The people who dispute evolution or claim it isn't a science have another agenda; they don't want to accept that their religion is wrong. It's not hard to see the conflict of interest.
These are similar words that were said about Geocentrism. And also similar to what was said to Columbus when he claimed the world was round. He obviously had another agenda - he wanted to sail to India. Was he wrong about the roundness of the world? Well, I would hope that you would think he's right. He may have been wrong about the location of India on the globe, but he was right that it is possible to sail to India from Europe and to circumnavigate the globe.
That's because you're ignorant. People who do understand evolution say it's a science. It has falsifiable hypothesis, it makes predictions, it explains the evidence. It is everything that a science should be.
Yes, evolution is science. But it doesn't mean that evolution is fact. Instead most consider it a theory. The problem is, that in high school science classes and now in many colleges and universities, is evolution is taught as fact.
In contrast, Special Relativity is still taught as "The Theory of Special Relativity." It is clearly labeled as a theory. Why? Because it hasn't been proven. Sure, it makes sense with the available evidence - but the fact that it isn't proven beyond a doubt means it is still presented as a theory.
So evolution should be taught as a theory - not as fact. In general it seems to hold true, but there are still a few flaws with the theory and the theory of evolution itself is constantly evolving as new evidence is brought out. Things like puncutated equilibrium and such.
This is similar to how creationism is changing to fit the available evidence. Sure, evolution may have refuted a strict creationism - where all creatures were created staticly. But trying to say that creationism is wrong, based solely on the fact that strict creationism has been disproven would be like myself claiming that all evolution is wrong because Lamarckian evolution is obviously false.
Today, much as Mr.Intel has been trying to say: Creationism as it is understood and believed today, by most Christians, is not contradictory to the theories of evolution. In fact it is in a sphere completely seperate to evolution. It deals instead with religion - which itself is unproveable and therefore outside the realm of science. Just because it exists outside of science does not make it untrue - it just becomes unfruitful to try to discount it based on scientific principles. If creationism is to be disproved it will be on the philisophical battlefield.
Obviously we disagree on Behe. So I have a simple request of you. Could you point me to a peice of literature which actively addresses Behe and discounts his theories and answers the questions he asks? I do not, in any way, mean to imply that you cannot do this - nor that this literature does not exist. I honestly just want to read and review the opponents of Behe so I have a more accurate understanding of not only your argument, but of Behe's as well. The best way to understand an argument is to understand the objections to it.
I'd prefer something that was published on paper - just point me to whatever journal its in, and the issue number, or the title and author of whatever book it may be. A website will do if you don't know of any paper publications off-hand. The only strict requirement is that it directly addresses ID and irreducible complexity.
Thank you in advance for doing me this favor. Who knows, you may change my mind about Behe.
I find your evaluation of Behe's argument completely misguided and wholly disrepectful. Behe is a respected scientist (perhaps not by you) in his field. It is not just to dismiss his arguments as mere "bullshit." To do so only paints yourself as disrespectful and doesn't further your cause any. Instead of trying to insult him and those who agree with him - or at least entertain his theories as containing some truth in them - I suggest you calmy and clearly lay out why you disagree with him and why he is wrong without using derogatory words such as "uninformed" or just labeling him as "pseudo-science". Physicists thought Albert Einstein's relativity postulates were just pseudo-science, but it turns out he was right.
I may or may not agree with Behe myself, but I at least give his arguments merit and I feel I have to address them completely. You may feel that you have done so, but I disagree:
If you want to claim that "X can't produce Y" it is not sufficient to show that one path from X to Y fails: you must show that all paths fail, or you simply haven't made your case. And there's absolutely no need for anyone to defend a well established theory against a case that hasn't actually been made.
I feel that Behe has raised a valid objection. While I would agree that it is not enough to show that only one path from X to Y is not possible, I think that his critics should show how alternative paths may be not just possible but likely to happen.
He has shown that the most direct and (previously assumed, by many, most plausible) path from X to Y could not happen. That still gives me pause when I consider evolution as we know it.
So using logic similar to your own, merely showing that there is a path from X to Y is possible is not enough. You must show that that particular path is plausible and likely to happen. And the mere fact the Y exists is not enough to show that it came from X, as creationism itself can explain the existence of Y with no problem.
Bottom Line: It would be nice to read other people's arguments charitably. To start with the assumption that those who disagree with you are automatically wrong is not a good position to take. Just because you disagree with his arguments is no reason to attack him personally and professionally as a scientist. If you do so, then people will fail to take you seriously as well and then disregard your opinions.
Just to add my own commentary to that of Mr. Intel's:
I agree completely that Science and religion can coincide perfectly. You add in the disclaimer that God cannot be substituted as a scientific answer. Perfectly right. However, then to characterize creationists that they "would have you believe [God is the answer]" is a little misleading in your context. Most creationists I know wouldn't try to answer scientific questions with God. You seem to be talking to Christian Scientists (not to be confused with Christians who are Scientists, or Scientists who are Christian - Christian Science is a completely seperate religion) who make the claim that we have no "real" physical bodies and are all just spiritual manisfestations. Most Christians I know find this belief a bit dubious, and in fact are avid fans of the scientific method.
A clarification must be made between those who propose God as the "answer" to science (such as the Christian Scientists), and those who propose that God exists and created the Universe as we know it. About the former again I agree with you. However, the latter should not be attacked using your argument. There is nothing wrong with fitting your beliefs about God into science (or vice-versa) as long as neither your faith nor science is violated. People have been wrong in the past, both in science and religions - the only key for the religious scientist is be able to hold that the core doctrines of her belief are not contradictory of her science. That's when trouble arises. I find nothing contradictory about the more solid evolutionary theories out there and my own Christian faith so there is no reason for me not to believe in God.
As far as philosophy... you've just opened up a huge can of worms. Current religious philosophers believe that the world itself is religiously ambiguous - that is you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor any other Ultimate Realities (including but not limited to Muslim Allah, Hindu Brahman, Buddhist Nirvana, or the Tao, etc). That being the case, then we are all justified and entitled to believe what we will as long as they are based on "rational experience." Basically if we believe it to be true, then for all intents and purposes its true for us. (If you want to learn more An Interpretation of Religion by John Hick would be a good read, although I disagree with many of his ideas.) Then that brings in the whole problem of religious pluralism (if its true for me, does it have to be true for you?) And that is a whole nother philisophical debate (Google for Alvin Plantinga, John Hick, and David Basinger and you'll find a lot of info about this debate).
Bottom Line:
Most religious Scientists, and most creationists for that matter, never try to introduce God into science. They're only concerned that the two aren't contradictory to each other. You have to keep in mind that all "creationists" can't be lumped together and what one says all others believe. And, its perfectly logical to revise our beliefs on creationism provided they do not contradict other tenets of our religion - Science does this all the time.
While its true that most Student Unions bitch and protest nearly all administrative decisions, I would argue that the administrations rarely listen. It makes sense, though, because if you listened to someone who complained about everything you would never get anything productive done. In fact, the students themselves rarely listen to the Student Unions - only when there is a very serious infraction of their rights. So why don't the students have a huge weekend rally? Because I doubt that many University students care all that much. They all have classes, tests, and homework they have to get done. They might utilize p2p networks, but its not their life and if it gets sniffed they probably won't care a whole lot. There's no incentive for your random, average, run-of-the-mill college student to care about what gets sniffed on the network or not. All they care is that they have internet access to do research for their papers and reports - oh and chat as well.
While the film industry never portrays a normal person accurately they still base their depictions on what they consider "reality." Sure, cops rarely have shootouts, but its not completely implausible for a shootout to happen - just watch the news. So while disbelief must be suspended, the personality types are supposedly reflected by the movie characters. But the starting point for portraying computer programmers starts with the anti-social nerd - which the article is trying to point out is completely wrong. Lethal Weapon type movies at least try to give an accurate snap-shot of the police-station in action. Movies like Tron and WarGames don't even come close.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who dispute evolution or claim it isn't a science have another agenda; they don't want to accept that their religion is wrong. It's not hard to see the conflict of interest.
These are similar words that were said about Geocentrism. And also similar to what was said to Columbus when he claimed the world was round. He obviously had another agenda - he wanted to sail to India. Was he wrong about the roundness of the world? Well, I would hope that you would think he's right. He may have been wrong about the location of India on the globe, but he was right that it is possible to sail to India from Europe and to circumnavigate the globe.
That's because you're ignorant. People who do understand evolution say it's a science. It has falsifiable hypothesis, it makes predictions, it explains the evidence. It is everything that a science should be.
Yes, evolution is science. But it doesn't mean that evolution is fact. Instead most consider it a theory. The problem is, that in high school science classes and now in many colleges and universities, is evolution is taught as fact.
In contrast, Special Relativity is still taught as "The Theory of Special Relativity." It is clearly labeled as a theory. Why? Because it hasn't been proven. Sure, it makes sense with the available evidence - but the fact that it isn't proven beyond a doubt means it is still presented as a theory.
So evolution should be taught as a theory - not as fact. In general it seems to hold true, but there are still a few flaws with the theory and the theory of evolution itself is constantly evolving as new evidence is brought out. Things like puncutated equilibrium and such.
This is similar to how creationism is changing to fit the available evidence. Sure, evolution may have refuted a strict creationism - where all creatures were created staticly. But trying to say that creationism is wrong, based solely on the fact that strict creationism has been disproven would be like myself claiming that all evolution is wrong because Lamarckian evolution is obviously false.
Today, much as Mr.Intel has been trying to say: Creationism as it is understood and believed today, by most Christians, is not contradictory to the theories of evolution. In fact it is in a sphere completely seperate to evolution. It deals instead with religion - which itself is unproveable and therefore outside the realm of science. Just because it exists outside of science does not make it untrue - it just becomes unfruitful to try to discount it based on scientific principles. If creationism is to be disproved it will be on the philisophical battlefield.
Obviously we disagree on Behe. So I have a simple request of you. Could you point me to a peice of literature which actively addresses Behe and discounts his theories and answers the questions he asks? I do not, in any way, mean to imply that you cannot do this - nor that this literature does not exist. I honestly just want to read and review the opponents of Behe so I have a more accurate understanding of not only your argument, but of Behe's as well. The best way to understand an argument is to understand the objections to it.
I'd prefer something that was published on paper - just point me to whatever journal its in, and the issue number, or the title and author of whatever book it may be. A website will do if you don't know of any paper publications off-hand. The only strict requirement is that it directly addresses ID and irreducible complexity.
Thank you in advance for doing me this favor. Who knows, you may change my mind about Behe.
I find your evaluation of Behe's argument completely misguided and wholly disrepectful. Behe is a respected scientist (perhaps not by you) in his field. It is not just to dismiss his arguments as mere "bullshit." To do so only paints yourself as disrespectful and doesn't further your cause any. Instead of trying to insult him and those who agree with him - or at least entertain his theories as containing some truth in them - I suggest you calmy and clearly lay out why you disagree with him and why he is wrong without using derogatory words such as "uninformed" or just labeling him as "pseudo-science". Physicists thought Albert Einstein's relativity postulates were just pseudo-science, but it turns out he was right.
I may or may not agree with Behe myself, but I at least give his arguments merit and I feel I have to address them completely. You may feel that you have done so, but I disagree:
If you want to claim that "X can't produce Y" it is not sufficient to show that one path from X to Y fails: you must show that all paths fail, or you simply haven't made your case. And there's absolutely no need for anyone to defend a well established theory against a case that hasn't actually been made.
I feel that Behe has raised a valid objection. While I would agree that it is not enough to show that only one path from X to Y is not possible, I think that his critics should show how alternative paths may be not just possible but likely to happen. He has shown that the most direct and (previously assumed, by many, most plausible) path from X to Y could not happen. That still gives me pause when I consider evolution as we know it. So using logic similar to your own, merely showing that there is a path from X to Y is possible is not enough. You must show that that particular path is plausible and likely to happen. And the mere fact the Y exists is not enough to show that it came from X, as creationism itself can explain the existence of Y with no problem.
Bottom Line: It would be nice to read other people's arguments charitably. To start with the assumption that those who disagree with you are automatically wrong is not a good position to take. Just because you disagree with his arguments is no reason to attack him personally and professionally as a scientist. If you do so, then people will fail to take you seriously as well and then disregard your opinions.
Just to add my own commentary to that of Mr. Intel's: I agree completely that Science and religion can coincide perfectly. You add in the disclaimer that God cannot be substituted as a scientific answer. Perfectly right. However, then to characterize creationists that they "would have you believe [God is the answer]" is a little misleading in your context. Most creationists I know wouldn't try to answer scientific questions with God. You seem to be talking to Christian Scientists (not to be confused with Christians who are Scientists, or Scientists who are Christian - Christian Science is a completely seperate religion) who make the claim that we have no "real" physical bodies and are all just spiritual manisfestations. Most Christians I know find this belief a bit dubious, and in fact are avid fans of the scientific method. A clarification must be made between those who propose God as the "answer" to science (such as the Christian Scientists), and those who propose that God exists and created the Universe as we know it. About the former again I agree with you. However, the latter should not be attacked using your argument. There is nothing wrong with fitting your beliefs about God into science (or vice-versa) as long as neither your faith nor science is violated. People have been wrong in the past, both in science and religions - the only key for the religious scientist is be able to hold that the core doctrines of her belief are not contradictory of her science. That's when trouble arises. I find nothing contradictory about the more solid evolutionary theories out there and my own Christian faith so there is no reason for me not to believe in God. As far as philosophy... you've just opened up a huge can of worms. Current religious philosophers believe that the world itself is religiously ambiguous - that is you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor any other Ultimate Realities (including but not limited to Muslim Allah, Hindu Brahman, Buddhist Nirvana, or the Tao, etc). That being the case, then we are all justified and entitled to believe what we will as long as they are based on "rational experience." Basically if we believe it to be true, then for all intents and purposes its true for us. (If you want to learn more An Interpretation of Religion by John Hick would be a good read, although I disagree with many of his ideas.) Then that brings in the whole problem of religious pluralism (if its true for me, does it have to be true for you?) And that is a whole nother philisophical debate (Google for Alvin Plantinga, John Hick, and David Basinger and you'll find a lot of info about this debate). Bottom Line: Most religious Scientists, and most creationists for that matter, never try to introduce God into science. They're only concerned that the two aren't contradictory to each other. You have to keep in mind that all "creationists" can't be lumped together and what one says all others believe. And, its perfectly logical to revise our beliefs on creationism provided they do not contradict other tenets of our religion - Science does this all the time.
While its true that most Student Unions bitch and protest nearly all administrative decisions, I would argue that the administrations rarely listen. It makes sense, though, because if you listened to someone who complained about everything you would never get anything productive done. In fact, the students themselves rarely listen to the Student Unions - only when there is a very serious infraction of their rights. So why don't the students have a huge weekend rally? Because I doubt that many University students care all that much. They all have classes, tests, and homework they have to get done. They might utilize p2p networks, but its not their life and if it gets sniffed they probably won't care a whole lot. There's no incentive for your random, average, run-of-the-mill college student to care about what gets sniffed on the network or not. All they care is that they have internet access to do research for their papers and reports - oh and chat as well.
While the film industry never portrays a normal person accurately they still base their depictions on what they consider "reality." Sure, cops rarely have shootouts, but its not completely implausible for a shootout to happen - just watch the news. So while disbelief must be suspended, the personality types are supposedly reflected by the movie characters. But the starting point for portraying computer programmers starts with the anti-social nerd - which the article is trying to point out is completely wrong. Lethal Weapon type movies at least try to give an accurate snap-shot of the police-station in action. Movies like Tron and WarGames don't even come close.