infinitum...
Science does not offer the certitude of religion, but then again, neither does religion. Science is the only flashlight we have available to find out about the world around us. It isn't perfect or all-powerful, and it doesn't address Truth with a capital "T", or for that matter any absolutes at all. I read a criticism of science the other day that I really liked -- "Scientists don't really KNOW any of this. All they have is a theory that happens to fit the facts." That's pretty much true, as long as we keep in mind that scientists are the only ones with a process that involves fact-finding, logic, experiments, and revision to ensure that the theory does, after all, come as close as we can to fitting the facts as we know them. All the other camps are just saying "goddidit" and waving their hands mysteriously. That approach contributes nothing at all to our understanding of the world, and in fact undermines our knowledge by discouraging critical thinking.Speaking of critical thinking, I find it bizarre that someone can flirt so heavily with epistemelogical nihilism, but only when it comes to this particular scientific theory. I've come across a lot of people who, from their explanations, are only trying to be conscientious skeptics, and they too adopt they whole "hey, we weren't there, so it takes just as much faith as creationism!" line. But they would never apply that "we can't REALLY know" approach to the court system, or to the germ theory (and it is a theory, by the way) when their child is sick, or to any other aspect of human existence. Their epistemelogical nihilism clicks on and off like a lightswitch, and it's only on when they're talking about evolution. By their logic, medical schools should devote equal time to teaching that demonic possession causes illness as they do to this "germ theory." Germ theory is, after all, only a theory, and we don't really know that it's correct--it just happens to fit the facts, and since there is the "element of doubt" in all fields of study, then all are of equivalent value. This position is obviously absurd, and I doubt you could find many creationists or ID advocates to support it, but as soon as we bring up evolution then they want to challenge the very foundations of thought. You never see people run so quickly to question the nature of "knowledge," "facts," and "conclusions" as when their "knowledge" isn't supported by "facts" that support their desired "conclusions." "What do we really know, after all?" can usually be translated as, "the facts do not logically support the conclusion I'm comfortable with."
Have it professionally done, like other people here have recommended. High-end sheetfed scanners are great, but you probably can't afford one, and it wouldn't make sense as a one-time expense for this small of a job. I'm a big fan of just handing someone some money and it's magically accomplished.
Alternatively, use a digital camera and well-lit copy stand. You can improvise a copy stand with a tripod or whatever, but make sure you have a lot of light. It's a lot faster than using a scanner, and the results are acceptable if you have a good camera. The more megapixels the better - don't use the old 1.3mp one you have lying around. 3mp will technically work, but more is better. Ideally a digital SLR pointed straight down at the page, a very well-lit area (a clamp light on either side of the page works nicely), and you sitting there sipping Starbucks while you hit a cable shutter release after you flip every page. You could get a few hundred pages an hour done this way--your only limitation is how fast you can turn the pages. You'd only have to stop to transfer images to your computer, and you only have to do that often if you don't have enough memory cards. After you get all the pages into the computer, feed them into Acrobat and you're done.
If you don't want to use acrobat you could make a web-page with thumbnails linked to the hi-res images. Then your end-users wouldn't need to download the Acrobat reader. I love Acrobat's ubiquity but hate the file sizes and the slow start-up time.