Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The book was 'Of Pandas and People'. The major re-editing work was search-n-replace s/God/Designer/g.
My remark at 631 ("all attempts of science to unseat philosophy notwithstanding") speaks to the inclination of many in the science community to suggest that knowledge gained through science is more valuable or certain than knowledge gained through philosophy instead of the other way around.
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.
Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
[snip]
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
[this actually matches ID very well]
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
As a belief or logical exercise, maybe even as a hypothesis, it's just fine. I've never said it's illogical to believe or propose ID, just that it is not part of natural science. Or, rather, nobody has been able to present it in a way that is compatible with natural science. Maybe that'll happen, I don't know.
By ascribing detail to the "stuff," namely organization and predictbility.
As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries.
Is it all you think about? How about gravity. You may say it is "natural," but why? Is it because it is really natural, or only because you've lived with it all your life? The distinction between natural and supernatural is arbitrary, moreso than the distinction between species. It is not a scientifc distinction, but a semantic one that depends upon each observer.
Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science.
As I said, intelligent design predicts organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws will be found. That is far more than nothing. It fairly well fits everything. Take a single drop of water out of the ocean and descibe all of its attributes. The fact you can see it in the first place is but one small sign that it is designed. It's organization and predictability can be described in great detail.
Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?
Not yet. Can you enumerate something science can do with out making use of either intelligence or design or some combination of the two?
Of course, Darwin himself asked: "Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?"
That's his prerogative. He may actually mean what he says, and he may be right. But I'm curious as to the nature of the oath he swore in the first place. Do you have a copy of the oath he took? Maybe we could take a look at it.
Whether one uses the layman's term for theory or the more refined, scientific version, one is still dealing with a body of knowledge that is tentative.
That's OK; I think most folks know who you meant.
("that Prussian astronomer" was a clue.)
Does the IPU have stripper factories or beer volcanoes?
True, but your way lacks any scientific credibility, and therefore should not be taught in a science class. It's only an issue of classification. Teaching it in philosophy or religion class is fine with me.
If you allow ID in the science class, you're paving the way for astrology in an astronomy class, or crystal therapy in med school. If it weren't for the scientific process, we'd all still think polywater and N-rays were real. So if you want people to accept ID as science, allow it to go through the established process rather than redefining the process to match your needs.
That's immoral. Only pagan religions would have that. Although I admit it sounds a lot more fun than running around naked in Her Fields.
Excellent proselytization. Looking for a convert?
You might find this study interesting. How about an ERV found in chimps, gorillas, baboons and macaques but not found in orangutans, siamangs, gibbons or humans? [...] Then consider that the primate-ERV studied is found in Old World Monkeys, not in gibbons or orangutans, and then in gorillas and chimps, but not in humans ...
Sorry, but this is apples-and-oranges.
Virginia-American was speaking of shared ERVs which have the characteristics which show that they are due to a single insertion event (i.e., are monophyletic). If any of these would be found in a pattern (across lineages) which is grossly "out of whack" with other evolutionary indications of phylogeny, in a way that can't be reconciled, this would indeed be a severe problem for evolutionary theory.
The paper you link, however, is about *polyphyletic* patterns (i.e., ones which clearly entered different parts of the primate "tree" at different times during different infection invents) of a specific ERV among primates, and as such is not the kind of potential "killer" for evolutionary theory that a mismatch in a *monophyletic* ERV would be.
As the paper mentions, it does raise some interesting questions which researchers are seeking answers for, but most conceivable answers to those questions will pose no challenge to evolutionary theory (nor require any modification to it).
Of course, this was already pointed out to you when you linked the same study in an earlier thread.
I consider that to be a non-sequitur of sorts. Qualified, precise language, as well as mild disclaimers, are honest ways of presenting what we know and why we claim to know it. Such things belong in a science class precisely because it is fraught with philosophical and religious underpinnings. To extrapolate from the admittance of ID the admittance of every disjointed notion is to introduce a red herring. There is a measured and mature way for both atheistic and theistic assumptions to be brought to bear if/when necessary.
The debate is overblown in a way, because even though most school textbooks present only the atheistic point of view, they do so only slightly, yet without good reason; they state with confidence things that should be stated with qualification, but they do so within an exceedingly limted framework, little of which is germane to empirical science.
As for astrology in astronomy class, I think that would be a good way to introduce the subject since astronomy stands on the shoulders of those who first observed the stars and tried to make sense of them. That is to say, astrology contains a fair amount of science. And by now you know I grant a wide meaning to the word "science," similar to that of Alamo Girl.
The Messiah is ubiquitous in Jewish prophesy, and it would not be unusual for the author of Enoch to invoke him.
I beg to differ. Or does one have to be paid to observe and comment coherently upon the universe in order to be a "real" scientist?
And I'd agree with them.
Define "right" as you are using it in this sentence. Be specific and precise. If you can clarify the exact nature of your question better, I'll be glad to address it.
If there is a right answer, then there MUST be a standard that makes it so.
What's wrong with the ones I listed?
What makes your definition or standard of morality right and that of the terrorist wrong?
I asked you first -- try answering it. Furthermore, it appears that you have more necessity of answering that question, since *you're* the one with the morality based on the same standard as that of the terroists. Mine has far less need to distance itself from that of the terrorist, since mine is based on different foundations entirely.
The "design" part of evolution is the decision of which creature survives, and which does not. That is a very powerful generator of information, as demonstrated by experiments at Caltech's Digital Life Lab.
Besides the validation that evolution theory increases information content, the verification of common descent is very well established by a few thousand ERV virus sequences in common among humans and other primates. We understand how these virus segments get inserted into the genome, and these common sequences are proof that we share common ancestors millions of years ago. Not merely share common ancestry with another species, but that species such as New World Monkeys and humans have a single *individual* we are both descended from. I.E. Great, Great ...... Grandpappy.
That's the facts. If someone wants to explain some other way we share common ancestry with an individual primate millions of years ago, fine. But I have no problem with evolution, and I won't tolerate lying to school children and telling them that evolution is false.
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.