Posted on 12/22/2005 8:44:09 AM PST by Sweetjustusnow
"What is the falsifiable test for "un intelligent" spontaneous formation of life from those pesky building blocks of life hanging around out there?"
Unknown. And the Theory of Evolution does not address that aspect, simply because there isn't enough data available to support any answer. There are several competing hypotheses discussing this issue, but there is insufficient evidence to support raising any of these to the level of a scientific theory.
And those predictions would be...
"Theory of Evolution does not address that aspect, simply because there isn't enough data available to support any answer"
When I was in school such speculation was included in evolution studies. Fine, provided that ID theories on this matter are also discussed. Case closed.
During the years when Fred Hoyle's theory of continuous creation was competing with the big bang theory, it was commonplace to refer to both theories. After Hoyle admitted that his theory had been disproved, it moved from a scientific conjecture into the history of science, where it is still be appropriate to refer to it as an example of a hypothesis that was put forward and proved to be false. No one went into federal court and got a judge to forbid anyone from talking about the controversy.
The same would be true of superstring theory. Some astronomers support the idea, others oppose it. No harm is done by raising the subject and talking about it.
Most educators would say that the socratic method is appropriate in the classroom. Putting ideas forward, questioning and debating them, is one of the standard methods of teaching. It teaches children to learn how to think for themselves.
"When I was in school such speculation was included in evolution studies."
And it was firmly marked as being speculative, and the experimental results that had been achieved were discussed.
"Fine, provided that ID theories on this matter are also discussed. Case closed."
But ID doesn't even rise to the level of "hypothesis," let alone "theory."
I was here then, also -- just under a different name. At that time, I was a Mensa member, bragging about my IQ and denying God's role in human affairs.
He changed that for me, through several events that could not be explained away through my "rational" sieve. It was truly humbling. I changed my screen name around the same time.
God certainly does not need me to defend Him, but my hope is that He will grant me the wisdom to articulately convey the sequence of events that caused me to see the light, so that people can know what I do now. It is hard to describe...when I talk to Christians, they immediately know what I am talking about. When I talk to those without faith, I get a blank stare.
My sister, who is a lot wiser than I, reminded me that faith is a gift, and that I should not be surprised to get that reaction.
Regardless, it has been nice conversing with you.
"Putting ideas forward, questioning and debating them, is one of the standard methods of teaching. It teaches children to learn how to think for themselves."
Science is not debate.
"But ID doesn't even rise to the level of "hypothesis," let alone "theory."
Because it does not speculate natural causes?
"And it was firmly marked as being speculative, and the experimental results that had been achieved were discussed."
The experiments failed of course. Why? Many reasons, one hypothesis is that life can only be created by God. If you always exclude God in your speculation on first causes, because you say that such speculation is not science, then you are simply espousing the religion of Naturalism and by default defining science as the religion of Naturalism.
Hermeneutics is a fancy word used by theorists that means, roughly, interpretation. The phrase derives mostly from the field of biblical hermeneutics, but it was taken over by folks like the French theorists.
of suspicion refers to the tendency of these modernist thinkers to undermine traditional ideas and comfortable assumptions. Marx argues that culture, art, music, any human accomplishment is essentially nothing but a decorative superstructure on what is really important, namely, economics. Freud argues that you may think you are a rational being in control of yourself, but in fact you are run by your subconscious, which you can't even see. Some would add Nietzsche as another major source of suspicion. God is dead, religion is a copout, morality is for weaklings, and basically the strongest deserve to prevail because at least they don't believe in slavish superstitions like Christianity.
Communists talk about "demystification," which is to teach people that everything they thought important is really meaningless. Religion is the opiate of the people, morality is a capitalist obfuscation, much art and music is merely a means of distracting people from realizing that they are victims of the bosses, and so forth.
Deconstruction fits into this. You take everything apart: books, art, ideas, and basically find that they are all the same and all meaningless.
Darwin fits the pattern because it's a small step from Darwinist theory to saying that spirit, religion, art, and so forth are all just illusory, because human beings are purely material products of blind chance. Like Nietzsche, Darwin has been drawn on by numerous racists and totalitarian theorists, and some of these tendencies can be found already in The Origin of Species, where Darwin argues that white Europeans are superior to other races and people.
"Because it does not speculate natural causes?"
No, because it makes no falsifiable predictions that can be tested against the physical world.
"The experiments failed of course."
Actually, the results were inconclusive (i.e., some predictions were confirmed, others were not, and the results seem to be extremely sensitive to small variations in the test environment), which is why those hypotheses are still partially valid hypotheses (a complete and unambiguous failure would invalidate the entire hypothesis), but are not considered theories.
"Many reasons, one hypothesis is that life can only be created by God."
Sure. Great hypothesis.
Now provide a falsifiable test for this hypothesis.
Got the insult in record time!
What I've been looking for is an explanation like the observers-and-the-train explanation for Einstein's relativity. (Maybe Einstein also started with a stream of insults when someone asked for an explanation of relativity)
So how does a system evolve through a set of intermediate stages that hinder the survival of the life form, until the final beneficial structure is acheived?
If a system is guided by a non-specific force like "survival of the fittest", trial and error, down many paths that end up in complex states, where is the evidence of all the errors? (the eyeball that is almost an eyeball but the lens hasn't quite evolved into place yet)
If the answer that the randomness allows the system to try many states that are detrimental to find a new better state (simulated annealing, avoiding local minima) it seems the evolution rate, or presence of wild mutations of complex but useless structures would be all over the place
"So how does a system evolve through a set of intermediate stages that hinder the survival of the life form, until the final beneficial structure is acheived?"
You are assuming that the enviroment the life form is in remains static. It doesn't. Some "intermediate stages" help in one environment, and hinder in another.
"If a system is guided by a non-specific force like "survival of the fittest", trial and error, down many paths that end up in complex states, where is the evidence of all the errors?"
Since the eye is soft tissue, the short answer is "gone to dust millenia ago."
"If the answer that the randomness allows the system to try many states that are detrimental to find a new better state (simulated annealing, avoiding local minima) it seems the evolution rate, or presence of wild mutations of complex but useless structures would be all over the place"
Such as the veriform appendix.
Well, Darwinism is intrinsically neither conservative nor liberal. Communists tend to like it because it is "scientific" and materialist and in its stronger versions leaves no room for God. Nazis tend to like it because it supports their views about racial superiority and eugenics. The ACLU likes it because it helps them drive any semblance of religion or morality out of the schools.
Not that Intelligent Design theory, properly understood, is religious, but any possible hint of religion is enough to drive the ACLU up the wall.
Sure, it's possible to be both Christian and a limited Darwinist, but it's obvious that Darwin is often used as a tool to attack or deny religious beliefs.
Where I think political conservatism and Darwinism are colliding, at the moment, is the fact that activist judges are using Darwin as a tool to impose illegitimate and unconstitutional restraints on the public schools. Darwinism is one issue. Pushing Darwinism down our throats by judicial decree is another issue, and it's certainly not a conservative way of doing things.
"Darwin fits the pattern because it's a small step from Darwinist theory to saying that spirit, religion, art, and so forth are all just illusory, because human beings are purely material products of blind chance. Like Nietzsche, Darwin has been drawn on by numerous racists and totalitarian theorists, and some of these tendencies can be found already in The Origin of Species, where Darwin argues that white Europeans are superior to other races and people."
This is the ugly side effect of Darwinism that Darwinists, at least the nice ones, hate to deal with. While it says nothing as to the truth of Darwinism, it says volumes as to how this debate ultimately affects mankind.
If there is no God, then Marx was right..."there is no morality.." Fortunately the nice Darwinists have Theists to save them from such a horrendous society.
The impregnibility of devout ignorance. It's only a month since the trial. Who the witnesses were, their academic affiliations, which side called them, and their testimony are readily available - and you prefer to just make up stuff about them.
Is Behe a fruitcake identifying himself as an ID exponent? Tell me. I realy want to know.
Exactly! Curricula should reflect and report the current objective status of ideas in science. If ID, or some other non-evolutionary theory, should become a part of science in the future -- and this can be objectively determined by consulting the professional literature -- then it will be included in science curricula as a matter of course. If for some reason it's not, I'll join you in calling for its inclusion.
Until then quit the whining the constant attempts to include it on an affirmative action basis! After all this can only hurt the prospects, whatever they may be, of ID or creationism genuinely prevailing in actual scientific research. First it misallocates resources the could be spent on advancing non-evolutionary research to useless lobbying. Second, and even more important, it creates justified resentment and suspicion against the ideas among scientists when they see advocates avoiding scientific research and debate and instead pursuing political means. Historically that's been a pretty dependable indication of crackpottery.
Darwin did NOT argue this, anywhere, but certainly not in The Origin of Species. Humans and human evolution aren't even discussed in that book.
Try The Descent of Man. Darwin does make various points that assume the cultural superiority of Europeans. There are also some passages that are ambiguous as to whether you might interpret them as referring to biological or cultural causes. But there is no outright racism in Darwin, especially not by the standards of his time, in comparison to which Darwin was very liberal on race.
For instance Darwin is EASILY less racist than Abraham Lincoln, who DID explicitly believe that blacks were biologically inferior, even though he thought they still deserved completely equal political and moral treatment. I'm not putting down Lincoln, btw. I'm a huge fan of Lincoln. As to the issue of race I evaluate him in historical context and reject the ahistorical, leftist gotcha tactics.
Yes, you're right. I should have said Descent of Man.
With that correction, you remain wrong.
Maybe such an explanation exists, maybe not. Einstein, after all, was a pretty smart guy. Lacking that see Post #69 and do the hard work.
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.