Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
This editorialist has not demonstrated that he understands much more than standard-issue ideological rants. The key is in this sentence:
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing.
This is a classic example of moving the goalposts: from a scientific standpoint it literally doesn't matter which intelligence did the designing. What this little gem really suggests is that Our Editor has an antipathy toward religion. That's his right, certainly, but it's not evidence that he "understands" anything other than his own biases (and possibly not even those).
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed.
Not correct. For example, the "Theory of Relativity" remains a theory despite the fact that it was developed in response to phenomena that have been directly observed. To base a "theory" on things not directly observed is the exception, not the rule.
Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
By that standard, "Intelligent Design" is a valid theory. It is supported by millenia of evidence -- as any good University Agriculture department could tell you. The age-old practices of Selective Breeding, and the newer sciences of genetic manipulation, are irrefutable proof that Intelligent Design is a viable theory. At least some of what we see can be explained just as easily, and perhaps more easily, by theorizing the actions of an intelligent agent.
The problem, of course, is that there is an a priori, if widely unacknowledged bias, against the presence of intelligent agents -- even though we humans play that role literally all the time.
All of this is not to say that evolutionary theory is wrong -- I would not make such a claim. Rather, it is merely to point out the foolishness of claiming that it is the only possible explanation. After all, we already know that Intelligent Design is reasonable, because we know that humans can, and do, use it.
I'll be honest, PH -- it's far below your usual standards to be posting ill-reasoned, unsigned newspaper editorials in support of your views.
well said
This phrase says it all....case closed.
Huh? Explain please.
They're already teaching one such story as if it were fact (evolution). Might as well put the other theory on the table, too.
Re #24. Please cite sources.
In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Physical evolution is not in conflict with Christianity. Excerpts:
It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.
Correct and macro evolution is not verifiable.
Suppose we look up at a clear night sky, and conclude that, because bright stars appear to be closer than dimmer stars (based on our experience that brighter street lamps our closer than dimmer street lamps), we need not invent telescopes to view them in detail and apply the parallax (basic trigonometry) to discern their true distances. That's just what advocates of ID would have us do.
Liberals figured out too many people were opposed to gun control, so they started preaching to us about gun safety. Now Creationists have their own less offensive, harder to immediately dismiss Intelligent Design to slip into our science curriculum!
Actually, come to think of it, I'd like to know more about this poll. Frankly, the numbers sound about as reliable as a Democrat exit poll. Who did they ask the question of? Sounds to me like more left-wing post-election hysteria. I think most open-minded people of faith think it's reasonable to have Creationism referenced in the classroom as an alternate belief system to evolutionary dogma, but I don't think they feel it needs to be a full-fledged parallel curriculum; for the simple reason that it doesn't require as much detailed explanation to grasp the theory.
Something like 2/3 of Americans think that we can pay off the nation's debt by printing more money and more than half think that they'll be able to retire off of their lottery ticket winnings.
Where do we draw the line? Which creation stories do you want left out? Odin?
BTW, a creation story is not a scientific theory.
You have faith in something unproved by the scientific method. There are laws in this universe and Creation follows them. So you are here to HELP us discover we evolved from apes and have no purpose in life. Um, thanks.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/index.shtml#design_in_the_universe
"A majority of Americans voted for Gore over Bush."
Not if only legal votes were the ones counted. Throw out vote fraud and Bush won the popular vote.
"(Pssst: That's not a new species. It's still a pumpkin)."
Is it evolving or not?
Here is the lie, evolution is taught as fact not theory, and the lame excuse that man cannot have observed events that transpired over millions of years so therefore theory has the weight of fact is false from any direction. It is just as reasonable to assume, and far more likely given the recent admission that several forms of life sprang into being at the same time, that an intelligent designer was at work. For instance an artist creating a mural out of tiles does not stop to make one blue tile at a time, nor red. The same goes for DNA, why wouldn't an artist creating a master piece use the same tile in a cockroach as a human if the tile served the same function and produced the same needed result in both? That theory is more valid than evolution and should be taught in public schools.
And what is 'evolution' besides a godless creation story? Evolution is not a theory, it barely qualifies as a hypothesis.
And that is being charitable.
Brian.
"Correct and macro evolution is not verifiable."
Nor is the existence of God, and thus, neither is "Intelligent Design"
What's the difference in your distinction?
There is a difference between proven, verifiable facts and theory.
This ought to clear up some of the misconceptions you have about the scientific terms.
From an NSF abstract:
“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.
In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.