"Macroevolution" does not address the origin of the universe. That said, "macroevolution" and ID do not address the same issue.
You're absolutely right. While I'm still recovering from the gaps in my education... can someone point me to the theory that does address the origin of the universe without intelligent design?
By specifically saying the "origin of the universe" I was trying to avoid confusion from the many intelligent-design-through-evolution theories that won't let the two be separate theories.
Yet, whether we compare evolutionary-origin-of-the-universe with intelligent design; or evolution (origin of species) with intelligent design... I still don't see how we came to dismiss one as religion and accept the other as science.
Throwing out the word "evolution" (since it seems I'm misusing it)... the original story is about teaching origins in school.
We can teach "stuff just got here..." or we can teach "stuff was designed..."
In neither case can we observe or reproduce the beginning of the universe... So it's religion.
In both cases, we make deductions from this theory (eg. the age of planet earth) and conduct scientific experiments on those deductions to find out if they can be supported by evidence... So it's science.
Moving away from the origin of the universe; we can teach "stuff gets better over time through natural selection", or we can teach "stuff was created perfect and disintegrates over time."
Still, since the amount of time in question is greater than a lifetime, we cannot truly observe or repeat these phenomena. So it's religion.
Or, we can make deductions and test those deductions... so it's science.
We must make sure that theories which "one must accept as faith" are not taught as fact. But can they not be taught as speculation? Or better yet, can not the implications of such a theory be scientifically tested and *that science* be taught in school?
You're only going half as far as I'm asking you to. You propose that intelligent design is clearly religion... supposing I allowed your argument, couldn't we use the same criteria to establish evolution as a religion?
If you think that sounds ridiculous, try it out:
Evolution clearly isn't science. It doesn't use the scientific method, its "researchers" don't do any research, they report their "results" through evolution-friendly media rather than scientific conferences, etc. Anyone who says they can't distinguish it from science is ill informed about what goes on in one or both camps, or hasn't stopped to think about it, or is being disingenuous.
As for why it's considered religion, you can think out its implications (where did the matter come from for the Big Bang?), or you can look at what its leading proponents say when they're not pretending to be scientists.
Scary, huh?
I'm looking not for a reason why the intelligent design theory is religion (other than "It's clearly not science, and anyone who thinks it is is dumb"); I'm looking for a justification for calling intelligent design religion without calling evolution religion.
The scientific method is moot. Those little steps "observation" and "repetition" are a little finicky when it comes to the origin of the universe.
If macroevolution and intelligent design are two different theories addressing the same question (the origin of the universe), then how can one be religion and the other not?
Let's keep this objective... can anyone justify the classification of one theory as religion and another as science, when they both address the same thing?
Careful - rightnext to the bsometer is the wasnt-paying-attention-in-junior-high-ometer.
The g.p. is refering to the scientific principle that you cannot prove an absolute negative. In general, it is a warning not to infer too much from one's own limited perspective of the universe.
For example, "I can see no stars in the sky at this time" is much more easily supported than the statement "There are no stars in the sky." The statement, "I found no fish in this pond" is sensible, but the statement, "This pond has no fish" is close to nonsense.
Per your example, "I do not intend to go to the park today" is a statement you can support. "I will not go to the park today" is not provable. Of course, that is because it is future-tellings, not because it is negative.
Which brings us back to...
Hidden variable theories of quantum mechanics have been pretty thoroughly disproven.
This is misleading. The theories have not been disproven. They have simply not been proven. The fact that they have not, to date, been proven, does not imply that they are disproven. Actually, the theory of some pattern existing behind pseudorandom quantum phenomena may very well be not-provable and yet still true. (In order to emphatically prove such a theory, one have to discover the pattern... rendering the point moot!)
I'm personally fine with not having a grammar checker since it has given me the opportunity to actually learn the English language instead of relying on my word processor to make my sentences coherent.
This is either a challenge, or an admission of defeat.
An open-source operating system is a huge amount of work, very complex, done by professional software engineers, designers, project managers... I could only see it as a collective effort of a few huge corporations... and anyway, who would use a free operating system. Nah, it's better to let MicroSoft be the de facto standard.
What we are talking about here is machines. We have used *MACHINES* To count and tabulate votes for the better part of 100 years in this country.
There have been problems with *MACHINES* for a long, long time.
Your implication here is that computers are no different from other tools used to get a job done. As far as the actual computer is concerned, that is true. But with closed-source software running the computer, that is false.
Trusting a machine is only acceptable if we can see how it works.
Using computers running proprietary software is not just like any other machine. Would we let Diebold sell cars to our government if they had black-box engines only serviceable by Diebold?
Let them keep their money and give us their source code.
How functional and viable would the internet be with only partial US involvement? Is the US so important to the net at large, that the administration there would be able to effectively force all other nations to fall into line with their policy?
No! No! The internet does not need the US gov't. Nor will it tolerate censorship or control. Can I get an "amen"?
Slashdot Mirror
Priority list: #1 of 1. #1 - Quality, accessible, comprehensive documentation.
Evolution is observable? Who has observed the spontaneous mutation of one species into another through the process of natural selection?
Yes, that was a serious question!
Or have I got the word "evolution" wrong again?
You're absolutely right. While I'm still recovering from the gaps in my education... can someone point me to the theory that does address the origin of the universe without intelligent design?
By specifically saying the "origin of the universe" I was trying to avoid confusion from the many intelligent-design-through-evolution theories that won't let the two be separate theories.
Yet, whether we compare evolutionary-origin-of-the-universe with intelligent design; or evolution (origin of species) with intelligent design... I still don't see how we came to dismiss one as religion and accept the other as science.
Throwing out the word "evolution" (since it seems I'm misusing it)... the original story is about teaching origins in school.
We can teach "stuff just got here..." or we can teach "stuff was designed..."
In neither case can we observe or reproduce the beginning of the universe... So it's religion.
In both cases, we make deductions from this theory (eg. the age of planet earth) and conduct scientific experiments on those deductions to find out if they can be supported by evidence... So it's science.
Moving away from the origin of the universe; we can teach "stuff gets better over time through natural selection", or we can teach "stuff was created perfect and disintegrates over time."
Still, since the amount of time in question is greater than a lifetime, we cannot truly observe or repeat these phenomena. So it's religion.
Or, we can make deductions and test those deductions... so it's science.
We must make sure that theories which "one must accept as faith" are not taught as fact. But can they not be taught as speculation? Or better yet, can not the implications of such a theory be scientifically tested and *that science* be taught in school?
No Fair - you used math.
The assumption you refer to is that "macroevolution" refers to the evolutionary theories about the origin of the universe.
Upon some quick investigation (google wikipedia), I realise that is indeed a false assumption.
That being said, my question is about comparing two theories regarding the origin of the universe.
Good job at staying objective :P
You're only going half as far as I'm asking you to. You propose that intelligent design is clearly religion... supposing I allowed your argument, couldn't we use the same criteria to establish evolution as a religion?
If you think that sounds ridiculous, try it out:
Scary, huh?
I'm looking not for a reason why the intelligent design theory is religion (other than "It's clearly not science, and anyone who thinks it is is dumb"); I'm looking for a justification for calling intelligent design religion without calling evolution religion.
The scientific method is moot. Those little steps "observation" and "repetition" are a little finicky when it comes to the origin of the universe.
If macroevolution and intelligent design are two different theories addressing the same question (the origin of the universe), then how can one be religion and the other not?
Let's keep this objective... can anyone justify the classification of one theory as religion and another as science, when they both address the same thing?
Are there any examples of similar situations?
Careful - rightnext to the bsometer is the wasnt-paying-attention-in-junior-high-ometer.
The g.p. is refering to the scientific principle that you cannot prove an absolute negative. In general, it is a warning not to infer too much from one's own limited perspective of the universe.
For example, "I can see no stars in the sky at this time" is much more easily supported than the statement "There are no stars in the sky." The statement, "I found no fish in this pond" is sensible, but the statement, "This pond has no fish" is close to nonsense.
Per your example, "I do not intend to go to the park today" is a statement you can support. "I will not go to the park today" is not provable. Of course, that is because it is future-tellings, not because it is negative.
Which brings us back to...
This is misleading. The theories have not been disproven. They have simply not been proven. The fact that they have not, to date, been proven, does not imply that they are disproven. Actually, the theory of some pattern existing behind pseudorandom quantum phenomena may very well be not-provable and yet still true. (In order to emphatically prove such a theory, one have to discover the pattern... rendering the point moot!)
Ask any metaphysicist.
mouse wheel support? drag and drop? Welcome to the '90s, Emacs.
This is either a challenge, or an admission of defeat.
An open-source operating system is a huge amount of work, very complex, done by professional software engineers, designers, project managers... I could only see it as a collective effort of a few huge corporations... and anyway, who would use a free operating system. Nah, it's better to let MicroSoft be the de facto standard.
I wonder how RMS does his taxes?
Your implication here is that computers are no different from other tools used to get a job done. As far as the actual computer is concerned, that is true. But with closed-source software running the computer, that is false.
Trusting a machine is only acceptable if we can see how it works.
Using computers running proprietary software is not just like any other machine. Would we let Diebold sell cars to our government if they had black-box engines only serviceable by Diebold?
Let them keep their money and give us their source code.