Posted on 08/02/2008 5:57:18 PM PDT by Kevmo
Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2008 8:44:19 AM by Soliton
don't remember when I first learned about the theory of evolution, but nowadays I find myself reading of it a great deal in the popular press and hearing it discussed in the media. As my daughter enters elementary school, I find myself anxious to discuss with her teachers what they will cover in science class and where in their curriculum they plan to teach evolution. OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."
Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
(Excerpt) Read more at redorbit.com ...
I believe they would correct and you would be wrong. The theory of evolution is on more solid ground right now than the theory of gravitation.
This may take some explanation: The fact that things fall, and that organisms change through time, are facts. There are millions of details, or facts, involved in this. The theories of gravitation and evolution seek to explain those facts.
That things fall is well understood; why things fall, and all of the ramifications, is not well understood. On the other hand, we seem to have a good handle on evolution, both the how and the why.
Of course, intra-species evolution is fact. It has been observed and we have exploited it to develop breeds and strains of flora and fauna. It is the inter-species sort that is theoretical. Then to posit that as “The Origin of the Species” requires great faith against all odds.
The mathematical formulations that suggest that macroevolution is impossible are only as good as their ability to accurately model systems. Other models produce different answers. As one example, an online lecture I have seen deals with this general subject.
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Besides, macroevolution is pretty well established. All it means is change at the species level. This can be seen in what are called ring species. In ring species, a geographical feature separates populations of some organism. Each local population can interbreed with the next, but the two endpoints, where they meet and close the ring, has populations which can't interbreed. That is the definition of a separate species. And, what is particularly interesting is that all the intermediates or "transitionals" (which many creationists say don't exist) are preserved intact for study.
Here is some additional information:
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
- A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
- At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
- Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source
Sounds to me as if your undergraduate studies were a waste of time and money, since they just repeated what you'd already received in high school.
It's all to little avail when it comes to McCain but I've seen fascist and communist speakers both use the old trick of having their confederates pop up in the middle of a speech and turn to the audience to encourage applause.
Creating a competing "religious thread" crevo thread in competition with the original one is tantamoung to using the buddy in the audience trick. It is a practice that should and must be prohibited in FreeRepublic since none of us are commies or fascists, capice?
That's interesting and all, but like other research on both sides of the question it doesn't "prove" anything about the past using the scientific method. You can certainly argue that it supports one side or the other of the debate, but such arguments are not the same thing as the scientific method and are therefore philosophy - or perhaps history - but they're not science. And that applies to both sides, as I see it. Again, where am I wrong?
I agree. But. I have yet to hear a convincing case made that evolution - meaning all current life having descended from, basically, non-life - is any different. I know that natural selection and change within species are easily verifiable/falsifiable concepts.
Actually your view of evolution is incorrect. It does not include origins. There is currently no accepted theory of origins. There are a lot of hypotheses competing for acceptance, but no theory.
There is, however, a robust theory describing how organisms changed since their origins. That is what the theory of evolution covers.
As for common descent, that was a decent theory for quite a while but was entirely supported when genetics came along. Genetics could have overturned that theory but rather it support it. There is no competing theory in science. There is the idea of "created kinds" coming from religion, but that idea has not been shown to be scientifically accurate.
But how do you design an experiment to prove - or disprove - that we descended from apes, or that birds descended from early reptiles, or that microbes formed from non-living soup? How is that not just as much a worldview (or a religion, for that matter) as Creationism? How does it conform to the scientific method any better than Creationism does?
Genetics can track the evolution of organisms pretty well. The other primates (apes and monkeys) were among the first critters to be sequenced. Those sequences have agreed pretty well with what the fossils already suggested. In science there does not seem to be much question anymore on this issue.
Microbes from non-living soup? Back to origins. See the above.
The worldview question is not that hard to answer. Scientists rely on evidence. They assemble facts and from those facts generate hypotheses and theories to explain the facts. In religion, the answers are revealed, and the data is rearranged to support that revelation. That is why scientists have such problems with creation "science" -- it does not follow the scientific method. It is designed to reach a specific conclusion no matter what the data say. Just look at Answers in Genesis and their Statement of Faith. The first line is: "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Check out the rest. With a tenet such as this AiG and the other creationist websites are doing the exact opposite of science. They are doing what is called apologetics.
I know it doesn't invoke God, but it seems to invoke Chance in the same manner; it seems to have little to do with the scientific method, and therefore little to do with science.
Chance is a term misused by creationists. The mutations that lead to micro- and then macroevolution are not totally random. They follow the rules of chemistry and physics. I don't have time to deal with this right now, but be assured that scientists are not just dropping the scientific method in favor of something else.
I'll check back later for any responses. I'm interested in hearing where my logic goes wrong here.
Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."
"The curriculum taught in our science classrooms should be that which is based on measurable, quantifiable fact. Nonscientific content has its place as well, such as philosophy or religion classes."
This third quote is key. Public schools do not place the same emphasis on philosophy or on theology as is placed on science. Were public schools to remedy this inequity (thus giving a forum for ID, or even Creationism), teaching evolution based on scientific theory would not be such a flash point in education.
Until philosophy and theology courses are given equal time with science, teaching origins and development of species from a strictly "scientific" viewpoint amounts to the government endorsing secular humanism as a religion and thus violating the First Amendment. (By the article's admission, schools are to be neutral on the topic of religion.)
Science and Christianity need not be mutually exclusive (just like science and secular humanism need not be mutually exclusive). However, it is not being religion-neutral to omit the background that is necessary to understand the other arguments of origins. However, that is exactly what the public school system does at present.
Christianity (and for that matter the other two Abrahamic religions) make different presuppositions than secular humanism does. Natural Sciences are limited in that they can only study what is material; it is as intellectually dishonest to say that science "disproves" anything outside of the natural realm as it is to say that it "proves" anything outside the natural realm. To support one side or the other, certainly, but not to prove or disprove. Ultimately, those determinations are left to the Sacred Sciences, namely philosophy and theology, and their sub-disciplines.
That said, Natural Science is fantastic at discerning truths about the natural realm.
(some comments)
// The best discussion I've heard on the scientific methods (there are several approaches) took place in a Philosophy of Science course that I took.
/// Every time this topic comes up in the news, the more my sentiments match what P-Marlowe said in 5. I can't speak for anyone else but the Catholics, but we sure used to be able to do a real good job in teaching and learning science (Seismology is called the Jesuit Science). I have no doubts we still can.
//// The priest who is my seminary rector uses St. Thomas Aquinas's works to argue for evolution, and it's really compelling... it's probably the only reason I haven't abandoned belief in the theory of evolution entirely.
The line "I'm interested in hearing where my logic goes wrong here" was from the previous poster which got lost at the bottom of my response.
The theory of evolution is on more solid ground right now than the theory of gravitation.
***There are a bunch of theories of gravitation, not just one. There is the Law of Gravity, only one of those. But many nonscientists use the wrong meaning of the word Law when they discuss issues, usually heated items like evolution. In science, a law is simply an observation, or a set of observations. Keppler’s “laws” of planetary motion are simply observations.
A theory, on the other hand, is an attempted explanation of such observations, trying to suggest why or how. So when you say the theory of evo is on more solid ground now than the theory of gravity, there is some truth in that. That’s because we have no real good idea of why or how gravity works. But Kirchoff’s Current Law is a very strongly held observation, leading to tons of other strong theories about electricity.
I think the evos should use a different analogy than the “law” of gravity. It doesn’t work as well as, say, Kirchoff’s Current Law.
oops, forgot to ping you on this one, asking for your feedback with respect to antagonism
OK, I'll rephrase some things. You'll understand the misconception though, since the most influential book in the history of Evolutionism was titled On the Origin of Species (and yes, I realize that's not the same as the origin of life).
There is currently no accepted theory of origins. There are a lot of hypotheses competing for acceptance, but no theory.
I'd be interested in seeing how someone would propose to test those hypotheses.
As for common descent, that was a decent theory for quite a while but was entirely supported when genetics came along. Genetics could have overturned that theory but rather it support it.
This is where you still lose me. I understand that discoveries in genetics have been interpreted to be broadly consistent with what evolutionary scientists would have expected. But unless there are repeatable experiments that have the potential for demonstrating the theory, I fail to see how this supports a theory about the past in a way that conforms to the scientific method.
You can say that the genetic evidence supports, or is consistent with, evolutionary thought, but it seems like you're straying into "worldview" territory when you do so, unless your deductions are based on the scientific method, and I don't see how they are.
Otherwise I think someone could just as easily say that the genetic evidence is entirely consistent with a theory of intelligent design (i.e. genetics are similar because that's the tool the designer used; animals that appear similar would naturally have similar DNA). Yes, that strays from the scientific method into a worldview question, but no more so than the evolutionist arguments do, as far as I can tell.
There is, however, a robust theory describing how organisms changed since their origins. That is what the theory of evolution covers.
Same question: how do you test that theory - a theory that at its core is about the past - experimentally? Especially when the theory is about things which are believed to have happened over extraordinarily long periods of time? You can test predictions based on the theory, but what if those predictions are just as consistent with theories of design? And even if design isn't the only alternative, how can you say that such experiments "prove" something that is supposed to have happened in the past without delving into what amounts to philosophy?
There is the idea of "created kinds" coming from religion, but that idea has not been shown to be scientifically accurate.
I think it's probably non-falsifiable and non-provable; I'm just arguing that the same is essentially true of evolution.
Genetics can track the evolution of organisms pretty well. The other primates (apes and monkeys) were among the first critters to be sequenced. Those sequences have agreed pretty well with what the fossils already suggested.
It seems to me there's an awful lot of circularity involved here.
In science there does not seem to be much question anymore on this issue.
That may be, but it's either an argument from authority or an argument from popularity, so it's not terribly relevant.
They assemble facts and from those facts generate hypotheses and theories to explain the facts. In religion, the answers are revealed, and the data is rearranged to support that revelation.
Yeah, I've heard that argument made, and it's essentially true. I'm just arguing that evolution is more religion than science.
That is why scientists have such problems with creation "science" -- it does not follow the scientific method. It is designed to reach a specific conclusion no matter what the data say. Just look at Answers in Genesis and their Statement of Faith. The first line is: "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Check out the rest. With a tenet such as this AiG and the other creationist websites are doing the exact opposite of science. They are doing what is called apologetics.
I agree. I just don't see how evolutionary theory is any different.
Chance is a term misused by creationists. The mutations that lead to micro- and then macroevolution are not totally random. They follow the rules of chemistry and physics.
That's fair.
I don't have time to deal with this right now, but be assured that scientists are not just dropping the scientific method in favor of something else.
That's what I'm questioning, when it comes to arguments made in favor of evolutionary descent.
I'll check back later for any responses. I'm interested in hearing where my logic goes wrong here.
And I'm interested in hearing your responses to this. You don't have to convince me that arguing in favor of Creationism or ID isn't science, and doesn't follow the scientific method - I agree. I just think the same is true of arguing about any theory about things that happened in the past. It's a legitimate subject for study, argument, and research, but unless you can somehow design a repeatable experiment to show significant aspects of evolution actually happening, then I don't see how it's science any more than Creationism or ID are.
Again, where am I wrong?
***I don’t think you are wrong, I find myself agreeing with you.
Actually your view of evolution is incorrect. It does not include origins. There is currently no accepted theory of origins. There are a lot of hypotheses competing for acceptance, but no theory. There is, however, a robust theory describing how organisms changed since their origins. That is what the theory of evolution covers....Microbes from non-living soup? Back to origins. See the above.
***This is the point where I have the most disagreement with so many who post here on Free Republic, thanks for pointing it out. My biggest disagreement isn’t over evolution, it is over abiogenesis. And, as you point out, that is also where the evidence starts to get very hazy. The two competing factions tend to argue that either Life was put here by God or Life arose by chance. Since the evidence is not compelling, even by your admission, I think both sides of this controversy should be taught in science classes as well as philosophy classes.
Excellent post. I pretty much agree with most of what you wrote except this part: “Until philosophy and theology courses are given equal time with science,”... That’s because I don’t have a very high view of philosophy nor even theology, as compared to science. It’s just my viewpoint, probably arising from my own personal failings or haughtiness, but that’s all right. ;-)
You abandon the field about the same time as you always do.
bump (for later reference)
Antagonism is not allowed on “ecumenic” threads in the Religion Forum. If you cannot or will not comply, leave the thread.
The Founding Father’s created a nation they thought would please God.Their constitution simply codified in the temporal the nontemporal inalienable rights God has given ALL men.
Most scientists up to and including Einstien,discovered through empiracal research,evidence they thought revealed some of the hidden physical laws of the universe which God had created.
Then athiestic socialists did a coup de tat of academia and the command went out that ID,no matter how strongly suggested in scientific research,will never be even hinted at or all support from and access to,the scientific community will end.
This purge of the scientific inteligencia of faith started in 1927 Copenhagen (about the time Stalin siezed control of the highly respected Russian scientists) when the most revolutionary physicists of the world gathered to finally establish and interpret the ultimate reality and ramifications of quantum theory.
Unfortunately for the militant agnostics,quantum mechanics could not explaim how or why many of it’s equations worked.Such puzzles could only be explained by inserting the influences of a seperate reality—or “virtual reality” as they called this ghost universe that is responsible for the logistics of “our” universe.Naturally when one proves scientifically the existance of another plane of reality,just like God’s,the thrill of such a discovery should be immense.
Not so—though they discovered through empiracal evidence the seperate reality that quantum theory required,the physicists blew it off as “metaphysical baggage” unworthy of further thought outside of pragmatic applications.
Now if there is no ID in our universe is there ID in the other one our’s relies on for it’s operation?
I suppose if and when leftist academia get their athiest mitts on that one,it will become Godless as well.
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.