Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[Aranince]

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf

An upcoming movie by Ben Stein. Check out the trailer...all of it.

[killerrobot]

Seems like an interesting flick.

There's always a fear that someone's work might end up discrediting someone else's work in academia and that does cause lots of volatile relationships.

[.Andy]

This movie is going to be hilariously terrible. But should be a laugh in the same way as creationist dinosaur world is good for a giggle. The godwin and the confusion between abiogenesis and evolution in the trailer is enough to realise that this film is no more than propaganda. Lightning hitting a mud puddle?

Do creationists really think that scientists are repressing their ideas rather than rejecting them as not science? Or have they decided that appealing to the public is easier than dressing up their supernatural mythology as science?

[themadchemist]

The movie looks interesting, even though I vehemently disagree with his premise. But in the interests of fairness and of procrastination from useful work, I read the Meyer article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177)--you know, the one from the Discovery Institute that apparently demonstrates how viciously the scientific establishment persecutes these brave purveyors of new knowledge. My comments follow.

One of my big concerns with this paper, methodologically, is that especially when it comes to his key arguments, he doesn't cite many primary or peer-reviewed articles. He cites unpublished work, papers in non-scientific journals (like some journal on rhetoric), reviews and commentaries instead of primary research, and books. These are all not the source for sound, experiment-driven research. Notice that I cite nothing below: I'm not a hypocrite because I'm making a post to an online forum, not writing a review article for a peer-reviewed journal.

His other big mistake, and that of his colleagues, is to make a lot of logical arguments that don't have experimental backing. The entire basis of his hypothesis is on pointing to holes (real or imagined) in the theory of evolution and stating that his hypothesis fills those holes. Nowhere do I see experiments to test his hypothesis, data to back it up directly, or even the assertion that his hypothesis would be testable in nature with heretofore undeveloped scientific techniques. I just see a lot of philosophizing, and a philosopher does not a scientist make.

Now for specific comments...

Meyer makes an interesting argument about the shortness of the Cambrian explosion and the possibility that there wasn't enough time for the diversity generated. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so I don't know, but it's an argument worth exploring.

His claims about biological form and its complexity strike me as less convincing. He says a number of things. One that there is a large amount of new tissue-based "information," in the form of structure, spatial arrangement, and function, that must be generated in morphologically complex organisms.

First, he doesn't see a way this could happen reasonably by way of mutation. He thinks that it is improbably that random mutation would result in functional products enough of the time, and cites some statistical studies.

Let me counter that, and in the process, address some of the concerns about the Cambrian explosion. While I haven't read the articles he cites, it sounds to me like he is basing his arguments on completely random mutation in an organism with relatively high-fidelity replication (meaning not a lot of mistakes are made--not much room for mutations, and hence, evolution).

There are problems with this.

First, as Meyer admits but doesn't seem to value, functional sequences are repeated with some frequency in various genes. The power of pieces of genes being used to form new genes is crucial. Many proteins are modular and share domains. Others share more fundamental secondary structures like beta-pleated sheets and alpha helices, or tertiary motifs like helix-turn-helices and beta barrels. Sometimes, different sequences can generate the same three-dimensional structure, suggesting there is more fuzziness in the necessary coding sequences than Meyer believes (he cites some studies that suggest that genetic sequences, even at non-active sites, are very highly conserved--I think there are plenty of examples that indicate this is not a truism).

Second, and this is important, Meyer never mentions the tremendous role that viruses may have played in increasing the rate of evolution. We see today that HIV, with its very low fidelity replication machinery and very fast replication rate, can go through all of the possible sequences of its genome in a single host. That's why we don't have an HIV vaccine and why HIV drugs are subject to resistance: uncontrolled HIV mutates very, very quickly. Now imagine that when it, or some other virus, infects, its genome actually gets incorporated into a random site in the host genome. This happens! The virus is reactivated when it is spliced out, but often, that splice machinery is imperfect, so it might pick up some of the host DNA along with it. Now, the host DNA is packaged into virions and will be subjected to high mutation rates. Later, when the virus infects another host, it can transmit mutated host-species genes back in. If this happens in a germ line cell, these can be transmitted. I think this mechanism probably had a lot to do with increasing the rate of evolution.

Also, if there was a fair amount of reverse transcriptase floating about, particularly from retroviruses, you might have had host mRNAs that had been spliced or mutated (RNA is much less stable than DNA, and RNA polymerase makes more mistakes) recoded into the genome of the host.

Another concern that Meyer poses is that DNA instruction sets are not sufficient to specify various morphological outcomes. He points to the importance of the spatial arrangement of proteins and the role of non-protein components, like lipids, in directing, in his example, microtubule proliferation. He says that proteins may work together to exert some of these effects, but these are basically irreducibly complex systems that couldn't have evolved without each other.

I beg to differ. First of all, there is some leeway as far as the generation of these various structures in the cell. It doesn't need to be perfect, and the generation of the right mix of proteins is probably enough to get it close. This seems to be the case when you look at in vitro experiments that create biological scenarios. In countless in vitro experiments, scientists have reasonably closely modeled biological systems.

Part of this may be due to another important point: Redundancy!! We can model systems well with a few components because many components likely play only small roles because of redundant function. Redundancy is important because it leaves the opportunity open for some genes to mutate while others remain around to perform the actual function. Diploidism, which means you have two copies of a gene, helps too. So does just having multiple copies of a given gene on a chromosome, instead of having multiple genes that do the same thing (those multiple genes may very well have derived from multiple copies of one gene).

But to his point, there is one reasonable assertion there. DNA is probably not the entire story. But ever since the beginning of time, it appears that organisms have reproduced by dividing their cell membranes and cytoplasm. Those membranes and cytoplasm contain some mix of various proteins, RNA complexes, and lipids, that could have important developmental consequences. I think it would be an exciting avenue to explore (and maybe people have explored it) to see how changes in constituent concentration of the zygote alters development. But the point is, here is another possible mechanism to explain some of the transmitted developmental instructions that DNA may or may not be sufficient to provide.

Meyer also makes a lot of novel body plans and how it's so hard for them to come about. Well, I will suggest that we see incremental development of body plans and when you look at embryological development across species, you see many conserved signaling pathways. Obviously, the basics among multicellular organisms are pretty basic. Any variations could have probably been tested evolutionarily in not necessarily lethal ways.

But, Meyer contends, the paradox is that important developmental genes have little variation. But for them to have come about, they must have evolved considerably! A wise point, but some of my suggestions above and others, including the idea that the proteins encoded by these genes picked up new purposes in different cellular contexts, could account for this problem. It is certainly worthy of explanation, but I disagree that intelligent design is the Occam's Razor argument (which is what Meyer, in the end, is really arguing).

Meyer goes through a list of proposed variants on evolutionary theory that attempt to explain some of his concerns and then he shoots them down. That's fine, and I'm sure they all have their limitations--though looking at his reference list, I doubt he's done the best work at defining and proving those limitations.

The problem is that he then posits this hypothesis on intelligent design backed really only by analogy, negative arguments, and a plea to Occam's Razor. He spends most of his time defending intelligent design on the basis of science's embrace of the simplest explanation: Instead of being a biologist, he's being an epistemologist.

And that, in the end, is why intelligent design fails. It does not stand on the merit of supporting data. It builds its palaces on attempts to discredit evolutionary theory (sometimes with very porous arguments) without replacing this with really supportive data. There is good data supporting evolution and there are a lot of open questions. But just because there are open questions in evolutionary biology or quantum mechanics or my own field of neurodegeneration, it doesn't mean that we haven't answered some questions or gotten pretty close. We are open to critique, but only if that critique plays by the rules of representing real, testable hypothesis-driven science. That's not what this is.

I apologize for this very long post, but hope that my general and specific arguments do something to clarify the debate we have here.

[MikeTheC]

Creationism is not science.

God has never submitted one single document, has not provided one single interview nor conversation in which He detailed how the universe was made, nor indeed how we were made. There is no technical literature on the subject.

Those of us who are creationists -- well, those of us with any brains, anyhow -- fully understand the fact that we were not witness to any of these events.

However, the evolutionists should be wary of their own position, and would do well to heed two specific things:

No scientist has ever truly created life in a laboratory. In fact, science itself has yet to tell us how life occurs. The best it can do is to look at the symptomology once life starts and say "That's life right there!" (And that assumes they're not too busy running around arguing whether or not there is such a thing as "life".)
Be careful for whom you carry water, for you know not who it is nor what the agenda is.

[Aranince]

The movie looks interesting, even though I vehemently disagree with his premise. But in the interests of fairness and of procrastination from useful work, I read the Meyer article (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177)--you know, the one from the Discovery Institute that apparently demonstrates how viciously the scientific establishment persecutes these brave purveyors of new knowledge. My comments follow.

One of my big concerns with this paper, methodologically, is that especially when it comes to his key arguments, he doesn't cite many primary or peer-reviewed articles. He cites unpublished work, papers in non-scientific journals (like some journal on rhetoric), reviews and commentaries instead of primary research, and books. These are all not the source for sound, experiment-driven research. Notice that I cite nothing below: I'm not a hypocrite because I'm making a post to an online forum, not writing a review article for a peer-reviewed journal.

His other big mistake, and that of his colleagues, is to make a lot of logical arguments that don't have experimental backing. The entire basis of his hypothesis is on pointing to holes (real or imagined) in the theory of evolution and stating that his hypothesis fills those holes. Nowhere do I see experiments to test his hypothesis, data to back it up directly, or even the assertion that his hypothesis would be testable in nature with heretofor undeveloped scientific techniques. I just see a lot of philosophizing, and a philosopher does not a scientist make.


1) There are no peer-reviewed articles or published works because people want to hide the fact that there is a God. They have also been brained washed with Darwinism since kinder garden.

2) Your right. There are no experiments. But there aren't any experiments proving Evolution either.

[themadchemist]

1) There are no peer-reviewed articles or published works because people want to hide the fact that there is a God. They have also been brained washed with Darwinism since kinder garden.


Um, OK. I guess this explains why I haven't even run across a suggested experiment to test these hypotheses. This has nothing to do with the purported mass conspiracy--with the power of the Internets™, anyone can make a suggestion!



2) Your right. There are no experiments. But there aren't any experiments proving Evolution anyway.

I took the time to read an article (apparently, an important article) on intelligent design. Before you respond to my critiques, please fact check yourself. There is no "proof" of anything, but there is evidence...

From a list prepared by Blackwell Publishing (a leader in the publication of scientific journals) on the classical texts in evolution. These include non-Blackwell pubs. Linkety-link (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/)

Carson HL. Chromosomal sequences and interisland colonizations in Hawaiian Drosophila. Genetics. 1983. 10: 465-482.

Coyne JA and Orr HA. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. 1989. 43: 362-381.

Dobzhansky T and Pavlovsky O. An experimental study of interaction between genetic drift and natural selection. Evolution. 1957. 11: 311-319.

Stirton RA. Observations on evolutionary rates in hypsodonty. Evolution. 1947. 1: 32-41.

And because I love you so much...

The Miller-Urey experiment produced key biological molecules de novo:

Miller SL. Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions. Science. 1953. 117: 528.

Miller SL and Urey HC. Organic Compound Synthesis of the Primitive Earth. Science. 1953. 130: 245.

But these are old, let's talk about some new stuff. I'm leaving out all of the fossil record studies and what not because you know what, I like to see some good ol' fashioned molecular and biochemical experiments. Let's see what we can come up with (thank you Google Scholar!):

Here are three papers that probably have massive practical relevance:

Scarlatti G, et al. In vivo evolution of HIV-1 co-receptor usage and sensitivity to chemokine-mediated suppression. Nature Medicine. 1997.

Goulder PJ, et al. Evolution and transmission of stable CTL escape mutations in HIV infection. Nature. 2001. 412(6844):334-8.

Mansky LM and Bernard LC. AZT and AZT-Resistant Reverse Transcriptase Can Increase the In Vivo Mutation Rate of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type I. J. Virology. 2000. 74(20): 9532-9539.

Here's a neat one!

Vulic M, et al. Mutation, recombination, and incipient speciation of bacteria in the laboratory. PNAS. 1999. 96(13): 7348-7351.

And an older paper with parallel findings (but probably not as well characterized):

Dobzhansky T and Pavlovsky O. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

There are thousands and thousands of papers providing evidence for evolution: Molecular biological, cell biological, biochemical, genetic, neurobiological, developmental, physiological, paleontological...

This isn't even a question of the argument; it's a question of showing another person enough respect to come at a discussion in more than a blatantly cursory fashion.


However, the evolutionists should be wary of their own position, and would do well to heed two specific things:
No scientist has ever truly created life in a laboratory. In fact, science itself has yet to tell us how life occurs. The best it can do is to look at the symptomology once life starts and say "That's life right there!" (And that assumes they're not too busy running around arguing whether or not there is such a thing as "life".)
Be careful for whom you carry water, for you know not who it is nor what the agenda is.


First of all, I appreciate your position that Creationism is a matter of faith and not an article of science. This is an important, important distinction, even for those who refuse to accept the large body of evidence in favor of evolution as an explanatory model for the development of life.

I will respond to your two points above, though.

On point one, scientists do have an evidence-based hypothesis. That's the best anyone can do. And scientists have been tasked to study the world from the working hypothesis that there are regular rules that govern our existence; certainly, that's an assumption, but working from that necessary assumption, scientists do their best to explain the complex phenomena that occur around us.

On point two, what are you talking about? Are you suggesting that there is something sinister about scientists' pursuit of knowledge? I am perfectly happy to carry water with fellow scientists. The agenda is to advance knowledge and maybe even use that knowledge to benefit society. And if you think the purpose is to undermine religion and God, then you're really ignoring all the other incentives out there, both good incentives and bad ones. As for me, I'm very comfortable in evolution as a fantastically well-supported theory and an incomplete, but powerful explanation for the origins of life, and yet I am, at the same time, a religious person who wholeheartedly believes in God. So go figure.

[Iscariot]

No scientist has ever truly created life in a laboratory. In fact, science itself has yet to tell us how life occurs. The best it can do is to look at the symptomology once life starts and say "That's life right there!" (And that assumes they're not too busy running around arguing whether or not there is such a thing as "life".)

Isn't that just a different take on the "jars of peanut butter are an Atheist's nightmare" line of thinking?

[.Andy]

Those of us who are creationists -- well, those of us with any brains, anyhow -- fully understand the fact that we were not witness to any of these events.
But you don't need to witness something to recreate it. All you need to do is gather evidence and piece together how it happened.

However, the evolutionists should be wary of their own position, and would do well to heed two specific things:

No scientist has ever truly created life in a laboratory. In fact, science itself has yet to tell us how life occurs. The best it can do is to look at the symptomology once life starts and say "That's life right there!" (And that assumes they're not too busy running around arguing whether or not there is such a thing as "life".)
Be careful for whom you carry water, for you know not who it is nor what the agenda is.
Why should evolutionists be wary of either of those things? Neither of those claims deny the theory of evolution nor do they have any impact on the theory itself. The theory is based on millions of pieces of evidence and observations. It can be falsified and it can be tested - the precambrian rabbit is a perfect example. The fact that you think those two points preclude the theory being correct means that you really don't understand it at all.

As a creationist (with a brain) you're going to have to deny the fossil record, DNA evidence, and all the observational data from bacteria to yeast to invertebrates to vertebrates. The three ways you can take it are 1) It's all a science conspiracy, (2) It's all wrong, (3) It was planted by god to test people's faith. All are ridiculous.

[themadchemist]

But you don't need to witness something to recreate it. All you need to do is gather evidence and piece together how it happened.


Andy, I like how each of us is carrying on these arguments with Mike in multiple threads. :p

[Blue Velvet]

No scientist has ever truly created life in a laboratory. In fact, science itself has yet to tell us how life occurs.

Do keep up with what is nearly upon us. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/25/genetics.science)


Be careful for whom you carry water, for you know not who it is nor what the agenda is.

Why not say what you mean, instead of wafting nonsensical allusions around?

[skunk]

Be careful for whom you carry water, for you know not who it is nor what the agenda is.As an Aquarius, I object to your obviously biased pretension.

[obeygiant]

Do keep up with what is nearly upon us. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/25/genetics.science)


http://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2007/09/04/venter460.jpg
That guy looks like an artificial lifeform.

[themadchemist]

Do keep up with what is nearly upon us. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/25/genetics.science)


To be fair, this was really just Craig Venter saying: I'm a baller. I heard that when the reviewers of this paper read it, they asked--So, why did you do this? Really, it's more of a methods paper than anything else. It's about being able to replicate large volumes of DNA at lower cost, which would have a number of applications. It does little to advance our understanding of development or embryology--I scanned the paper and in combination, the methods are cool and the accomplishment is interesting, but each individual method is a relatively prosaic way to clone and package DNA.

[Don't panic]

in my view, there are only two tenable positions a creationist can take.

1. all the evidence of evolution was put in place by the gods for whatever reasons. However ludicrous this might sound, it could never be proved wrong (or right).

2. the gods act through evolutionary mechanisms. In other words, evolution is real and substantially correct, but it is purpose-driven rather than random.

anything else that i have ever seen is logically flawed or actually incorrect.

[wordmunger]

The filmmakers used deceptive tactics (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php) to get scientists to agree to be interviewed. If these are their ethical standards, makes me wonder how accurate the "science" portrayed in the movie will be.

[Apemanblues]

Creationists are upset because science won't take them seriously. Well boo hoo.

They can make all the films, books and lawsuits they like (because that's all they actually ever do) but until they produce one iota of science they are going to be passed over for jobs and tenure by people who actually are interested in producing some genuine work to be submitted for peer review.

The theory of evolution has fought long and hard to get where it is today and it has stood up to everything science has thrown at it, just like all other accepted scientific theories have done, from gravity to cell division. These 'Intelligent Design Creationists' cannot just flounce in and demand that their idea be taken as seriously as any others without first putting in any of the hard work that real scientific theories have to do. Y'know? Actual science?

What next? Astrologers whining that they don't get taken seriously in the field of astronomy? should we "teach the controversy" about that too.

Science is not a democracy. Evidence is king. so you either put up, or shut up. "Science Conspiracy" my ass!

*end of rant*

[leekohler]

Again -the problem here is that religious people want everyone to treat their religion as fact, when it is not. It's belief. Science isn't trying to be religion. Why does religion try to be science?

[takao]

What next? Astrologers whining that they don't get taken seriously in the field of astronomy? should we "teach the controversy" about that too.

believe it or not ... astrology lobbying prevented a fair share of scientific projects in the astronomy field in the US ...

[Don't panic]

believe it or not ... astrology lobbying prevented a fair share of scientific projects in the astronomy field in the US ...

such as? i've never heard of this one.

[themadchemist]

I wish someone who supported intelligent design would respond with specific arguments, instead of these general complaints about "conspiracy" and "discrimination."

I took the time, above, to respond with great specificity to the various arguments posed by a leading thinker in the intelligent design movement and to provide a rich set of primary articles providing evidence in support of evolution.

Why is it that no one who believes that intelligent design is a credible scientific hypothesis will respond in kind--with science and not rhetoric?

[freeny]

1. all the evidence of evolution was put in place by the gods for whatever reasons. However ludicrous this might sound, it could never be proved wrong (or right).

Im a believer in the converse:

I believe god was put into place by evolution to test science.

[Don't panic]

I wish someone who supported intelligent design would respond with specific arguments, instead of these general complaints about "conspiracy" and "discrimination."

I took the time, above, to respond with great specificity to the various arguments posed by a leading thinker in the intelligent design movement and to provide a rich set of primary articles providing evidence in support of evolution.

Why is it that no one who believes that intelligent design is a credible scientific hypothesis will respond in kind--with science and not rhetoric?

it is possible that the fact there is NO evidence to back up those claims might have something to do with it.
If there was any, even if it was very weak, we'd be bombarded by it by the propaganda machine, don't worry.

[freeny]

ok, so i watched the clip.

what do i think?

creationists are now resorting to pity and conspiracy theories.

The reason the "intelegent design" theory is not taught in schools is because they have yet to produce ANY tested evidence to support the theory.

Taxpayer money wont be spent on teaching a baseless theory.
If it did, then they would also have to teach scientology, astrology, palm reading, dropping hot wax into water, witchcraft, middle earth and unicorns. and may I add that all the people who practice these religions truly believe that they are also right and hold equally as much proof as creationism that theirs is the true religion.

I am an atheist, I have no issue with people believing in god, santa claus or even the flying spaghetti monster, but in order for any of these beliefs to be taught in a public school they need more then to just be backed by faith.

[solvs]

But there aren't any experiments proving Evolution either.
And here is the crux of the problem. You can't argue with logic like this. Not that we should have to, but it's coming to the point where since they have no argument, they have to turn it into one. There actually is. While you may not know much about it, or understand it (no offense, but you don't seem to), that doesn't mean it isn't there. Unlike your beliefs - which is just that, belief - there actually is demonstratable (yeah, I know that's not a word, sue me) evidence to back up the theory. And while there are questions and holes, that doesn't make your argument correct. I'd also like to point out that religion is filled with holes and things that don't make sense, you don't throw all of that out because of that do you?

I mean, I have my beliefs too, but I don't think they should be taught in school. Why would I force belief on other people? And if any evidence came along proving something I believed wrong, I'd have to really look at it and might even have to change what I believe. Because that's what happens when your opinion is based on a fallacy, that makes you wrong, and belief is opinion. That's why evolution is taught in school. Because it's science, and a working theory we go with as we find out more and more about it. It's presented as theory, and at the school I went to, the teacher actually pointed out that it doesn't mean there's no God. He shouldn't have had to, but religious leaders have to turn it into some sort of battle to keep the flock in tow. A battle they've created fighting evidence and scientific inquiry with obfuscation and misinformation, because it's a battle they're losing. I also like how people keeping saying things like "follow the money". Same thing they do with GCC. As if evolution and science is where the big bucks are. Completely ignoring those who gain power and money by preaching religion, being believed simply because they say "God" over and over again. The scientific community needs more than that, another reason they're more trustworthy than "belief". Something some people obviously don't get, seemingly confusing "theory" with "belief".

And as long as they keep pushing out propaganda like this, they'll keep preaching to the converted and turning something that isn't an argument into an argument.

I took the time, above, to respond with great specificity to the various arguments posed by a leading thinker in the intelligent design movement and to provide a rich set of primary articles providing evidence in support of evolution.

Why is it that no one who believes that intelligent design is a credible scientific hypothesis will respond in kind--with science and not rhetoric?
I get that too. You write a big, long, detailed explanation proving someone completely wrong and get nothing in return. Or worse, maybe a sarcastic response that has nothing to do with anything. That's because they have nothing. There is no "proof" and no reasonable argument, only belief masquerading as theory. To some people, their "proof" is just as viable as yours, and as I pointed out above, there's just no arguing with logic like that.

I know that sounds condescending, but we argue evidence to opinion all the time, and it doesn't seem to get us anywhere as those same opinions based on belief, or even incorrect information, continue to be repeated ad naseum.

[themadchemist]

And here is the crux of the problem. You can't argue with logic like this.
[...]

And as long as they keep pushing out propaganda like this, they'll keep preaching to the converted and turning something that isn't an argument into an argument.


I get that too. You write a big, long, detailed explanation proving someone completely wrong and get nothing in return. Or worse, maybe a sarcastic response that has nothing to do with anything. That's because they have nothing. There is no "proof" and no reasonable argument, only belief masquerading as theory. To some people, their "proof" is just as viable as yours, and as I pointed out above, there's just no arguing with logic like that.

I know that sounds condescending, but we argue evidence to opinion all the time, and it doesn't seem to get us anywhere as those same opinions based on belief, or even incorrect information, continue to be repeated ad naseum.

Truer words have never been spoken...And thanks for understanding my frustration.

[freeny]

^^^^^^

Ill second that!
bravo!

[NAG]

Exactly, I've seen this and tried to explain evolution to a lot of people but they continue to come in and leave any conversation utterly convinced that they are right and always will be right (varies what they think of you, you know, whether you are satanic or not).

Personally, I would like to hear what specific misunderstanding the people in this thread have about evolution. Where does the theory break down for you? While it is fun to explain and read the same arguments over and over I'd hope that we could step down from the talking points and actually talk about what specific problems people have with evolution.

Now, the only somewhat specific problem I've seen anyone in this thread that people have with evolution is that there is some sort of broad conspiracy of scientists to create some sort of idol, I suppose. This is just a basic misunderstanding of science and really much more reflective of your own frame of mind. What do scientists have to gain from this rather outlandish conspiracy? While scientists do collaborate, the research world is very very competitive. The ones that come up with the new ideas and have good methodology succeed.

About science creating an idol. This is just fundamentally wrong. Okay, scientists can become somewhat emotionally invested in their work at times. Everyone does. Like, if you just finished shoveling a sidewalk and a plow throws snow back on it. Thats annoying. However, in science the end result isn't the goal. Learning and understanding how a black box works is the goal. So if you put in x input and get out some unexpected result you look into that. You study that further to see if this is something new. This is what leads to discoveries in the research world. Not people sitting in a dark room conspiring.

By the way, the black box metaphor is actually a useful activity to demonstrate to children what science is. Sort of off topic but get a tiny box of one sort or another. Put various things in it. Can be feathers, paper, marbles, a maze, whatever. Seal the box shut. Now have another box for the kid. Give the kid both boxes and tell him/her to try to make a model of what they think is the sealed box.

Now at the end you may be tempted to open that sealed box up for the kid.

Don't. Science can never do that. We can never just open the universe up and go, oh hey, so there is a marble wrapped in a feather in a maze powering all of this! Scientists create models based on experience and evidence. We shake the box and go and build another box and shake it and see if the properties are the same. Scientists don't claim to be the guardians of the Truth®.

[freeny]

I am fully behind the Darwinist theory but the actual creation of the universe and the big bang theory, not so much.

[Don't panic]

I am fully behind the Darwinist theory but the actual creation of the universe and the big bang theory, not so much.

but those are completely unrelated things.

[.Andy]

I am fully behind the Darwinist theory but the actual creation of the universe and the big bang theory, not so much.
Out of interest what are your problems with a big bang theory?

[takao]

I am fully behind the Darwinist theory but the actual creation of the universe and the big bang theory, not so much.

the funny thing is that evidence for the big bang theory is much more clearer than the one for evolution

[.Andy]

the funny thing is that evidence for the big bang theory is much more clearer than the one for evolution
But probably just as difficult to understand, and just as easy to misrepresent.

[NAG]

About any scientific theory falls into that definition. If suddenly gravity or heaven forbid thermodynamics (most people have the completely wrong idea as to what thermodynamics is) was deemed a threat by religion (again) we'd see people saying the same things just filling in the blanks with "Newtonists" or whatnot.

[.Andy]

About any scientific theory falls into that definition. If suddenly gravity or heaven forbid thermodynamics (most people have the completely wrong idea as to what thermodynamics is) was deemed a threat by religion (again) we'd see people saying the same things just filling in the blanks with "Newtonists" or whatnot.
Good point NAG. I guess my point was that evolution and the big bang theory are two examples of science that is completely non-tangible to people's lives. They don't encounter or observe the evidence in their day to day lives nor do they need to understand it or use it. It's easy for them to reject it (I don't believe) or have the evidence misrepresented. At least with something like gravity, at a rudimentary level they can witness it's effects.

[nbs2]

I wish someone who supported intelligent design would respond with specific arguments, instead of these general complaints about "conspiracy" and "discrimination."

I took the time, above, to respond with great specificity to the various arguments posed by a leading thinker in the intelligent design movement and to provide a rich set of primary articles providing evidence in support of evolution.

Why is it that no one who believes that intelligent design is a credible scientific hypothesis will respond in kind--with science and not rhetoric?

To be honest, I'd love to discuss material with you at the level you are at. But, my time in the field was many years ago, and I just haven't kept up with studies and data. I freely admit that I am not in a position to argue theories or points, but can only discuss my opinions and why my opinions are what they are (at this point in time). Clearly, opinions can change and adapt to new knowledge, which is something I embrace, but even that knowledge can only be understood within my established constructs.

At this time, I believe that the theories that have been developed make sense, but that they are not random. Rather I do believe that there is a guiding hand. The closest mention in this thread was Don't Panic's point. Evolution, I believe, is correct as far as it can be proven, but it shouldn't be taken beyond what it does prove (if that makes sense).

But, this thread does have me thinking. Can you (or anyone else who isn't just shooting from the hip) tell me what they think a reasonable percentage of variance is for a scientist to say, "I believe there is dissension in the field."? Clearly, the source of this percentage is an issue unto itself, but I think you understand what I am trying to quantify

[freeny]

but those are completely unrelated things.
You are correct. That is why I gave separate opinions on them, what is the problem?

Out of interest what are your problems with a big bang theory?
For no other reason then im just not buying it. I dont find the evidence convincing enough.

the funny thing is that evidence for the big bang theory is much more clearer than the one for evolution

I see evolution as quite logical, over time (looong time) this theory will eventually be proven right or wrong. Science will have detailed and documented changes in some species. Data in the future, combined with all the data they are collecting now, they're going to be watching it happen with their own eyes right before them.

The big bang theory just doesnt make sense in my head (im no scientist). I will need to see more studies and evidence before i am convinced. Heck, science is not even sure of the big bang...

[Naimfan]

Well, the movie might be a good comedy, given who is behind it. . .

[NAG]

Good point NAG. I guess my point was that evolution and the big bang theory are two examples of science that is completely non-tangible to people's lives. They don't encounter or observe the evidence in their day to day lives nor do they need to understand it or use it. It's easy for them to reject it (I don't believe) or have the evidence misrepresented. At least with something like gravity, at a rudimentary level they can witness it's effects.

Not really. A lot of people don't understand gravity at all (other than it is the name for the force that keeps pulling them toward the ground). If intelligent falling suddenly became accepted by religion you'd see people suddenly have the same problem with it. The problem is most people are not trained to think like scientists so the concept of what is "tangible" and what isn't is extremely arbitrary. Ignoring the implication that evolution isn't "tangible" (and it is, if you need a simple example to show someone just point out how they have to get a new flu shot every year), saying that gravity is "tangible" is weird because it wasn't formalized as a force for a very long time. People actually believed in intelligent falling, so to speak.

[.Andy]

But, this thread does have me thinking. Can you (or anyone else who isn't just shooting from the hip) tell me what they think a reasonable percentage of variance is for a scientist to say, "I believe there is dissension in the field."? Clearly, the source of this percentage is an issue unto itself, but I think you understand what I am trying to quantify
The consensus for the evolutionary process would be nigh on 100% amongst evolutionary scientists. However the exact machinations of evolutionary theory, how it applies in respective fields, and how it applies to an individual's research would be close to 100% variance between scientists. No two scientists think exactly the same way, and each will interpret and weight evidence slightly differently. This is what leads to novel research. That's the power of science.

For no other reason then im just not buying it. I dont find the evidence convincing enough.
What evidence would it take for you to be convinced and 'buy' it? Can you think of any?

I see evolution as quite logical, over time (looong time) this theory will eventually be proven right or wrong. Science will have detailed and documented changes in some species. Data in the future, combined with all the data they are collecting now, they're going to be watching it happen with their own eyes right before them.
To be blunt you don't understand science or evolution if this is your understanding of required evidence. You don't need to witness something for it to be 'proven'.

The big bang theory just doesnt make sense in my head (im no scientist). I will need to see more studies and evidence before i am convinced. Heck, science is not even sure of the big bang...
No, science is pretty convinced with a big bang. It's the exact nature of that 'bang' that's the debate.

[NAG]

For no other reason then im just not buying it. I dont find the evidence convincing enough.

What exactly don't you find convincing? Dodging the question by just making a statement and digging your heels in won't educate anyone.

[freeny]

What exactly don't you find convincing? Dodging the question by just making a statement and digging your heels in won't educate anyone.

I didnt realize I was expected to educate anyone here. Someone posted a question and I gave my Lehman's opinion.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the complexities and obvious reality that the big bang is?...

and please, be convincing.


To be blunt you don't understand science or evolution if this is your understanding of required evidence. You don't need to witness something for it to be 'proven'.

Um, ok....?? From what i know, neither has been "proven". Thats why their called "theories". Perhaps you have a misunderstanding of "theories".

[NAG]

I didnt realize I was expected to educate anyone here. Someone posted a question and I gave my Lehman's opinion.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the complexities and obvious reality that the big bang is?...

and please, be convincing.

So if you're not here to discuss your opinions what are you here for? Really, I'd like to hear what your specific problems are with the big bang or frankly any other theory. If you're just here to snipe then I might suggest you stop taking everything so seriously.

[.Andy]

I didnt realize I was expected to educate anyone here. Someone posted a question and I gave my Lehman's opinion.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the complexities and obvious reality that the big bang is?...

and please, be convincing.
A good place to start would be reading A Brief History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201728805&sr=8-1) or A Briefer History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/Briefer-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553804367/ref=pd_sim_b_img_3). They can be hard to get through and might take a couple of reads, but they are short, and cover the evidence in a chronological fashion as it was gathered. Alternatively there are few Hawking lecture mp3's online (just google) as well as audiobooks through itunes.

[freeny]

So if you're not here to discuss your opinions what are you here for? Really, I'd like to hear what your specific problems are with the big bang or frankly any other theory. If you're just here to snipe then I might suggest you stop taking everything so seriously.

And all this time I thought we were talking about that Ben Stein movie :rolleyes:



A good place to start would be reading A Brief History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201728805&sr=8-1) or A Briefer History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/Briefer-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553804367/ref=pd_sim_b_img_3). They can be hard to get through and might take a couple of reads, but they are short, and cover the evidence in a chronological fashion as it was gathered. Alternatively there are few Hawking lecture mp3's online (just google) as well as audiobooks through itunes.

Thank you :)

[atszyman]

I never really understand why there is such a controversy. Evidence points to life forms on this planet evolving and adapting over the span of billions of years and that the universe started in a pinpoint that exploded. But nowhere does it say that God didn't put the devices into play. The entire universe may be the greatest Rube Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg) contraption in the history of well... all of history. The initial marble was put into place and exploded when God tapped it with His finger (or noodley appendage if you prefer).

I'm not a particularly religious person and will almost always come down on the side of science when religion and science collide head on, but I've never understood why it has to be an all or nothing affair. Evolution can be taught in science classes but Intelligent Design belongs in that classroom about as much as equation solving belongs in english classes. Evolution is a scientific theory that tries to best explain the evidence presented. The origins of the evidence could be explained by hundreds of different creation of the universe stories but the theories that best fit the evidence are what science is about.

I remember a large debate at my undergrad college where someone was trying to disprove creationism using thermodynamics, completely discounting that the creator of the universe would have written, and therefore not be bound by our simplistic laws of thermodynamics.

[NAG]

Yeah, the few atheists that try the disprove god using science (should) quickly learn that any sort of all powerful being(s) is out of the scope of science. If someone wants to believe in Last Thursdayism then okay.

[skunk]

I remember a large debate at my undergrad college where someone was trying to disprove creationism using thermodynamics, completely discounting that the creator of the universe would have written, and therefore not be bound by our simplistic laws of thermodynamics.Is this not the whole problem with Creationism/ID? Where science attempts to find a logical and rational naturalistic narrative (or "theory") to explain how things are, how they became what they are, and what they are likely to become, Creationists simply throw in the towel at the first obstacle and assume the miraculous, which explains nothing. If human beings really are the be-all and end-all of Creation, what was the first fifteen billion years about? What a colossal waste of time!

[themadchemist]

To be honest, I'd love to discuss material with you at the level you are at. But, my time in the field was many years ago, and I just haven't kept up with studies and data. I freely admit that I am not in a position to argue theories or points, but can only discuss my opinions and why my opinions are what they are (at this point in time). Clearly, opinions can change and adapt to new knowledge, which is something I embrace, but even that knowledge can only be understood within my established constructs.


I appreciate that point of view. To be honest, I'm not an evolutionary biologist and my understanding of evolution is only on the level that any life scientist-in-training might appreciate it. So I recognize that there are people who have had way more exposure than me, and people who have had less exposure or less recent exposure because they are in different fields. I have not a clue about their fields, and so that's understandable.

Your attitude that you have a set of opinions that can adapt to new knowledge is admirable, and increasingly rare, I fear. I was much heartened that the Dalai Lama made comments a couple of years ago that if science demonstrated some precept of Buddhism to be inaccurate, Buddhism would have to change. At the same time, scientific exploration is subject to ethical limitations that are largely a product of religious and philosophical thought. We live in a world of overlapping frameworks, and the pursuit of knowledge means doing our best to keep our heads consistent with the rapid discovery of new knowledge.

But some of the earlier posts in this thread, by Aranince and MikeTheC, showed such a lack of humility in discounting the tremendous work of evolutionary biologists in producing the very evidence they claimed did not exist. If someone is going to be arrogant about the field, then I think it is at least a minimal requirement that they agree to engage fully on the issue. I notice that since my posts and those of others in this thread making counter-arguments, they have chosen not to post further.


At this time, I believe that the theories that have been developed make sense, but that they are not random. Rather I do believe that there is a guiding hand. The closest mention in this thread was Don't Panic's point. Evolution, I believe, is correct as far as it can be proven, but it shouldn't be taken beyond what it does prove (if that makes sense).


So the theories that have been developed, at least to my reading, suggest that there is an order to occurrences, just not a purposeful one. They are dictated by chemical, and more fundamentally, physical laws, that govern how particles interact with each other. They are dictated by biological circumstances of what developments end up conferring an advantage in any particular situation. They are random in the sense that, while governed by various laws, they are unintentional. It's something akin to a perfectly free market. Individual behavior is noisy and random and without a larger "purpose," but the equilibrium tends to drive actions in ways that are governed by laws that can be modeled. Adam Smith may have, by accident, been the first great thinker on evolution.


But, this thread does have me thinking. Can you (or anyone else who isn't just shooting from the hip) tell me what they think a reasonable percentage of variance is for a scientist to say, "I believe there is dissension in the field."? Clearly, the source of this percentage is an issue unto itself, but I think you understand what I am trying to quantify

This is, indeed, an interesting question. I'm not sure that a percentage will do to answer your question, though. I think it's far more qualitative than quantitative. If someone's got an alternative model that fits the existing data better than the current one does and that builds upon prior knowledge, then it's got a chance.

An example closer to my heart is one in the field of neurodegeneration. For decades and decades, people thought Alzheimer's was caused by large fibrils of an aggregated protein apparent under the microscope of autopsied patients. But there were some holes in this data; the presence of fibrils didn't necessarily correlate with disease state, and in the absence of fibrils, you could still have disease. My undergraduate thesis adviser was on the bleeding edge of a new hypothesis that the fibrils actually didn't cause the disease, but that smaller aggregates did. He published a series of papers that provided evidence of this with some really clear, straightforward experiments. Other scientists replicated this, got something similar, and then did further experiments that showed this, as well. It was seen, in parallel, in other protein aggregating diseases. A model was developed, it seemed to work well with the data, and a lot of people got behind it. It's still a controversial debate, but this new idea caught on in the last 10 or 15 years because it provided evidence that explained something that had left people scratching their heads before.


I never really understand why there is such a controversy. Evidence points to life forms on this planet evolving and adapting over the span of billions of years and that the universe started in a pinpoint that exploded. But nowhere does it say that God didn't put the devices into play. The entire universe may be the greatest Rube Goldberg contraption in the history of well... all of history. The initial marble was put into place and exploded when God tapped it with His finger (or noodley appendage if you prefer).


This sums up my own beliefs quite nicely.

[Eric Piercey]

A good place to start would be reading A Brief History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201728805&sr=8-1) or A Briefer History of Time (http://www.amazon.com/Briefer-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553804367/ref=pd_sim_b_img_3). They can be hard to get through and might take a couple of reads, but they are short, and cover the evidence in a chronological fashion as it was gathered. Alternatively there are few Hawking lecture mp3's online (just google) as well as audiobooks through itunes.

Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nutshell-Stephen-William-Hawking/dp/055380202X/ref=pd_sim_b_img_1) offers easy to comprehend discussion of relativity, time, gravity, and various problems associated with accepted theories past and present.

As for the whole faith and science discussion- an endless battle but I'll chime in. Faith is used very loosely. One can hold any belief and defend it to the death without a shred of evidence. Why would one? Because it seems like a good idea at the time is my best answer, but this characteristic is part of the human repertoire to be sure. Perhaps faith, this "tenacity" of resistance, can serve a functional/ adaptive purpose -in limited doses. Perhaps it might keep us from being too susceptible competing ideas. It's the sticky if you will on the web of belief.. that which holds it in place during a big gust of wind.. or in practical terms a barrage of new information. I believe there's a continuum of enlightement... not necessarily anything as discrete as say Kohlberg's levels of moral reason, but rather degrees of overall awareness. Simply, subjects A and B perceive the same reality but in different amounts. One major plateu of awareness is the understanding of 2 basic premises. 1. Belief guides our actions. 2. Actions impact survival. From these basic blocks we can discern that there are both good and bad beliefs, and where this leads is of course is that "good" ones are those that keep us alive etc.

My non scientific purely intuitional explanation of basic human psychology:

Beliefs are stored in a circuitous matrix, the most accepted (oldest) being at the core and the least accepted (newest) toward the outside. New info filters from the core to the outside -and depending on how well it jives with the rest is posited somewhere in this web. The real world validity of this info is irrelevant to the mechanism here, only to the existing structure. The idea of this web/matrix will somehow map to biological structures, how I do not profess to know.

Big problems arise when a core belief is false. This belief left unchecked will gather subsequent beliefs based on the some false premise. Ultimately the organism suffers as a result. Simple I know.

examples:

-I belief my spouse would never sleep around and for years I go about my business believing this, and then one day I catch her in the act, in our bed! (this is fictional btw, I hope)

Faced with the sudden incontrovertible knowledge that the original belief was false, all of those other beliefs are suddenly left dangling. In the same example if I had known my woman a week and this happened it would be much less of an ordeal because the idea had never become deeply entrenched.

Ok so survival is at the core of everyone's matrix and this is the driving force of my post. So what happens when a core belief is something like "this life is just the test for the next 'real' life." All hell breaks loose is what happens... Another core belief is "not believing the previous belief results in immediate failure of said test," and another belief is "you will be tested constantly." This is the matrix of a fundamentalist. A more maleable version would entail the concepts "weakness and forgiveness."

The scientific matrix is self aware. It seeks to build upon itself. It eagerly replaces bad ideas with good ones. It goes out of its way to actually build temporary structures, near clones of existing ones with but one thing substituted. This matrix knows why it knows what it knows but to be sure can fall into the same trap... one bad belief in there has a chain effect.

A higher level is the scientific matrix which takes into account the very limitations of knowledge itself... the ever changing charactersitics of the universe.. the fallability of belief.

doh, 5 time to leave.

There will of course be controversy as the implication here is that the pure faith believers are the least adaptive, less suited to survive, less evolved. If I believed this life was some sort of test for an afterlife I can see how I could simply ignore reason and dig in my heals. I don't however.. well not in any sense that I feel selfishly attached to "this being" for the rest of eternity.

[NAG]

Is this not the whole problem with Creationism/ID? Where science attempts to find a logical and rational naturalistic narrative (or "theory") to explain how things are, how they became what they are, and what they are likely to become, Creationists simply throw in the towel at the first obstacle and assume the miraculous, which explains nothing. If human beings really are the be-all and end-all of Creation, what was the first fifteen billion years about? What a colossal waste of time!

That is when the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) step in. They only believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Go figure.

[Daveman Deluxe]

I was much heartened that the Dalai Lama made comments a couple of years ago that if science demonstrated some precept of Buddhism to be inaccurate, Buddhism would have to change.

A respected professor of philosophy and member of my church has reminded us that Augustine said much the same thing about Christianity quite a while ago. In fact, he said this precisely with regard to the current debate:


It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

...

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.


Emphasis mine. Augustine argued elsewhere that the six days of creation presents a logical framework rather than a chronological account. In his view, the framework presents a spiritual meaning that is not physical but is no less literal. One idea is that the logical framework was intended to convey that God had intent, order, and purpose in the act of creating, not to indicate the chronological order of events. In the interest of full disclosure, it is worth mentioning that Augustine subscribed to a view that all of creation actually was put into place in an instant at God's will, and that less than six thousand years had passed between creation and his time (Fourth and Fifth Centuries AD)--not that he had the scientific evidence to believe otherwise, as far as I can tell.

The second section is particularly salient and all too frequently missed in Christian circles: The Bible was created to communicate all things necessary for salvation; it is not meant to be a science text. To represent the Bible as anything else devalues it for the purpose for which it was intended (Of course, there is also wisdom in the Bible that would be useful to all people regardless of religion--the Golden Rule comes to mind). If you claim that the Bible is useful in every area of human endeavor, it loses its credibility as a theological text when its credibility as a scientific text is called into question. If you claim it to be useful primarily as a theological text, that purpose stands alone.

There are even people who claim that pi used to be exactly three based on the given dimensions of a particular pool in one of the (I think) minor prophets. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

[Naimfan]

Daveman--

Well said. Thanks for the Augustine passage--I'd not read it before.

[Don't panic]

At this time, I believe that the theories that have been developed make sense, but that they are not random. Rather I do believe that there is a guiding hand. The closest mention in this thread was Don't Panic's point. Evolution, I believe, is correct as far as it can be proven, but it shouldn't be taken beyond what it does prove (if that makes sense).


The problem that I see with the finalistic approach, is that it is perfectly equivalent to any other system that cannot be proven or disproven by design.

maybe the world as we see it is just a program in a supercomputer (a la matrix). can you prove it is not so?
can you be 100% sure that you are not the subject of a sophisticated Truman show?
what if the world described in the Harry Potter books was a faithful chronicle of what the world really is, with magic and all, and the books where published following a decision of the Ministry of magic to prepare them going public on muggles? could we test wether it's true or not until they decide to show up?

if the model cannot be tested, than to some extent it becomes irrelevant, because the world and the laws that rule it 'work' anyway.
In other words, if there is no need for a supernatural explanation, than why incorporate it?

[themadchemist]

A respected professor of philosophy and member of my church has reminded us that Augustine said much the same thing about Christianity quite a while ago. In fact, he said this precisely with regard to the current debate:

Emphasis mine. The second section is particularly salient and all too frequently missed in Christian circles: The Bible was created to communicate all things necessary for salvation; it was not meant to be a science text. To represent the Bible as anything else devalues it for the purpose for which it was intended (Of course, there is also wisdom in the Bible that would be useful to all people regardless of religion--the Golden Rule comes to mind). If you claim that the Bible is useful in every area of human endeavor, it loses its credibility as a theological text when its credibility as a scientific text is called into question. If you claim it to be useful primarily as a theological text, that purpose stands alone.

There are even people who claim that pi used to be exactly three based on the given dimensions of a particular pool in one of the (I think) minor prophets. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

Bravo, this is what I'm talking about. Thank you for sharing this important reminder that every religion has great thinkers who understand that religion, as important as it is, does not crowd out every other means to pursue some truth.

I have found it interesting to talk to those who study theology about religion, tolerance, and science. I have noticed that, despite or perhaps because of their deep faith, they have a far broader respect for and understanding of the value of other religions and of the sciences than do a lot of the less thoughtful talking heads out there. It is heartening to me that the more you study religion, the closer your conviction comes both to reason and compassion.

[skunk]

That is when the Young Earth Creationists (YEC) step in. They only believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Go figure.As far as I'm concerned, the Young Earth Creationists can step right out again.

PS: Thank you, Dave, man, for the Augustinian pearls. :)

[.Andy]

Yeah, the few atheists that try the disprove god using science (should) quickly learn that any sort of all powerful being(s) is out of the scope of science.
Unless the powerful being(s) intervene with the natural world. Then it is well within the scope of science. Loaves and fishes, a global flood, rising from the dead, blood-weeping icons, miracles, stigmata - all can be explored scientifically. Powerful being(s) live outside of reality because it's the only refuge for it to exist and not be challenged in the minds of followers. Daveman's Augustine quote is a perfect example of this logical gymnastics in trying to obtain an unchallengeable position.

If someone wants to believe in Last Thursdayism then okay.
They sure can but it doesn't at all protect them from being called on it being irrational or challenged in their beliefs.

[Don't panic]

...The second section is particularly salient and all too frequently missed in Christian circles: The Bible was created to communicate all things necessary for salvation; it is not meant to be a science text. To represent the Bible as anything else devalues it for the purpose for which it was intended (Of course, there is also wisdom in the Bible that would be useful to all people regardless of religion--the Golden Rule comes to mind). If you claim that the Bible is useful in every area of human endeavor, it loses its credibility as a theological text when its credibility as a scientific text is called into question. If you claim it to be useful primarily as a theological text, that purpose stands alone.
...

excellent post.
I have to say that this has pretty much remained the position of the catholic church (or some significant parts of it) and other christian denominations

[skunk]

I have to say that this has pretty much remained the position of the catholic church (or some significant parts of it) and other christian denominations"Remained" since when? You are surely not claiming that the catholic church has maintained a hands-off position regarding science and natural history since Augustine's time?

[Don't panic]

"Remained" since when? You are surely not claiming that the catholic church has maintained a hands-off position regarding science and natural history since Augustine's time?

:D:D no.
let's say in contemporary times (second vatican council)

[skunk]

:D:D no.
let's say in contemporary times (second vatican council)Good. That just leaves the ongoing problems with gender politics, sexuality and proprietary monotheism, then ... ;)

[Don't panic]

Good. That just leaves the ongoing problems with gender politics, sexuality and proprietary monotheism, then ... ;)

i think you're barking at the wrong tree here.
You, madchemist and a few others tend to be the ones i agree most often on most issues. :)

[skunk]

i think you're barking at the wrong tree here.I'm not barking, I'm just peeing on your trouser-leg. It's late, and I couldn't find a lamp-post :p

[Don't panic]

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html)
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

i think it's an official document.

[Don't panic]

I'm not barking, I'm just peeing on your trouser-leg. It's late, and I couldn't find a lamp-post :p

you are excused in your confusion, as i am currently hugging a tree

[themadchemist]

i think it's an official document.

Oh my! That was beautiful. I nearly had tears in my eyes. And thanks for the earlier shout-out--the feeling's mutual. :)

[nbs2]

The consensus for the evolutionary process would be nigh on 100% amongst evolutionary scientists. However the exact machinations of evolutionary theory, how it applies in respective fields, and how it applies to an individual's research would be close to 100% variance between scientists. No two scientists think exactly the same way, and each will interpret and weight evidence slightly differently. This is what leads to novel research. That's the power of science.

I should have been clearer - I was wondering about dissension in any aspect of science, not just evolutionary theory. But, the chemist answered my question (sort of ;)) so no worries.

But some of the earlier posts in this thread, by Aranince and MikeTheC, showed such a lack of humility in discounting the tremendous work of evolutionary biologists in producing the very evidence they claimed did not exist. If someone is going to be arrogant about the field, then I think it is at least a minimal requirement that they agree to engage fully on the issue. I notice that since my posts and those of others in this thread making counter-arguments, they have chosen not to post further.

Indeed. I all to often have the same feelings when people try and discuss the law from their passionate point of view rather than taking a step back and looking at the broader picture. I don't have the credentials of some, but I also feel the same way about religion.

This is, indeed, an interesting question. I'm not sure that a percentage will do to answer your question, though. I think it's far more qualitative than quantitative. If someone's got an alternative model that fits the existing data better than the current one does and that builds upon prior knowledge, then it's got a chance.

An example closer to my heart is one in the field of neurodegeneration. For decades and decades, people thought Alzheimer's was caused by large fibrils of an aggregated protein apparent under the microscope of autopsied patients. But there were some holes in this data; the presence of fibrils didn't necessarily correlate with disease state, and in the absence of fibrils, you could still have disease. My undergraduate thesis adviser was on the bleeding edge of a new hypothesis that the fibrils actually didn't cause the disease, but that smaller aggregates did. He published a series of papers that provided evidence of this with some really clear, straightforward experiments. Other scientists replicated this, got something similar, and then did further experiments that showed this, as well. It was seen, in parallel, in other protein aggregating diseases. A model was developed, it seemed to work well with the data, and a lot of people got behind it. It's still a controversial debate, but this new idea caught on in the last 10 or 15 years because it provided evidence that explained something that had left people scratching their heads before.

I guess what I'm wondering is if someone presents an idea that a quantitative (although you present a case for qualitative, it's too hard to measure) number of noted scientists are willing to subscribe to, then is there anything wrong with teaching it? That is, if they are can produce data or an interpretation of current data that enough authorities of the field are willing to consider, but far below the majority (say 5% or 10%), is there any reason not to teach both subjects? It would keep out the fly-by-night theories, while exposing students to several points of view. In hindsight, a rule of that nature would have brought Darwin into the classrooms with less of a fight, and would give exposure to novel theories. I mean, if 20% of scientists were really willing to believe that we are a science experiment commissioned by mice, why shouldn't it be taught?

The problem that I see with the finalistic approach, is that it is perfectly equivalent to any other system that cannot be proven or disproven by design.

maybe the world as we see it is just a program in a supercomputer (a la matrix). can you prove it is not so?
can you be 100% sure that you are not the subject of a sophisticated Truman show?
what if the world described in the Harry Potter books was a faithful chronicle of what the world really is, with magic and all, and the books where published following a decision of the Ministry of magic to prepare them going public on muggles? could we test wether it's true or not until they decide to show up?

if the model cannot be tested, than to some extent it becomes irrelevant, because the world and the laws that rule it 'work' anyway.
In other words, if there is no need for a supernatural explanation, than why incorporate it?

Yes the model can't be tested, but if the model gives a long term view and understanding to current and previous events, then why not incorporate it. That is, if we are all part of the Matrix, then considering the Matrix and its goals will give greater insight into what we understand and discover. Do I demand that you view things the same way as me? No. But do I believe that looking at it from my perspective makes more sense? Yes. I'm sure that Morpheous would agree with me.

[themadchemist]

I guess what I'm wondering is if someone presents an idea that a quantitative (although you present a case for qualitative, it's too hard to measure) number of noted scientists are willing to subscribe to, then is there anything wrong with teaching it? That is, if they are can produce data or an interpretation of current data that enough authorities of the field are willing to consider, but far below the majority (say 5% or 10%), is there any reason not to teach both subjects? It would keep out the fly-by-night theories, while exposing students to several points of view. In hindsight, a rule of that nature would have brought Darwin into the classrooms with less of a fight, and would give exposure to novel theories. I mean, if 20% of scientists were really willing to believe that we are a science experiment commissioned by mice, why shouldn't it be taught?



My problem with this is that it's so hard to find a line. What's the minimum percentage? What's the total number of scientists, in order to create a percentage? Who counts as an authority? These questions, though specific, are crucial to developing a fair public policy that would work to the ends you suggest.

I would also argue that it's probably not necessary at the high school level. What you learn in high school, ideally, is 1) the scientific method and 2) the basic, well-accepted theories for how most things work. Actually, high school science does represent a vast over-simplification.

For instance, take the so-called "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology." DNA-->RNA-->protein. We know this isn't always true. Retroviruses can convert RNA back to DNA. But it's still valuable to teach kids that this is a big general principle of biology, but it has important exceptions. We teach mitosis over and over again in high school, but it is rarely if ever mentioned that crossing over, seen more canonically in meiosis, can also occur in mitosis. These aren't even competing theories--these are well-accepted scientific "facts." We still omit them because there is a scope and level of detail that is appropriate for a given setting.

That's actually what makes science hard. There is so much terminology to learn before you're ready to think about it deeply. You have to see so many patterns and approaches over and over again before they get ingrained to the point that you can start asking good questions. But no scientist has it all stuffed in his brain--that's why Google Scholar and PubMed exist. The point is that if we can teach kids the basics in high school, then we can reinforce them in college and add a little bit more, and then again in grad school and add a lot more, then slowly, we can show those who delve deeper into science the sheer complexity of every field.

As an addendum to my Alzheimer's example...When we are taught about protein aggregation diseases in medical school, we don't here about the importance of soluble oligomers for the pathology of the disease. I jump up and down and get really angry about it, but the fact is, it's not relevant to the current treatment and understanding of the disease, from a clinical perspective. So the subtleties of a field are overlooked even at a relatively high level of education.

Arguments, arguments everywhere, so little time to teach.

[Don't panic]

I guess what I'm wondering is if someone presents an idea that a quantitative (although you present a case for qualitative, it's too hard to measure) number of noted scientists are willing to subscribe to, then is there anything wrong with teaching it? That is, if they are can produce data or an interpretation of current data that enough authorities of the field are willing to consider, but far below the majority (say 5% or 10%), is there any reason not to teach both subjects? It would keep out the fly-by-night theories, while exposing students to several points of view. In hindsight, a rule of that nature would have brought Darwin into the classrooms with less of a fight, and would give exposure to novel theories.
if a sizeable fraction of scientist support a view, it should be taught and indeed it normally is. In the case of creationism, however, this fraction is much closer to 0% than to 0.1%, and is not supported by ANY evidence
I mean, if 20% of scientists were really willing to believe that we are a science experiment commissioned by mice, why shouldn't it be taught?
the answer to this question is, obviously, 42


Yes the model can't be tested, but if the model gives a long term view and understanding to current and previous events, then why not incorporate it. That is, if we are all part of the Matrix, then considering the Matrix and its goals will give greater insight into what we understand and discover. Do I demand that you view things the same way as me? No. But do I believe that looking at it from my perspective makes more sense? Yes. I'm sure that Morpheous would agree with me.
but that is the point. we do not know, nor we can know if we are part of the Matrix. Or of the Harry Potter world. Would you be ok if tomorrow this two alternatives are taught in public schools as real possibilities?
Morpheus would agree, because he is out there. But is he?

[.Andy]

I guess what I'm wondering is if someone presents an idea that a quantitative (although you present a case for qualitative, it's too hard to measure) number of noted scientists are willing to subscribe to, then is there anything wrong with teaching it? That is, if they are can produce data or an interpretation of current data that enough authorities of the field are willing to consider, but far below the majority (say 5% or 10%), is there any reason not to teach both subjects? It would keep out the fly-by-night theories, while exposing students to several points of view. In hindsight, a rule of that nature would have brought Darwin into the classrooms with less of a fight, and would give exposure to novel theories. I mean, if 20% of scientists were really willing to believe that we are a science experiment commissioned by mice, why shouldn't it be taught?[
It's not as easy as what you're making out here though nbs2. It's not simply a democratic decision. It would come down to many factors and such as the level of the teaching, time constraints, the complexity of the competing models, and what's being taught etc. A perfect example would be the Bohr atomic model. We're all taught it initially - a little sun nucleus with electrons orbiting it like planets in distinct energy levels. It's easy, it's conceptual, and it allows students of many levels to picture and explain what is happening during chemical reactions, in fluorescent lights or in metals........

For the vast majority of scientists (and science students) this basic model will allow them to explain and carry out practically every experiment they require. However there are now far more sophisticated models that are more correct and that are taught at university level. We could teach all the models, but it would be completely irrelevant and downright confusing to do so, in many cases requiring a prior knowledge of physics and mathematics. We have to make judgements about what is relevant to a student's level.

edit: and what the guys above me said far more quickly :)

[NAG]

Unless the powerful being(s) intervene with the natural world. Then it is well within the scope of science. Loaves and fishes, a global flood, rising from the dead, blood-weeping icons, miracles, stigmata - all can be explored scientifically. Powerful being(s) live outside of reality because it's the only refuge for it to exist and not be challenged in the minds of followers. Daveman's Augustine quote is a perfect example of this logical gymnastics in trying to obtain an unchallengeable position.
But see, in their mind they are convinced and nothing you can do will change their mind. The only thing at that point which will ever change their mind is if they decide they're wrong (by some random chance). You cannot convince a dogmatic person they are being silly. All we can do is ask what scientific questions they have and try our best to explain it to them in a meaningful, elegant manner.

They sure can but it doesn't at all protect them from being called on it being irrational or challenged in their beliefs.
Didn't say anything about that. lol Just said they can go ahead and believe that nonsense. Believing in nonsense doesn't hurt people. People manipulating people who believe in nonsense hurts people. (I need to throw in a double negative, quick give me one!)

[atszyman]

Is this not the whole problem with Creationism/ID? Where science attempts to find a logical and rational naturalistic narrative (or "theory") to explain how things are, how they became what they are, and what they are likely to become, Creationists simply throw in the towel at the first obstacle and assume the miraculous, which explains nothing. If human beings really are the be-all and end-all of Creation, what was the first fifteen billion years about? What a colossal waste of time!

I never meant to imply that the belief in an all powerful being outside of the realm of our physical laws made good science. I actually see the problem is with those who take religious texts too literally and make no attempt to reconcile them with the mountain of evidence that science has as a counter argument. The earth was made in 6 days, sure they define a day as a cycle of light and dark but who's to say that these cycles weren't 500,000,000 years long?

On the converse using established physical laws to disprove the existence of God will not work (until the babelfish is found). But just because you choose to believe in a supreme being does not mean you have to accept any unexplained phenomena as a miracle and if you are prone to do that science is probably not a good choice for a career path.

The big problem is those who see science as an enemy to religion when there is nothing in the theory of evolution, or the big bang that says that there cannot be a supreme being who put it all into motion, and think that the science classroom is a place to push a religious message.

As for the colossal waste of time, when you are an eternal being, what's 15 billion years? Who's to say we're the ultimate end? Maybe we're only on day 3-4 of the creation of the universe?

[Apemanblues]

Have you guys heard of Project Steve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)?

If not, I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it.

NCSE Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18)

NCSE's "Project Steve" is a tongue-in-cheek parody of a long-standing creationist tradition of amassing lists of "scientists who doubt evolution" or "scientists who dissent from Darwinism." (For examples of such lists, see the FAQs.)

Creationists draw up these lists to convince the public that evolution is somehow being rejected by scientists, that it is a "theory in crisis." Most members of the public lack sufficient contact with the scientific community to know that this claim is totally unfounded. NCSE has been exhorted by its members to compile a list of thousands of scientists affirming the validity of the theory of evolution, but although we easily could have done so, we have resisted such pressure. We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!

Project Steve mocks this practice with a bit of humor, and because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it incidentally makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution. And it honors the late Stephen Jay Gould, NCSE supporter and friend.

We'd like to think that after Project Steve, we'll have seen the last of bogus "scientists doubting evolution" lists, but it's probably too much to ask. We do hope that at least when such lists are proposed, reporters and other citizens will ask, "but how many Steves are on your list!?"

[NAG]

Yeah, I heard about it when I went to one of Eugenie C. Scott's lectures. Funny. Video of the lecture if anyone wants. (http://gonzology.gonzaga.edu/biostream/view_stream.php?e=360)

[Don't panic]

Have you guys heard of Project Steve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)?

If not, I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it.

i'll have to send this to a couple of friends of mine who 'qualify'.

reading about this I also find this (it's from wikipedia, so take it with a grain -or two- of salt):
Support for evolution by religious bodies

Many creationists act as evangelists and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations.[65] Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.[66][67][68]
However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential McLean v Arkansas court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.[69] There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.[70] In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued statements in support of evolution in 2006.[71] The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 11,111 (as of 22 December 2007) American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).[72] These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.[73][74] A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.[75]
Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.[76]

So in other words, EVOLUTION IS SUPPORTED BY A LARGE MAJORITY EVEN WITHIN THE CHRISTIAN WORLD.

Creationism, as a science, is baseless, and only supported by small vocal group with an agenda. And (and now this is a personal opinion) their view is not only incorrect, but so miopic that will eventually ridicule them out of existence.

[NAG]

See, thats the thing though. They've already proven resistant to academic ridicule for their nonexistent reasoning. It is like a zombie. You keep shooting it but it keeps wobbling towards you.

[geese]

Can someone explain to me why there is this push by these fundamentalists to propagate Creationism? I dont fully understand their agenda, why is it so important to them that Creationism is accepted as a science?

[nbs2]

My problem with this is that it's so hard to find a line. What's the minimum percentage? What's the total number of scientists, in order to create a percentage? Who counts as an authority? These questions, though specific, are crucial to developing a fair public policy that would work to the ends you suggest.

I would also argue that it's probably not necessary at the high school level. What you learn in high school, ideally, is 1) the scientific method and 2) the basic, well-accepted theories for how most things work. Actually, high school science does represent a vast over-simplification.

...

As an addendum to my Alzheimer's example...When we are taught about protein aggregation diseases in medical school, we don't here about the importance of soluble oligomers for the pathology of the disease. I jump up and down and get really angry about it, but the fact is, it's not relevant to the current treatment and understanding of the disease, from a clinical perspective. So the subtleties of a field are overlooked even at a relatively high level of education.

Arguments, arguments everywhere, so little time to teach.

I agree that determining those basic ground rules would be difficult, but I don't think doing so is impossible. As for an exact percentage, I suppose we would have to go to a statistician to determine what they consider statistically significant. Clearly the decision would need to be fair and impartial, but once established, it would set parameters that people couldn't argue with when their theories weren't considered in the scholastic environment.

And I understand what you are saying in your example, and I think that is my concern. It may not need in depth study, but at least mentioning soluble oligomers would go a long way towards getting at least a mind or two to consider it in the future. And really, isn't the best way to make progress to get minds thinking when they are most malleable?

if a sizeable fraction of scientist support a view, it should be taught and indeed it normally is. In the case of creationism, however, this fraction is much closer to 0% than to 0.1%, and is not supported by ANY evidence

If your numbers are true, and we were to have set the bar to .1%, then the creationist view wouldn't have any point of argumentation. It would be up to them to convince the scientific community to change, not to convince boards of education and politicians.

but that is the point. we do not know, nor we can know if we are part of the Matrix. Or of the Harry Potter world. Would you be ok if tomorrow this two alternatives are taught in public schools as real possibilities?
Morpheus would agree, because he is out there. But is he?

If a fair number of scientists suggest them as possibilities, or at least admit to having their perspectives and research colored by them, then yes. I would be ok with it. The more it was accepted, the more time I would expect to be spent addressing it.

Suppose that our statistician comes back and says "8% is the point of significance." If 3% of scientists say that their research is affected by their belief in a God, then don't mention it. But if 30% say it, then why shouldn't it be a consideration in study. Truth is irrelevant when we look for bias.

[freeny]

Can someone explain to me why there is this push by these fundamentalists to propagate Creationism? I dont fully understand their agenda, why is it so important to them that Creationism is accepted as a science?

More acceptance=more members=more money (including government funding)

That and no one likes to be thought of as a whack job.

[themadchemist]

I agree that determining those basic ground rules would be difficult, but I don't think doing so is impossible. As for an exact percentage, I suppose we would have to go to a statistician to determine what they consider statistically significant. Clearly the decision would need to be fair and impartial, but once established, it would set parameters that people couldn't argue with when their theories weren't considered in the scholastic environment.


A statistician can determine statistical significance, but this does not translate to actual significance. The practical significance of a given position requires context. And still, I don't see how it is possible to resolve, in a manner that's going to make people happy, who is a scientist and who isn't.


And I understand what you are saying in your example, and I think that is my concern. It may not need in depth study, but at least mentioning soluble oligomers would go a long way towards getting at least a mind or two to consider it in the future. And really, isn't the best way to make progress to get minds thinking when they are most malleable?


Perhaps, but like I said, there is only so much depth beyond which things become ridiculous. We need to learn about every body system--there is a debate in every field, and if we learned every debate, we would never get the working knowledge we needed to treat patients. If one of my classmates decides to work on protein aggregation, then he/she will learn the debates of the field. What's important is that the individual has the tools to evaluate scientific arguments and ask scientific questions.

We teach kids about the five kingdoms of life and say that these are the criteria to be defined as life and these aren't. Those are not without complications. I mean, these are categories defined by us and there is a lot of fuzziness on the borders. Should the Actinomyces species be considered bacteria or fungi? What really defines a species? These are OK questions to touch on, but we can't touch on every question with a high school kid or anyone. The curriculum is too broad.

The major competing theories should be discussed, but I think that the current system of having a few experts write a textbook (or prepare a curriculum) and then having that reviewed by a bunch of others works all right. If there are problems and mistakes (and I know there frequently are), we can complain about the inadequacies and have them changed for a future edition. But polling on every single topic is undoubtedly going to crop up problems everywhere. I mean, if all of these fields were resolved, then what? We'd have to stop doing science and go flip burgers or become hedge fund managers or something.


Suppose that our statistician comes back and says "8% is the point of significance." If 3% of scientists say that their research is affected by their belief in a God, then don't mention it. But if 30% say it, then why shouldn't it be a consideration in study. Truth is irrelevant when we look for bias.

Well, the point is that good science can be defined pretty rigorously. Did you follow the scientific method? Did you have good positive and negative controls? Did you draw conclusions that are reasonable from the experiments you did (or did you read too much into your data)? Did you consider alternative interpretations of that data? Did you employ the right statistical tests to evaluate the significance of your data (statistical, not practical)? If you can meet these criteria, then your science is probably OK. But if you can't, then your work is irrelevant, no matter how many people are practicing bad science along your side.

[NAG]

We teach kids about the five kingdoms of life

Okay I know I'm nitpicking here but no, we don't. The five kingdom system was abandoned a long time ago (for the biological sciences, at least). All good science teachers also teach the various means as to which species are classified (taxonomic, genetic, etc...). This is all within reasonable limits, though, as you can't really expect kids to understand blast searches, for instance.

[Don't panic]

Well, the point is that good science can be defined pretty rigorously. Did you follow the scientific method? Did you have good positive and negative controls? Did you draw conclusions that are reasonable from the experiments you did (or did you read too much into your data)? Did you consider alternative interpretations of that data? Did you employ the right statistical tests to evaluate the significance of your data (statistical, not practical)? If you can meet these criteria, then your science is probably OK. But if you can't, then your work is irrelevant, no matter how many people are practicing bad science along your side.

i agree.
and i believe this is one of the main reason scientists have resisted the push to make 'lists' of scientist who don't believe creationism has scientific foundations, because science is not a matter of opinion, or who has the longer list.

but going back to the 'Steve' project mentioned above, there are significantly more scientists (defined as people with a doctorate, and it includes a lot of very prestigious names, where they got their degree and where they work now - a majority are biologists) named "steve' supporting evolution than people in the list of creation 'supporters' (which includes very few biologists and is full of highly questionable entries -e.g. not verifiable).
that should say something on the relative 'strength' of the fields.

it is anedoctal, but in my experience I have never met anyone in person that would actually argue in favor of creationism as a science, ever.

[Eric Piercey]

...The big problem is those who see science as an enemy to religion when there is nothing in the theory of evolution, or the big bang that says that there cannot be a supreme being who put it all into motion, and think that the science classroom is a place to push a religious message...




If the perception is that science disregards anything that can't be proven as fairy stories, and the core of your beliefs is founded on unwavering faith -then yeah it would follow that science is the enemy of faith and therefore [your] religion.

There are however many religions and many sects within each which range in theological flexibility from fundamentalist to progressive. The fundamentalist will obviously see science as a direct threat unless of course it's backing up their claims. At the other end of the spectrum the progressive believer is interested in truth and how it relates to their faith.

I should also mention there's a converse continuum within the scientific community ranging from fundamentalist to progressive. To the fundamental scientist that which can't be verified "is" a fairy story whereas the most progressive scientists may be so loose in their methodology as not to even be considered people of science.

Sadly the progressives in either camp- who are likely to be one and the same person but not necessarily- are shunned by both camps.

[themadchemist]

Okay I know I'm nitpicking here but no, we don't. The five kingdom system was abandoned a long time ago (for the biological sciences, at least). All good science teachers also teach the various means as to which species are classified (taxonomic, genetic, etc...). This is all within reasonable limits, though, as you can't really expect kids to understand blast searches, for instance.

In high schools? When I was in high school freshman bio nine years ago, they were still talking about it. And I remember memorizing "Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species." Sure, we covered the different classification methodologies, but in high school, there was generally the vibe given off that what we're doing now really works quite well. When it comes to classifications, I don't think it necessarily does, unless you are on the sophistication level of doing blast searches and defining level of homology.

Come to think of it, in medical school we still do use the kingdoms to the extent that we separate bacteria from fungi from protozoa (OK, so we don't talk about them being protists) from animal pathogens like helminths.

I think the five kingdom framework, or some rough variant of it, is still alive and kicking outside of bioinformatics and genetics circles.

[NAG]

In high schools? When I was in high school freshman bio nine years ago, they were still talking about it. And I remember memorizing "Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species." Sure, we covered the different classification methodologies, but in high school, there was generally the vibe given off that what we're doing now really works quite well. When it comes to classifications, I don't think it necessarily does, unless you are on the sophistication level of doing blast searches and defining level of homology.

Come to think of it, in medical school we still do use the kingdoms to the extent that we separate bacteria from fungi from protozoa (OK, so we don't talk about them being protists) from animal pathogens like helminths.

I think the five kingdom framework, or some rough variant of it, is still alive and kicking outside of bioinformatics and genetics circles.

Must be your specific curriculum because when I was in high school science in Washington they didn't teach five kingdoms. This was about 7-8 years ago. In elementary school, yeah, they used the five kingdom method, but then again the five kingdoms wasn't phased out until around 10 years ago (which is a long time in biology, really, 10 years ago we didn't think we'd have a chance of knowing the human genome by now).

And your understanding of what a "kingdom" is is sloppy (you're referring to phylogeny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny) more than "kingdoms"). There are classifications, true. But these classifications are not all based on taxonomy anymore (they actually rarely are). The five kingdoms was heavily based on taxonomy. These days we use genetic and evolutionary methods much much more. This gives you a much clearer picture of the differences between species. So yes, they both classify, but to imply they are the same is disingenuous. I referred to the difference in my earlier post when I said the better teachers taught the various means of classification/benefits of each.

Edit: Here is a wikipedia article on cladistics/the more evolutionary approach if people want more info. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics)

[Eric Piercey]

I remember kingdom phylum class order family genus species from the 9th grade, clear as day. This would have been in 83.

[NAG]

2008 - 1983 > 10 last time I checked.

[pooky]

For perspective, I teach a university-level introductory biology class. We use the Campbell et al. book, which is one of the more widely used college texts. It still talks quite a bit about the five kingdoms, with the addition of "Domain" to separate out the Archaea. The book does mention that the system is out of date, and that the classification of the "Protists" is really much more complicated, and it even attempts to show this by giving a more updated system with (I forget exactly) 13 or 15 "kingdoms" based on cladistics. But the 5 kingdoms are still there, or at least they were in the last version of the book I picked up. So we can't really expect high school texts to have caught on completely yet.

[themadchemist]

Must be your specific curriculum because when I was in high school science in Washington they didn't teach five kingdoms. This was about 7-8 years ago. In elementary school, yeah, they used the five kingdom method, but then again the five kingdoms wasn't phased out until around 10 years ago (which is a long time in biology, really, 10 years ago we didn't think we'd have a chance of knowing the human genome by now).


And there's always a lag before things hit the science curriculum.


And your understanding of what a "kingdom" is is sloppy (you're referring to phylogeny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny) more than "kingdoms"). There are classifications, true. But these classifications are not all based on taxonomy anymore (they actually rarely are). The five kingdoms was heavily based on taxonomy. These days we use genetic and evolutionary methods much much more. This gives you a much clearer picture of the differences between species. So yes, they both classify, but to imply they are the same is disingenuous. I referred to the difference in my earlier post when I said the better teachers taught the various means of classification/benefits of each.


My understanding was that the development of phylogeny as a concept developed from classifications into kingdoms. There was an incremental development of ideas on this front, and with the advent of molecular biology and genetics, we were able to shift from thinking about the relationships between organisms in terms of genetics instead of taxonomy. This allowed a revision of previous categories, but the same general structure to think about the classification of organisms was used.

I didn't think that I had suggested that taxonomical and genetic classifications were the same, but if in any way I suggested that, I apologize.

[Eric Piercey]

2008 - 1983 > 10 last time I checked.

So it is. I was just posting for reference -missed your last 10 yr thing. Thanks very very much for putting me back in place.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

I've enjoyed reading this thread (even the long posts with big words--by the way: "demonstrable"). Even though there are so many great posts affirming evolution and the big bang and attacking creationism for being pseudoscience, none of them argue the main point of the film: that the science community is taking away people's free speech rights by locking it out of classrooms. That is wrong for two reasons.

First, the science community cannot take away anyone's first ammendment rights. You can (and do) preach the Lord's words to your children all you want and convince them (unfortunately) that evolution has no evidence. The disconnect comes from creationists wanting to be taken seriously and when the science community knocks their theory down they claim they just don't want to admit that God exists. Trust me, if your theory (or any other theory that "proves" God's existence) holds any weight, it would be more than welcomed. Science, by definition, likes good theories. The reason creationism is scoffed at is because it is not based on science. Pointing out flaws in the current theory is great, but does not disprove it (and certainly doesn't prove another theory--that takes evidence).

Secondly, what is taught in school is generally a very stripped-down version of current science. It's just the basics--what you need to know to understand a field of study. The rest is for university (and even in that case you don't get it all--you need to study for yourself). You simply cannot teach every theory that has any ammount of support (especially when they aren't based on science--face it, the basis of creationism is "this all seems too complex to happen randomly" jumping to conclusion "there must be a god or two"). School is for the basics and everything else comes later--sometimes on your own. The problem evolution and the big bang have is that scientists aren't loud enough. Creationists are enraged that schools teach science, but that is the only place you can find it almost (and they know it). Religious icons are much, much louder, and their inane ramblings they call books sell many more units than scientific studies (they are much easier to read and don't require critical thinking).

If creationists could weasel their way into schools, then science wouldn't stand a chance. Its only real realm would be within the dwindling science community. Think about it, you go through school being taught that evolution doesn't answer everything but that God does (and many kids are home-schooled to believe just that). Then when you graduate the only outlets you have to science are talk radio, your religious leader (Ben Stein), religious books purporting to be scientific, and FOX News. What chance does one have to actually be exposed to true science?

[Iscariot]

I guess what I'm wondering is if someone presents an idea that a quantitative (although you present a case for qualitative, it's too hard to measure) number of noted scientists are willing to subscribe to, then is there anything wrong with teaching it? That is, if they are can produce data or an interpretation of current data that enough authorities of the field are willing to consider, but far below the majority (say 5% or 10%), is there any reason not to teach both subjects? It would keep out the fly-by-night theories, while exposing students to several points of view. In hindsight, a rule of that nature would have brought Darwin into the classrooms with less of a fight, and would give exposure to novel theories. I mean, if 20% of scientists were really willing to believe that we are a science experiment commissioned by mice, why shouldn't it be taught?

If a theory is debateable, then it certainly merits debate in academia. But even students at the highest level high school classes don't possess the scientific acumen to really comprehend the full scope of any theory. There's already a debating and review process in place, and I don't think it should be expanded to the student level to further complicate an already massively expansive subject.