Just another added note, to all of you clinging on to evolution being a theory, and not a belief.
from Stephen Hawking: "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
So, I propose a theory based on a common belief, one which a large majority of the world has, and thus points to truth. The theory is: "God exists". It cannot be disproven, and is thus as valid a theory as Evolution. A bad one, perhaps, but a theory none the less.
As I said, men smarter than myself could likely do better than this, but I will try my best to refute the articles you sent:
How did that first "light-sensitive cell" evolve in the first place? By random chance? Do you realize the complexity of the molecules needed by a cell to be sensitive to light? How would these be randomly made?
What about the other proteins in our DNA - afterall, that's all DNA holds, a map of proteins - how did the DNA magically mutate, time after time after time, to create these proteins which are so vital to our survival?
And they determined that Darwinian evolution could produce a good camera eye in less than a half a million years! That's a mere "blink of the eye" in geologic time! I would actually be interested to see this software. Does it use the premise that an eye is a good thing? If so, how is this valid? A cell which can see light slightly better than another does NOT always imply that cell will have a higher chance of living. Sometimes, perhaps, but 100 million (or however many mutations were necessary to create our eyeball) in a row?
Mind you that I am not agreeing with ID, personally I think it's as ludicrous as evolution. All I'm saying is, evolution is no LESS ludicrous, and if what you REALLy want to do is teach students to use the tools of SCIENCE, then the right thing to do would be to remove evolution from the curriculum altogether.
Is it, though? How many years did it take Einstein to finally convince other scientists? Many "scientists" rejected his theories, despite them being correct
Most scientists' theories are treated with skepticism at first, despite having proof. See for yourself: http://www.einstein.caltech.edu/vol04_intro.htm remained skeptical in their responses to Einstein's recent work
Even scientists having proof cannot convince other scientists. Why is that if science is based purely on truths? Scientists are people too, just like religious people. They too become emotional about their truths when someone else tries to show them they're incorrect.
You should observe an embryo develop
What does this have to do with anything? "The creation of a specialized cell, such as our nerve cells" does not include COPYING of a cell, which is what the development of an embryo is. The code was there to begin with. We have never seen the CREATION of a specialized cell from NOTHINGNESS.
No I'm not. I'm making statements about how organisms could have arisen . Natural selection can explain how an eye ball came about. It says nothing about composition of stars...
Please note that in that context, I meant "everything" to mean everything in the realm of evolutionary science. The point was that evolutionary science only explains about 40%, yet you claim it explaisn EVERYTHING about how current species came to be.
In any case, I think that any explanation based on natural laws is better than one based on a super-natural invisible being.
Yah, and religion X is better than religion Y because I think so also. Natural laws explain how atoms bond, how a book falls due to gravity. "Eye balls form due to pure chance and natural selection" is not natural law, it is an opinion.
No it's not a religion. What do you call all the fossils, what do you call the computed age of the earth, what do you call the presence of DNA in every living organism?...
You continue to compare evolution to other sciences. Of course I know that electrons exist. How do I know, you ask? Because if they didn't, why would my lightbulb be on? We know, and can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that electricity does exist. "DNA in every living organism" and "fossils existing" in no way implies that eyeballs must thus be created due to pure chance and natural selection!
This ability is built-in to a stem cell. It still does not explain how the DNA code to create a specialized cell, which is present in a stem cell, came to be.
If science is just like any other belief, how dare Creationists force their own beliefs on it? They don't try to do that with Islam or Budhism, do they?
I won't argue with you there. But I don't see how evolutionary theory is anymore science than ID or creationism. At the very least, what's so bad about teaching evolution 80% of the time, and "miscelaneous" 20% of the time? If science is not "afraid" of being proven wrong, why be so adamantly against a competing theory? If it truely is balogne, shouldn't the students be allowed to decide for themselves?
People that claim that science explains EVERYTHING are fools. Fortunately, they are rare. However, science does give a very solid explanation of many phenomena, including the origin of species.
I'm not sure about rare. I would say that 90% of atheists believe this.
This argument has been refuted so many times in so many forums, including/., that I'm not going to do it again. Just Google.
I agree. And it has also been counter-refuted by many men smarter than myself. And then re-counter-refuted, and then... you get the idea. That's what happens when all you have is theories, and no proof. Kind of like religion has been refuted, and counter-refuted, and... you get the idea.
The difference between science and dogma is that science is falsifiable, so other scientists can correct invalid theories.
Is it, though? How many years did it take Einstein to finally convince other scientists? Many "scientists" rejected his theories, despite them being correct
And why not?... Earth existed for several BILLION years before any organisms appeared. The probability of accidental creation of a self-replicating molecule over that period of time is close to 100%.
Self replicating molecule? Sure. I'd say it's not even a matter of being close to 100%, I'd say it's 100%. Self replicating molecule that clumps together to create a light-processing center that in turn is processed by a clump of other cells which make sense out of those electrical signals? That's a completely different story. And fact is, we can't even prove what the possibility of that is, because we have no way to do it. We have proven, in the laboratory, that given the right environment, the molecules that are the basis of life will be created. But we have NEVER seen, in the laboratory or otherwise, the creation of a specialized cell, such as our nerve cells.
Not to mention that you are the perfect example of a lot of the scientists out there - I concede that evolution may be correct, if you'll just show me the proof. Yet you cling on to it with no proof, with the mere belief that "someone says it's possible, so it must be".
No scientist would ever claim that science explains everything. Where did you get this idea? Science is a collective, self-corrective enterprise engaged in by humans. It is not perfect, but it's the best way we have to understand how the world works
You are claiming exactly that! I am saying that evolution explains PART of how humans came from simple molecules, i.e. natural selection. Yet you claim it explains EVERYTHING, including how eyeball cells were formed, when it clearly does NOT!
And how exactly do you "measure" that science is the best way to understand how the world works? Sure, chemistry and physics do that just fine. But how does evolution help us understand how the world works, when it's riddled with unanswered questions?
Evolution is not truly science - it's just another religion, another attempt to explain why we exist without having any hard evidence. Which is why I choose to go with the TRUE scientific view of how we came to be. We have no clue, and until we invent a time machine, or until we see the creation of an entirely new species from just molecules, we will still have no clue.
I think that terevos makes a very valid point. The problem with science is, just like any other belief, there are some things that can't be explained. And when this happens, when there are things that not even science can explain, the hardcore scientists, fanatacists like the hard core religious folks, try to fill in the void with invalid theories.
This can be seen with evolution. Evolution explains one thing and one thing ONLY - how one organism may beat out another organism, and thus survive and proliferate. It does NOT, however, explain how things are first formed.
For example, if 2 organisms are born, and one is taller than the other, the taller one may outlive the shorter one because it has easier access to food, etc. This is what evolution explains.
What evolution does NOT explain is how, for example, an organ such as the eyeball was formed. No form of evolution can explain this, and trying to is just as bad as a ID or creationism believer.
" In that insightful book, he had a most ingenious argument against evolution as a complete explanation of the origin of life -- an argument that is still relevant today, particularly when put in biochemical terms at the molecular and genetic level. Specifically what Paley argued was that if we found a watch out in the middle of nowhere, we would postulate that someone designed and made it - even if it did not keep perfect time, even if it did not work at all, even if we found that it could reproduce other watches (and thus might itself have been made by a prior watch - thus shifting our question to what made the first watch, rather than perhaps the particular one we had found). He argues that the human eye is far more sophisticated in many ways than a watch, and therefore it would be absurd to argue that the watch must have been designed but that the eye could have just come about by some sort of random chance, even in combination with some kind of theory of evolution - the idea of which preceded Darwin. We would never say the watch might have just evolved out there in the woods or the desert or the bottom of the ocean. Why should we take the watch as evidence of design, but not the human eye?"
I personally am agnostic - I think that religion is full of holes and only a fool could believe in it without seeing the fallacies. But I think science also has its share, and to believe fully in it without being objective is just as bad - i.e. to think that science explains EVERYTHING. It doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... ok, very good points that I was not aware of. I will have to do more research on the matter to give an intelligent answer.
Thanks for the insight de Selby!
Just another added note, to all of you clinging on to evolution being a theory, and not a belief.
from Stephen Hawking: "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."
So, I propose a theory based on a common belief, one which a large majority of the world has, and thus points to truth. The theory is: "God exists". It cannot be disproven, and is thus as valid a theory as Evolution. A bad one, perhaps, but a theory none the less.
As I said, men smarter than myself could likely do better than this, but I will try my best to refute the articles you sent:
Mind you that I am not agreeing with ID, personally I think it's as ludicrous as evolution. All I'm saying is, evolution is no LESS ludicrous, and if what you REALLy want to do is teach students to use the tools of SCIENCE, then the right thing to do would be to remove evolution from the curriculum altogether.
Is it, though? How many years did it take Einstein to finally convince other scientists? Many "scientists" rejected his theories, despite them being correct
Most scientists' theories are treated with skepticism at first, despite having proof. See for yourself:
http://www.einstein.caltech.edu/vol04_intro.htm
remained skeptical in their responses to Einstein's recent work
Even scientists having proof cannot convince other scientists. Why is that if science is based purely on truths? Scientists are people too, just like religious people. They too become emotional about their truths when someone else tries to show them they're incorrect.
You should observe an embryo develop
What does this have to do with anything? "The creation of a specialized cell, such as our nerve cells" does not include COPYING of a cell, which is what the development of an embryo is. The code was there to begin with. We have never seen the CREATION of a specialized cell from NOTHINGNESS.
No I'm not. I'm making statements about how organisms could have arisen . Natural selection can explain how an eye ball came about. It says nothing about composition of stars...
Please note that in that context, I meant "everything" to mean everything in the realm of evolutionary science. The point was that evolutionary science only explains about 40%, yet you claim it explaisn EVERYTHING about how current species came to be.
In any case, I think that any explanation based on natural laws is better than one based on a super-natural invisible being.
Yah, and religion X is better than religion Y because I think so also. Natural laws explain how atoms bond, how a book falls due to gravity. "Eye balls form due to pure chance and natural selection" is not natural law, it is an opinion.
No it's not a religion. What do you call all the fossils, what do you call the computed age of the earth, what do you call the presence of DNA in every living organism?...
You continue to compare evolution to other sciences. Of course I know that electrons exist. How do I know, you ask? Because if they didn't, why would my lightbulb be on? We know, and can prove beyond reasonable doubt, that electricity does exist. "DNA in every living organism" and "fossils existing" in no way implies that eyeballs must thus be created due to pure chance and natural selection!
This ability is built-in to a stem cell. It still does not explain how the DNA code to create a specialized cell, which is present in a stem cell, came to be.
If science is just like any other belief, how dare Creationists force their own beliefs on it? They don't try to do that with Islam or Budhism, do they?
I won't argue with you there. But I don't see how evolutionary theory is anymore science than ID or creationism. At the very least, what's so bad about teaching evolution 80% of the time, and "miscelaneous" 20% of the time? If science is not "afraid" of being proven wrong, why be so adamantly against a competing theory? If it truely is balogne, shouldn't the students be allowed to decide for themselves?
People that claim that science explains EVERYTHING are fools. Fortunately, they are rare. However, science does give a very solid explanation of many phenomena, including the origin of species.
I'm not sure about rare. I would say that 90% of atheists believe this.
This argument has been refuted so many times in so many forums, including /., that I'm not going to do it again. Just Google.
I agree. And it has also been counter-refuted by many men smarter than myself. And then re-counter-refuted, and then... you get the idea. That's what happens when all you have is theories, and no proof. Kind of like religion has been refuted, and counter-refuted, and... you get the idea.
The difference between science and dogma is that science is falsifiable, so other scientists can correct invalid theories.
Is it, though? How many years did it take Einstein to finally convince other scientists? Many "scientists" rejected his theories, despite them being correct
And why not? ... Earth existed for several BILLION years before any organisms appeared. The probability of accidental creation of a self-replicating molecule over that period of time is close to 100%.
Self replicating molecule? Sure. I'd say it's not even a matter of being close to 100%, I'd say it's 100%. Self replicating molecule that clumps together to create a light-processing center that in turn is processed by a clump of other cells which make sense out of those electrical signals? That's a completely different story. And fact is, we can't even prove what the possibility of that is, because we have no way to do it. We have proven, in the laboratory, that given the right environment, the molecules that are the basis of life will be created. But we have NEVER seen, in the laboratory or otherwise, the creation of a specialized cell, such as our nerve cells.
Not to mention that you are the perfect example of a lot of the scientists out there - I concede that evolution may be correct, if you'll just show me the proof. Yet you cling on to it with no proof, with the mere belief that "someone says it's possible, so it must be".
No scientist would ever claim that science explains everything. Where did you get this idea? Science is a collective, self-corrective enterprise engaged in by humans. It is not perfect, but it's the best way we have to understand how the world works
You are claiming exactly that! I am saying that evolution explains PART of how humans came from simple molecules, i.e. natural selection. Yet you claim it explains EVERYTHING, including how eyeball cells were formed, when it clearly does NOT!
And how exactly do you "measure" that science is the best way to understand how the world works? Sure, chemistry and physics do that just fine. But how does evolution help us understand how the world works, when it's riddled with unanswered questions?
Evolution is not truly science - it's just another religion, another attempt to explain why we exist without having any hard evidence. Which is why I choose to go with the TRUE scientific view of how we came to be. We have no clue, and until we invent a time machine, or until we see the creation of an entirely new species from just molecules, we will still have no clue.
I think that terevos makes a very valid point. The problem with science is, just like any other belief, there are some things that can't be explained. And when this happens, when there are things that not even science can explain, the hardcore scientists, fanatacists like the hard core religious folks, try to fill in the void with invalid theories.
This can be seen with evolution. Evolution explains one thing and one thing ONLY - how one organism may beat out another organism, and thus survive and proliferate. It does NOT, however, explain how things are first formed.
For example, if 2 organisms are born, and one is taller than the other, the taller one may outlive the shorter one because it has easier access to food, etc. This is what evolution explains.
What evolution does NOT explain is how, for example, an organ such as the eyeball was formed. No form of evolution can explain this, and trying to is just as bad as a ID or creationism believer.
A quote from http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/evolution.htm, which all objective atheists should ponder:
" In that insightful book, he had a most ingenious argument against evolution as a complete explanation of the origin of life -- an argument that is still relevant today, particularly when put in biochemical terms at the molecular and genetic level. Specifically what Paley argued was that if we found a watch out in the middle of nowhere, we would postulate that someone designed and made it - even if it did not keep perfect time, even if it did not work at all, even if we found that it could reproduce other watches (and thus might itself have been made by a prior watch - thus shifting our question to what made the first watch, rather than perhaps the particular one we had found). He argues that the human eye is far more sophisticated in many ways than a watch, and therefore it would be absurd to argue that the watch must have been designed but that the eye could have just come about by some sort of random chance, even in combination with some kind of theory of evolution - the idea of which preceded Darwin. We would never say the watch might have just evolved out there in the woods or the desert or the bottom of the ocean. Why should we take the watch as evidence of design, but not the human eye?"
I personally am agnostic - I think that religion is full of holes and only a fool could believe in it without seeing the fallacies. But I think science also has its share, and to believe fully in it without being objective is just as bad - i.e. to think that science explains EVERYTHING. It doesn't.