DavidPesta: Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator?
Follier: Absolutely.
A misunderstanding. Philosophical naturalists as I would define it cannot be theists as a matter of definition, so I was asking a rhetorical question that was easily misunderstood, my apologies. The reason I asked this question is because you also asked a rhetorical question: 'Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?' ID by definition requires a supernatural creator of some kind, so of course the avid supporters will believe in a supernatural creator. Anyway, the original point you were making was that all ID scientists are theists and as a result are suspect to having a religious agenda. Since then we established that this was irrelevant to the issue itself, making all of this a moot point now. In any case, even if they are all theists, a religious agenda cannot be proven in all of them. I still contend that many who would study ID are agnostic, fair and open minded individuals who are undecided about a supernatural creator--again an irrelevant fact that has nothing to do with the very issue itself.
Most scientists are not atheists... even if they are naturalists.
Indeed, theistic scientists will practice naturalism in order to do science properly, but their personal beliefs contradict the naturalism that they use as the tool to practice science effectively. You're right, it's not really a problem!
If there was some sort of evidence that pointed to a Creator, then cheers! But there isn't (at the moment) so don't worry about it.
Not so fast! There is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, not to mention a Creator. But it all falls outside of mainstream science because science requires naturalistic explanations as a rule, remember? Therefore, you will never know about this evidence unless you are an active participant in the supernatural, or study those who are. Here's a tip: Most religious people don't participate in the supernatural either--at least not in an easily detectable way, and there is a heck of a lot of fraud and misunderstanding out there. As for evidence of a 'Creator', well my definition of ID in the other thread is a start and will have to suffice for now. (Let's not solve years of thought and experience in one day.)
No need to dress it up like science and try to compete with an actual theory if you're going to beleive it either way.
No, I maintain that ID is falsifiable and therefore conditions exists where I can disbelieve it. (See the other thread.)
Funding into ID research by religious instutions, theologicals schools, the University of Islam, or whatever would be perfectly acceptable. But you wouldn't expect an ID researcher to get a grant from a scientific program any more than you'd expect to have an English Lit program fund missionary work.
You just made our point. It turns out that these methods of funding are nowhere near the overwhelming resources that get put into the number of projects that would support natural evolution. Substantial quantities of religious money doesn't end up going to ID researchers even if it does make it past the pockets of clergy.
These PR movies are designed to sway popular opinion for religious/political reasons in much the same way that those "Global Warming is Good For You" movies were designed with the interests of oil companies in mind.
Probably so, but this particular film is much more than that--you are making a judgement about a film that you haven't even seen, and that is a mistake in this case. Watch the film already!
Honestly, if someone had any evidence at all for the ID hypothesis that could bring it out of the supernatural and into the realm of science, I could be happily swayed.
I just want you to know that I do believe you are honest about this issue, you just have a different way of thinking about it.
Evolution begins with observations, and goes from there.
The way I see it, evolution starts with philosophical naturalism and interprets all of the evidence to fit into that metaphysical ideology. Understandably so, since science works well under philosophical naturalism. In the end, there may be something wrong with it.
ID begins with assertians, and tries to wiggle into holes in the evolutionary model.
In my opinion, ID is (or should be) merely the falsifiable theory that philosophical naturalism and the conditions under which we exist in the physical universe cannot explain the origin of life. With that more proper definition, ID can be falsified by demonstrating natural evolution with experiments and providing other absolutely definitive mathematical proofs of our evolutionary history on a biochemical level. So far this hasn't been done to the satisfaction of a number of scientists. (The majority wouldn't agree because they are caught up in the mainstream.) As long as the attempt to falsify ID (demonstrate evolution) hasn't reached a level of success to convince these scientists, ID remains a scientifically valid theory to them.
There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, and no evidence to suggest that there is.
I thought IC is simply defined as the functional interdependency of multiple components. In that case, there's plenty of IC all around us especially within biology. Your contention shouldn't be whether IC exists, your contention should be if IC can be overcome by natural evolution.
There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution and no evidence to suggest that there is.
Did I miss something in my secular education? The fundamental distinction is this: Microevolution involves a shifting in frequency of genetic traits throughtout a population via natural selection, traits that already exist within the gene pool of the organisms. No new genetic information via genetic mutation is required to accomplish microevolution. On the other hand, macroevolution requires the introduction of entirely new genetic traits to produce entirely new forms of life--new genetic traits that did not already exist within the gene pool of the original organisms. New genetic information via genetic mutation is required to accomplish macroevolution.
I try to be very careful about communicating clearly and not allowing my statements to be ambiguous. I am still learning to be better at this. Apply these changes to what I said to avoid misunderstanding.
1. Third paragraph, last sentance, add the word 'natural' so it reads:
In the end, ID scientists do not get nearly as many resources (money + people) as those who advance natural evolution.
2. Fourth paragraph, first sentance, remove the words 'as you put it' so it reads:
Without PR movies there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability. Do I hear a 'Duh'?
'as you put it' I was referring to you calling them 'PR' movies. You're right, they are PR movies. My point is, what would you expect a minority point of view to do to gain support and research ability? It doesn't appear that you are applying a fair objective way of thinking about this group like what would be expected if you didn't hold some kind of discriminating mindset.
Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?
Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator? I don't believe you gave an honest answer. Theism as a generic philosophical paradigm is not more religious than atheism as a generic philosophical paradigm. Besides, have you not realized that agnosticism is also consistent with someone who might be interested in studying certain aspects of ID? As you know, agnostics generally consider themselves undecided about religious matters. I honestly believe there is a group of people that you aren't being fair with.
The people who came up with ID are the religious folks
You didn't seem to give any attention to my original point. It's a bit more complicated than that, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the origin of ID was completely based upon advancing a religious agenda. Even so, the origin of ID is irrelevant and religious disposition of those who support it is irrelevant. It is the position itself that should be evaluated on its own merit rather than looking at the followers. This is why: What if you are overlooking something important just because you have been turned off by people who support it? Having said that, I contend that there are agnostics who find the study of ID fascinating and important.
Is there some huge cache of grants available to pro-evolutionary scientists that I'm unaware of?
Are there ANY cache of grants available to pro-ID scientists that you are aware of? Because of the naturalistic requirement of science by its very definition, funding those who would study ID is considered by mainstream to be 'religious' and 'unscientific'. In the end, ID scientists do not get nearly as many resources (money + people) as those who advance evolution.
Maybe if they'd spend less money on PR movies and more on research, they can try to get somewhere.
Without PR movies, as you put it, there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability. Do I hear a 'Duh'? I don't think you are being unfair on purpose, but you certainly aren't applying the same objective way of thinking toward this group that you normally would any other group. Then again, I don't know you very well. Perhaps you are unfair with everyone.;D
I challenge you to watch the film that I mentioned in my penultimate post in this thread.
What could be found that could undo the Everest-like heaps of supporting evidence for evolution?
Here's a shot: An entirely different falsifiable paradigm that has completely different and valid interpretations of the same evidence. Would that qualify? For example, Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, the latter having interpreted the evidence quite solidly for hundreds of years.
It would be neat to make that a part of higher-level science to excercise those critical thinking skills!:)
Yeah, I do remember you from someplace. It's good to know that the internet is finite afterall!
Cool. It looks like you are treating the issue in a way that I can accept.
And again, bacterial resistance as we know it does not in and of itself PROVE evolution, as there could be other explanations
True. For example, the resistance could be present in the bacteria at the very beginning of the experiment, but temporarily masked by a single mutation that blocks the resistance ability. As soon as another mutation knocks the resistance gene back into a working state of operation, the new strain begins to survive better and takes over--exhibiting the brand new resistance ability! In this case it would appear that the resistance evolved into existance, but actually the resistance merely bounced back.
To confirm what actually happens with bacterial resistance, you may actually have to sequence these genes at every stage and watch what happened. Yikes! Verifying evolution at a genetic level is a lot of hard work.
Anyway, my original question wasn't very clear. I was wondering if natural evolution as a theory in general was falsifiable given the fact that science operates under the assumption of philosophical naturalism. Does the common practice of science allow natural evolution to be falsifiable?
In the end it may not matter because unfalsifiable theories can still be verified by observation. It just takes so long to verify evolution!
If philosophical naturalism is accepted as an absolute truth and unshakable foundation for how all of science is practiced, then evolution is not falsifiable.
Afterall, there is no natural alternative to evolution. True by default.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I respectfully maintain that you missed his point.
If knew me, you will find that I seek to be painstakingly honest about everything. Please, try to understand what I am trying to say.
Modern day science using modern day tools do not exist in great abundance in the hands of those who allegedly find holes in perfectly natural evolution.
Historical thinkers are not relevant to this point because they did not have the tools either--or the knowledge of biochemistry that we have today. They could not explore the issue properly in ways that are most relevant to the point--the nitty gritty details of biological systems.
People who make films like the following do not have a lot of resources:
"Unlocking The Mystery Of Life" - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007KLDW
(Though the film is very well done: 4.5 / 5 stars.)
I encourage you to watch the video and think about what these people are trying to say. I do not believe all of them have a religious agenda, but are genuinely learned people--philosophers and scientsts like you talked about at the beginning of your last post. They just don't have enough research support to dig deep enough fast to keep up with the growing tide of misunderstandings of them. I'm not saying they are correct, I'm just saying that they aren't given the attention and resources they need to explore this issue to the very depths of a conclusion that would be satisfying to them and a number of others.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: Some people may use their material to advance a religious agenda, but that is besides the point--ignore those people and focus on the material itself. It is my contention that responsible thinkers who watch the film above will have to agree that the makers of the film should be given the opportunity to go to ultimate depths of research to study the objections that they have. Science demands that every area of criticism be fully explored and satisfied.
I still have to agree with the original poster, these people don't have the resources they need to investigate this fully to the point where they can finally see if they are right or wrong. Watch the film and I believe you may see my point better.
Again, make sure you don't just assume things about their character just because others are able to use the material to advance a religious aganda! This is the 'growing tide of misunderstandings' that I talked about earlier.
For sessions, I find it more practical to drop the native PHP session system and create my own session system by connecting a user cookie to a database entry. Then you can have better access to the session data and more security, even encrypting the session data inside the database if you want. You can also modify the cookie "key" every so often to hinder someone who may have compromised the user's machine and is looking for session cookies.
Also the advantages of doing this:
1. You are given the option to separate the user sessions database from page navigation/scripts on different servers if you anticipate massive amounts of traffic someday and want a cluster of servers.
2. It is not less efficient than the PHP session system. The native PHP sessions are file-based and also access the disk. With the user account_id as a primary key as a part of their cookie, session data access is very fast, perhaps faster in some cases.
It wouldn't surprise me if that is why the author doesn't talk about PHP sessions much. Extremely high-traffic applications shouldn't use them IMO.
Creationism is much older than evolution, and has had far more resources dedicated to defending it.
Actually, groups with Ph.D.'s who try to criticize evolution with evidence generally don't have a lot of money or support. Religious people who put tremendous resources into delivering a dogma is really besides the point he was trying to make--those resources aren't spent on criticizing evolution on a scientific level.
Apology accepted. You are a respectable Anonymous Coward.;D
This all brings up a good question though:
Why can't people explore ideas peacefully without worrying about controversial agendas popping up all over the place or have someone come along and accuse you of being out of bounds with an agenda?
I wonder if there is such a forum. Has the process of exchanging thoughts always been like this? Or have we entered a more cynical period of history?
dickko: '...if a new mutation is beneficial to an organism...'
Isn't that the same thing as new genetic information?
I agree with your explanation, this is basically what I was saying. I said that natural selection uses new genetic information (beneficial mutations) to drive the origin of new life forms.
So, to put my response another way, is it enough for life to merely change gene frequencies, or must the lack of beneficial mutations in our ecosystem be what falsifies natural evolution? (Making it a falsifiable scientific theory valid for study.)
(I believe I needed to originally define 'natural evolution' as the mechanism that created all of life. I don't usually refer to natural evolution as something that merely brings about change. Afterall, a flesh wound to my arm brings about change (a scar) and could be thought of as natural evolution if you gave it such a broad definition.;) )
I have noticed some bias and corruption in mainstream science in my own academic experience as well. I'm not referring to evolution neccessarily, and I'm not saying it is all deliberate. Humans have a tendency to fudge and wiggle to gain the acceptance and approval of the majority. Which brings me to another good point...
History shows us in every epoch of humanity, wrong ideas existed among majorities of people. Commonly held ideas become wedged in a society and enter into a self-perpetuating cycle where the minority view isn't given much attention. This is true in every epoch of humanity that I am familiar with before our present time. If this is true in the past, it could be true now about any number of ideas commonly held by the majority/mainstream--not just evolution.
It would be fascinating if we ever found out what some of these wrongly held mainstream ideas are. It would be even more amazing if there aren't any--the majority is correct about ALL ideas.
Everyone has a right to ask these kinds of questions, not just creationists. Science demands that the questions get asked so that there can be answers. I'm not jumping on you, just making sure that is clear.:)
What if you change the environment of an ecosystem and found that there is no new genetic information in the gene pool of the organisms? (Merely a shift in the frequency of genetic traits that already existed in the gene pool at the beginning of the observation.) Isn't new genetic information what natural selection uses to drive natural evolution's development of new life forms?
Retric> Ok let's think about this in one case you think about the odds of you specifically popping say 1 foot to the left. Now I agree this is not going to happen in your lifetime. QM gives the type of odds, which would say it's unlikely for you to pop that foot given thousands of times the lifetime of the universe let alone 100 years.
It's extremely ironic, but I have access to a few direct accounts of this happening on different occasions to some friends, including my own mother--with an eye-witness! In her case she slipped and was starting to fall down the top of an escalator with her arms full of purchases. The next thing she knew she was standing at the bottom and when she turned around her friend was still at the top of the escalator staring down at her with a pale face as if she had just seen a ghost. (This is not a joke.) Incidentally, 'strange things' tend to surround people more who 'connect to the spiritual world' than those who ignore it. A true scientists will study this phenomenon, a true naturalist will ignore it.
A naturalistic paradigm will force you to disbelieve my mother's story and come up with some other explanation (delusion, misunderstanding, hallucination, lying, etc), just as my recent response in the other thread predicts. (Be sure to read it to see this interesting prediction.) Naturalists have a real problem. Most of them insist that the naturalist worldview is correct as a consequence of 'miracles' not being real, not being observed, etc. Then they apply naturalism ad hoc to every story they ever hear about miracles and maintain that they don't exist, aren't real, never really happened, etc. Thus they remain naturalists until a high enough concentration of miracles are observed by them that they decide to change their mind. Unforuntately the state of things in the United States and other post-modern societies is not conducive right now to a high concentration of miracles, especially among naturalists. And yes, there are more 'fake miracles' out there than genuine ones. People willing to spend the time to sort through them understand this very well. Naturalists roll their eyes and don't bother. I may not be perfect, but if you think I am out of my mind, at least judge me by the cohesiveness of my writing. (That is, afterall, the only thing you have to judge me by.) And if you are feeling ambitious, I'm sure I can get my mother to record her story on audio and send it to you. You will find her to be mentally coherent as well. No religious agenda, no strings attached, just something interesting to rattle your naturalistic cage. (Am I to assume accurately that you tend to adopt a naturalist point of view?)
To that I would say there may be too many unknown variables at this time for anyone to know with reasonable certainty what the probability of evolution would be since everything has a non-zero chance no matter what and we don't know how large 'reality' is (in space, time, matter, and number of universes that could make up 'reality', whatever reality really is).
The bold emphasis I added to the word 'may' could be misleading and prevent exact understanding of what I am communicating. Consider reading it again without the emphasis on 'may'. (You seem to be into semantics.)
You've changed your tune. Okay, that's fine. I understand what you are saying and see where it is you are coming from. Going back to what you originally said:
Based on QM saying something can't happen is meaningless but some things are unlikely over a reasonable timeframe so if you want to try and demonstrate that something is extremely unlikely to ever occur on any planet anywhere in the solar system over billions of years that's one thing but saying can't is meaningless.
To that I would say there may be too many unknown variables at this time for anyone to know with reasonable certainty what the probability of evolution would be since everything has a non-zero chance no matter what and we don't know how large 'reality' is (in space, time, matter, and number of universes that could make up 'reality', whatever reality really is).
What we are seeing is a world full of scientists who are doing the best they can based upon the limited and incomplete knowledge that they do have. Scientists who have experienced what many consider to be God first hand in direct ways via their five senses throughout their life will have a tendency to speculate that this God explains some of the unknown variables. (Some talented scientists indeed have a spiritual life and claim to interact with God.) Scientists who have not experienced what many consider to be God and who do not believe God exists will tend to speculate about other hypothetical explanations for the unknown variables, explanations that do not involve God. Until the unknown variables become known, one approach isn't superior to the other, as long as both sides concede the truth as soon as more of the variables do become known. This is approximately, in greater detail and in different words, my original point when I responded to your original post. There is a battle of two different faiths to explain the unknown variables of real world phenomena. Mainstream science has officially adopted the God-less faith, and they did this for understandable naturalistic reasons. That doesn't mean they are correct however. Unfortunately the layperson cannot make this distinction and unwittingly allows themselves to be influenced by the mainstream's naturalistic worldview/paradigm. It is my contention that they are missing out on a lot of good information and a potentially genuine experience with what many consider to be God.
I'm not certain if you are agreeable to the above, but it appears rational to the extent that my mind is capable of discerning what is rational. At the very least you can see that I am being painstakingly honest.
I am thoroughly familiar with the field of genetics. Many things in the world are similar to each other but have no direct relationship. Don't jump to conclusions and judge people so quickly.
But this is just to illustrate that complexity arises out of simplicity.
No dispute there.
I smell the laws of thermodynamics entering the picture. (You can tell cause it smells like burning rubber). I'll get a jump on this now: the concept of entropy is only valid in a closed system. The earth is absolutely not one of those, we have a constant stream of energy from the sun. When that dries up, ya we'll all be reverting back to "simpler forms" LOL.
Well now, you know that the whole issue in question is whether or not mechanisms in nature exist that can channel that energy into an organized fashion. Otherwise entropy breaks everything down. The mechanism that organizes this energy is what IC challenges. Not enough has actually been discovered yet to fully satisfy this challenge except for fanciful imagination rather than solid science. That's all I'm saying here.
Slashdot Mirror
DavidPesta: Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator?
... even if they are naturalists.
Follier: Absolutely.
A misunderstanding. Philosophical naturalists as I would define it cannot be theists as a matter of definition, so I was asking a rhetorical question that was easily misunderstood, my apologies. The reason I asked this question is because you also asked a rhetorical question: 'Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?' ID by definition requires a supernatural creator of some kind, so of course the avid supporters will believe in a supernatural creator. Anyway, the original point you were making was that all ID scientists are theists and as a result are suspect to having a religious agenda. Since then we established that this was irrelevant to the issue itself, making all of this a moot point now. In any case, even if they are all theists, a religious agenda cannot be proven in all of them. I still contend that many who would study ID are agnostic, fair and open minded individuals who are undecided about a supernatural creator--again an irrelevant fact that has nothing to do with the very issue itself.
Most scientists are not atheists
Indeed, theistic scientists will practice naturalism in order to do science properly, but their personal beliefs contradict the naturalism that they use as the tool to practice science effectively. You're right, it's not really a problem!
If there was some sort of evidence that pointed to a Creator, then cheers! But there isn't (at the moment) so don't worry about it.
Not so fast! There is plenty of evidence of the supernatural, not to mention a Creator. But it all falls outside of mainstream science because science requires naturalistic explanations as a rule, remember? Therefore, you will never know about this evidence unless you are an active participant in the supernatural, or study those who are. Here's a tip: Most religious people don't participate in the supernatural either--at least not in an easily detectable way, and there is a heck of a lot of fraud and misunderstanding out there. As for evidence of a 'Creator', well my definition of ID in the other thread is a start and will have to suffice for now. (Let's not solve years of thought and experience in one day.)
No need to dress it up like science and try to compete with an actual theory if you're going to beleive it either way.
No, I maintain that ID is falsifiable and therefore conditions exists where I can disbelieve it. (See the other thread.)
Funding into ID research by religious instutions, theologicals schools, the University of Islam, or whatever would be perfectly acceptable. But you wouldn't expect an ID researcher to get a grant from a scientific program any more than you'd expect to have an English Lit program fund missionary work.
You just made our point. It turns out that these methods of funding are nowhere near the overwhelming resources that get put into the number of projects that would support natural evolution. Substantial quantities of religious money doesn't end up going to ID researchers even if it does make it past the pockets of clergy.
These PR movies are designed to sway popular opinion for religious/political reasons in much the same way that those "Global Warming is Good For You" movies were designed with the interests of oil companies in mind.
Probably so, but this particular film is much more than that--you are making a judgement about a film that you haven't even seen, and that is a mistake in this case. Watch the film already!
Honestly, if someone had any evidence at all for the ID hypothesis that could bring it out of the supernatural and into the realm of science, I could be happily swayed.
As long as the definition of ID requ
I just want you to know that I do believe you are honest about this issue, you just have a different way of thinking about it.
Evolution begins with observations, and goes from there.
The way I see it, evolution starts with philosophical naturalism and interprets all of the evidence to fit into that metaphysical ideology. Understandably so, since science works well under philosophical naturalism. In the end, there may be something wrong with it.
ID begins with assertians, and tries to wiggle into holes in the evolutionary model.
In my opinion, ID is (or should be) merely the falsifiable theory that philosophical naturalism and the conditions under which we exist in the physical universe cannot explain the origin of life. With that more proper definition, ID can be falsified by demonstrating natural evolution with experiments and providing other absolutely definitive mathematical proofs of our evolutionary history on a biochemical level. So far this hasn't been done to the satisfaction of a number of scientists. (The majority wouldn't agree because they are caught up in the mainstream.) As long as the attempt to falsify ID (demonstrate evolution) hasn't reached a level of success to convince these scientists, ID remains a scientifically valid theory to them.
There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, and no evidence to suggest that there is.
I thought IC is simply defined as the functional interdependency of multiple components. In that case, there's plenty of IC all around us especially within biology. Your contention shouldn't be whether IC exists, your contention should be if IC can be overcome by natural evolution.
There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution and no evidence to suggest that there is.
Did I miss something in my secular education? The fundamental distinction is this: Microevolution involves a shifting in frequency of genetic traits throughtout a population via natural selection, traits that already exist within the gene pool of the organisms. No new genetic information via genetic mutation is required to accomplish microevolution. On the other hand, macroevolution requires the introduction of entirely new genetic traits to produce entirely new forms of life--new genetic traits that did not already exist within the gene pool of the original organisms. New genetic information via genetic mutation is required to accomplish macroevolution.
Okay, I thought at first that is what you were saying. But I read it over and didn't see any clues. Thanks for clarifying! *sigh of relief*
You sound something like a mechanized terminator. Thanks for the cold input. *shivers*
I try to be very careful about communicating clearly and not allowing my statements to be ambiguous. I am still learning to be better at this. Apply these changes to what I said to avoid misunderstanding.
1. Third paragraph, last sentance, add the word 'natural' so it reads:
In the end, ID scientists do not get nearly as many resources (money + people) as those who advance natural evolution.
2. Fourth paragraph, first sentance, remove the words 'as you put it' so it reads:
Without PR movies there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability. Do I hear a 'Duh'?
'as you put it' I was referring to you calling them 'PR' movies. You're right, they are PR movies. My point is, what would you expect a minority point of view to do to gain support and research ability? It doesn't appear that you are applying a fair objective way of thinking about this group like what would be expected if you didn't hold some kind of discriminating mindset.
Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator?
;D
Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator? I don't believe you gave an honest answer. Theism as a generic philosophical paradigm is not more religious than atheism as a generic philosophical paradigm. Besides, have you not realized that agnosticism is also consistent with someone who might be interested in studying certain aspects of ID? As you know, agnostics generally consider themselves undecided about religious matters. I honestly believe there is a group of people that you aren't being fair with.
The people who came up with ID are the religious folks
You didn't seem to give any attention to my original point. It's a bit more complicated than that, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the origin of ID was completely based upon advancing a religious agenda. Even so, the origin of ID is irrelevant and religious disposition of those who support it is irrelevant. It is the position itself that should be evaluated on its own merit rather than looking at the followers. This is why: What if you are overlooking something important just because you have been turned off by people who support it? Having said that, I contend that there are agnostics who find the study of ID fascinating and important.
Is there some huge cache of grants available to pro-evolutionary scientists that I'm unaware of?
Are there ANY cache of grants available to pro-ID scientists that you are aware of? Because of the naturalistic requirement of science by its very definition, funding those who would study ID is considered by mainstream to be 'religious' and 'unscientific'. In the end, ID scientists do not get nearly as many resources (money + people) as those who advance evolution.
Maybe if they'd spend less money on PR movies and more on research, they can try to get somewhere.
Without PR movies, as you put it, there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability. Do I hear a 'Duh'? I don't think you are being unfair on purpose, but you certainly aren't applying the same objective way of thinking toward this group that you normally would any other group. Then again, I don't know you very well. Perhaps you are unfair with everyone.
I challenge you to watch the film that I mentioned in my penultimate post in this thread.
What could be found that could undo the Everest-like heaps of supporting evidence for evolution?
:)
Here's a shot: An entirely different falsifiable paradigm that has completely different and valid interpretations of the same evidence. Would that qualify? For example, Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, the latter having interpreted the evidence quite solidly for hundreds of years.
It would be neat to make that a part of higher-level science to excercise those critical thinking skills!
Yeah, I do remember you from someplace. It's good to know that the internet is finite afterall!
Cool. It looks like you are treating the issue in a way that I can accept.
And again, bacterial resistance as we know it does not in and of itself PROVE evolution, as there could be other explanations
True. For example, the resistance could be present in the bacteria at the very beginning of the experiment, but temporarily masked by a single mutation that blocks the resistance ability. As soon as another mutation knocks the resistance gene back into a working state of operation, the new strain begins to survive better and takes over--exhibiting the brand new resistance ability! In this case it would appear that the resistance evolved into existance, but actually the resistance merely bounced back.
To confirm what actually happens with bacterial resistance, you may actually have to sequence these genes at every stage and watch what happened. Yikes! Verifying evolution at a genetic level is a lot of hard work.
Anyway, my original question wasn't very clear. I was wondering if natural evolution as a theory in general was falsifiable given the fact that science operates under the assumption of philosophical naturalism. Does the common practice of science allow natural evolution to be falsifiable?
In the end it may not matter because unfalsifiable theories can still be verified by observation. It just takes so long to verify evolution!
How is evolution falsifiable?
Good point.
If philosophical naturalism is accepted as an absolute truth and unshakable foundation for how all of science is practiced, then evolution is not falsifiable.
Afterall, there is no natural alternative to evolution. True by default.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I respectfully maintain that you missed his point.
If knew me, you will find that I seek to be painstakingly honest about everything. Please, try to understand what I am trying to say.
Modern day science using modern day tools do not exist in great abundance in the hands of those who allegedly find holes in perfectly natural evolution.
Historical thinkers are not relevant to this point because they did not have the tools either--or the knowledge of biochemistry that we have today. They could not explore the issue properly in ways that are most relevant to the point--the nitty gritty details of biological systems.
People who make films like the following do not have a lot of resources:
"Unlocking The Mystery Of Life" - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007KLDW
(Though the film is very well done: 4.5 / 5 stars.)
I encourage you to watch the video and think about what these people are trying to say. I do not believe all of them have a religious agenda, but are genuinely learned people--philosophers and scientsts like you talked about at the beginning of your last post. They just don't have enough research support to dig deep enough fast to keep up with the growing tide of misunderstandings of them. I'm not saying they are correct, I'm just saying that they aren't given the attention and resources they need to explore this issue to the very depths of a conclusion that would be satisfying to them and a number of others.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: Some people may use their material to advance a religious agenda, but that is besides the point--ignore those people and focus on the material itself. It is my contention that responsible thinkers who watch the film above will have to agree that the makers of the film should be given the opportunity to go to ultimate depths of research to study the objections that they have. Science demands that every area of criticism be fully explored and satisfied.
I still have to agree with the original poster, these people don't have the resources they need to investigate this fully to the point where they can finally see if they are right or wrong. Watch the film and I believe you may see my point better.
Again, make sure you don't just assume things about their character just because others are able to use the material to advance a religious aganda! This is the 'growing tide of misunderstandings' that I talked about earlier.
For sessions, I find it more practical to drop the native PHP session system and create my own session system by connecting a user cookie to a database entry. Then you can have better access to the session data and more security, even encrypting the session data inside the database if you want. You can also modify the cookie "key" every so often to hinder someone who may have compromised the user's machine and is looking for session cookies.
Also the advantages of doing this:
1. You are given the option to separate the user sessions database from page navigation/scripts on different servers if you anticipate massive amounts of traffic someday and want a cluster of servers.
2. It is not less efficient than the PHP session system. The native PHP sessions are file-based and also access the disk. With the user account_id as a primary key as a part of their cookie, session data access is very fast, perhaps faster in some cases.
It wouldn't surprise me if that is why the author doesn't talk about PHP sessions much. Extremely high-traffic applications shouldn't use them IMO.
Creationism is much older than evolution, and has had far more resources dedicated to defending it.
Actually, groups with Ph.D.'s who try to criticize evolution with evidence generally don't have a lot of money or support. Religious people who put tremendous resources into delivering a dogma is really besides the point he was trying to make--those resources aren't spent on criticizing evolution on a scientific level.
I understand all that, you misunderstood me.
Here's what I said: "if you gave it such a broad definition"
"IF" you defined evolution that broadly. The word 'evolution' is often used to mean 'change' and doesn't even have to apply to biology at all.
It was just a far out example of how important it is to define the word--not meant to be used as an argument of the central point being made.
Apology accepted. You are a respectable Anonymous Coward. ;D
This all brings up a good question though:
Why can't people explore ideas peacefully without worrying about controversial agendas popping up all over the place or have someone come along and accuse you of being out of bounds with an agenda?
I wonder if there is such a forum. Has the process of exchanging thoughts always been like this? Or have we entered a more cynical period of history?
It wasn't an argument. It was a historical observation. It is interesting to see how quickly someone will try to find an agenda behind simple musings.
dickko: '...if a new mutation is beneficial to an organism...'
;) )
Isn't that the same thing as new genetic information?
I agree with your explanation, this is basically what I was saying. I said that natural selection uses new genetic information (beneficial mutations) to drive the origin of new life forms.
So, to put my response another way, is it enough for life to merely change gene frequencies, or must the lack of beneficial mutations in our ecosystem be what falsifies natural evolution? (Making it a falsifiable scientific theory valid for study.)
(I believe I needed to originally define 'natural evolution' as the mechanism that created all of life. I don't usually refer to natural evolution as something that merely brings about change. Afterall, a flesh wound to my arm brings about change (a scar) and could be thought of as natural evolution if you gave it such a broad definition.
I have noticed some bias and corruption in mainstream science in my own academic experience as well. I'm not referring to evolution neccessarily, and I'm not saying it is all deliberate. Humans have a tendency to fudge and wiggle to gain the acceptance and approval of the majority. Which brings me to another good point...
History shows us in every epoch of humanity, wrong ideas existed among majorities of people. Commonly held ideas become wedged in a society and enter into a self-perpetuating cycle where the minority view isn't given much attention. This is true in every epoch of humanity that I am familiar with before our present time. If this is true in the past, it could be true now about any number of ideas commonly held by the majority/mainstream--not just evolution.
It would be fascinating if we ever found out what some of these wrongly held mainstream ideas are. It would be even more amazing if there aren't any--the majority is correct about ALL ideas.
Everyone has a right to ask these kinds of questions, not just creationists. Science demands that the questions get asked so that there can be answers. I'm not jumping on you, just making sure that is clear. :)
What if you change the environment of an ecosystem and found that there is no new genetic information in the gene pool of the organisms? (Merely a shift in the frequency of genetic traits that already existed in the gene pool at the beginning of the observation.) Isn't new genetic information what natural selection uses to drive natural evolution's development of new life forms?
What are the conditions that would falsify natural evolution?
Here's another fun road to walk.
Retric> Ok let's think about this in one case you think about the odds of you specifically popping say 1 foot to the left. Now I agree this is not going to happen in your lifetime. QM gives the type of odds, which would say it's unlikely for you to pop that foot given thousands of times the lifetime of the universe let alone 100 years.
It's extremely ironic, but I have access to a few direct accounts of this happening on different occasions to some friends, including my own mother--with an eye-witness! In her case she slipped and was starting to fall down the top of an escalator with her arms full of purchases. The next thing she knew she was standing at the bottom and when she turned around her friend was still at the top of the escalator staring down at her with a pale face as if she had just seen a ghost. (This is not a joke.) Incidentally, 'strange things' tend to surround people more who 'connect to the spiritual world' than those who ignore it. A true scientists will study this phenomenon, a true naturalist will ignore it.
A naturalistic paradigm will force you to disbelieve my mother's story and come up with some other explanation (delusion, misunderstanding, hallucination, lying, etc), just as my recent response in the other thread predicts. (Be sure to read it to see this interesting prediction.) Naturalists have a real problem. Most of them insist that the naturalist worldview is correct as a consequence of 'miracles' not being real, not being observed, etc. Then they apply naturalism ad hoc to every story they ever hear about miracles and maintain that they don't exist, aren't real, never really happened, etc. Thus they remain naturalists until a high enough concentration of miracles are observed by them that they decide to change their mind. Unforuntately the state of things in the United States and other post-modern societies is not conducive right now to a high concentration of miracles, especially among naturalists. And yes, there are more 'fake miracles' out there than genuine ones. People willing to spend the time to sort through them understand this very well. Naturalists roll their eyes and don't bother. I may not be perfect, but if you think I am out of my mind, at least judge me by the cohesiveness of my writing. (That is, afterall, the only thing you have to judge me by.) And if you are feeling ambitious, I'm sure I can get my mother to record her story on audio and send it to you. You will find her to be mentally coherent as well. No religious agenda, no strings attached, just something interesting to rattle your naturalistic cage. (Am I to assume accurately that you tend to adopt a naturalist point of view?)
To that I would say there may be too many unknown variables at this time for anyone to know with reasonable certainty what the probability of evolution would be since everything has a non-zero chance no matter what and we don't know how large 'reality' is (in space, time, matter, and number of universes that could make up 'reality', whatever reality really is).
The bold emphasis I added to the word 'may' could be misleading and prevent exact understanding of what I am communicating. Consider reading it again without the emphasis on 'may'. (You seem to be into semantics.)
You've changed your tune. Okay, that's fine. I understand what you are saying and see where it is you are coming from. Going back to what you originally said:
Based on QM saying something can't happen is meaningless but some things are unlikely over a reasonable timeframe so if you want to try and demonstrate that something is extremely unlikely to ever occur on any planet anywhere in the solar system over billions of years that's one thing but saying can't is meaningless.
To that I would say there may be too many unknown variables at this time for anyone to know with reasonable certainty what the probability of evolution would be since everything has a non-zero chance no matter what and we don't know how large 'reality' is (in space, time, matter, and number of universes that could make up 'reality', whatever reality really is).
What we are seeing is a world full of scientists who are doing the best they can based upon the limited and incomplete knowledge that they do have. Scientists who have experienced what many consider to be God first hand in direct ways via their five senses throughout their life will have a tendency to speculate that this God explains some of the unknown variables. (Some talented scientists indeed have a spiritual life and claim to interact with God.) Scientists who have not experienced what many consider to be God and who do not believe God exists will tend to speculate about other hypothetical explanations for the unknown variables, explanations that do not involve God. Until the unknown variables become known, one approach isn't superior to the other, as long as both sides concede the truth as soon as more of the variables do become known. This is approximately, in greater detail and in different words, my original point when I responded to your original post. There is a battle of two different faiths to explain the unknown variables of real world phenomena. Mainstream science has officially adopted the God-less faith, and they did this for understandable naturalistic reasons. That doesn't mean they are correct however. Unfortunately the layperson cannot make this distinction and unwittingly allows themselves to be influenced by the mainstream's naturalistic worldview/paradigm. It is my contention that they are missing out on a lot of good information and a potentially genuine experience with what many consider to be God.
I'm not certain if you are agreeable to the above, but it appears rational to the extent that my mind is capable of discerning what is rational. At the very least you can see that I am being painstakingly honest.
I am thoroughly familiar with the field of genetics. Many things in the world are similar to each other but have no direct relationship. Don't jump to conclusions and judge people so quickly.
But this is just to illustrate that complexity arises out of simplicity.
No dispute there.
I smell the laws of thermodynamics entering the picture. (You can tell cause it smells like burning rubber). I'll get a jump on this now: the concept of entropy is only valid in a closed system. The earth is absolutely not one of those, we have a constant stream of energy from the sun. When that dries up, ya we'll all be reverting back to "simpler forms" LOL.
Well now, you know that the whole issue in question is whether or not mechanisms in nature exist that can channel that energy into an organized fashion. Otherwise entropy breaks everything down. The mechanism that organizes this energy is what IC challenges. Not enough has actually been discovered yet to fully satisfy this challenge except for fanciful imagination rather than solid science. That's all I'm saying here.
It's been fun chatting with you.