Posted on 06/23/2007 11:45:35 PM PDT by MatthewTan
And creating a false dichotomy. Were you to prove the the theory of evolution is false, does nothing to make an alternative theory true. In fact, for the ID'ers, you never prove a theory. You just lend credibility to why it must be so, and show that it is not disproved despite every effort to find evidence to disprove it.
BTW, for the ID'ers around here ,ID is not a scientific theory. It makes no prediction that you can test against empirical evidence.
Actually the other side of this argument is one long running personal attack principally based on name calling.
NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this article—and changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camp’s response to Theobald’s criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobold’s on-going adjustments and modifications.
Greetings, Ichneumon! It’s good to see you are (again) off hiatus. Any progress on the Coulter post?
I honestly don’t know the “official” definition of the “Theory of Evolution” or the “Neo-Darwinian ToE.” I know it starts with common descent from the first living cell and then builds on that based on random mutation of DNA plus natural selection (RA+NS). What I honestly don’t know for sure is whether the “official” theory (if such a thing even exists) necessarily rules out any and all intelligent design. I’ll bet Richard Dawkins would say it does, but I doubt he speaks for all of “science.”
My impression is that, when you clear away all the smoke, the ToE is actually the logical *result* of the ideological rejection of ID. In other words, once ID is ruled out of bounds (either explicitly or implicitly), the ToE is all you have left.
Without ID, you have nothing left to explain the complexity of life except RA+NS. If you can think of something else, please let me know.
And that is precisely why evolutionists dogmatically insist that RA+NS can explain all the complexities of life — even new ones that were just discovered yesterday! I see it all the time right here on FR. Some scientist discovers that the human is marvelously optimized as a network, but the evos already “know” that RA+NS can explain it! They don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!
When you dig into their claims of how the eye, ear, brain, heart, circulatory system, etc., resulted from RA+NS, you find that their peer-reviewed papers invariably simply *assume* that evolution (without ID) can explain those phenomenon. And they count all those papers that simply assumed evolution as corroboration of the ToE. In the meantime, they essentially prohibit any paper that explicitly cites ID, then they claim that no papers have been published on ID! Convenient, eh.
When they are pressed, they sneakily shift the burden of proof and demand that the skeptics prove that RA+NS *cannot* explain some aspect of life. Their other trick is to simply claim that if you don’t believe that RA+NS can explain the eye and ear, you simply haven’t used your imagination sufficiently. Is that how science is supposed to work? I don’t think so.
That should have been “Some scientist discovers that the human *brain* is marvelously optimized as a network.” Darnit!
Make that RM+NS (random mutation plus natural selection). It’s getting late!
I really wish there was a way to edit posts after they are posted. You can do it on amazon.com discussions. Why can’t we do it here? Yes, I realize it could cause problems...
Petitio Principii: (circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question) in general, the fallacy of assuming as a premiss a statement which has the same meaning as the conclusion.Source: Introduction to Logic
Your sig says:
“Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...”
Gosh, that’s ingenious. Why didn’t I think of that?
I just love the tricks you guys play (on yourselves and others). Both “gravity” and “evolution” can be called “theories,” so you guys think that makes them equally well supported.
I can throw a ball into the air and watch it fall due to gravity. Let me know know when you can throw a fish into the air and watch it evolve into a frog — or a monkey.
You guys are so lost you don’t even know which end is up.
Well, no, you're wrong. Both gravity and evolution are observed facts. Why and how gravity and evolution occur -- that's the more interesting part and that's what the respective theories of gravitation and evolution attempt to explain.
In no way am I attempting to pretend that equal evidence supports the respective theories of gravitation and evolution -- of the two, evolution is much better understood (just ask a string theorist if you don't believe me). Rather, the point was meant to articulate the absurdity of those creationists who parrot the ridiculous talking points about evolution being "only" a theory.
Let me know know when you can throw a fish into the air and watch it evolve into a frog — or a monkey.
Well, see, if I threw a fish up in the air in order to turn it into a frog or a monkey, then that would be intelligent design. If you're seriously interested in an answer to your question, there are dozens of ways we can observe evolution. However, before I start cracking open the textbooks, I want to know that you're entering into this in good faith.
>>Is Darwinist theory falsifiable? If Darwinist theory is falsified, then of course ID theory is affirmed.<<
1. This assumes either/or between Darwinism and ID -thats not necessarily the case.
2. ID needs to be used to make real world predictions that can be verified and are not covered by other theories. That’s what keeps ID from being a useful theory, not anything to do with Darwinism
3. Darwinism isn’t modern evolutionary theory. Darwinism is 150 years old. This article argues with something that isn’t even current theory and hasn’t been for a long, long time. Its like attacking the Church’s current activities because of something a Saint did long ago. He’s still a Saint and maybe he was wrong on occasion but that no bearing on modern Church activities that differ from that long ago time.
BTW, what was the source on this? - I couldn’t find it online in a very quick search.
quote:
Well, no, you’re wrong. Both gravity and evolution are observed facts. Why and how gravity and evolution occur — that’s the more interesting part and that’s what the respective theories of gravitation and evolution attempt to explain.
my reply:
Well, no, you’re wrong. Gravity is obviously an observed fact, but (macro-)evolution is an *inferred* “fact.” If it’s actually been “observed,” as some claim, that’s only by some specialists in some arcane lab. To compare it’s level of “observability” with that of gravity is the epitome of delusion. But delusion is very common among evolutionists these days.
Your sig screams that you are one of the deluded. If I were you, I’d lose it ASAP just to avoid embarrassment.
Well, now you're playing word games.
It's an observed fact that objects fall towards the earth; it is from that observation that we infer the existence of an attractive force we call gravity. Likewise we observe a change in allele frequencies in populations over time, from which we infer evolution.
*I’m* playing word games?
We don’t just “infer” gravity because we see things fall. We feel it every second of our lives. At least I do. Perhaps you don’t. I have no way of knowing what you’re smoking.
Feelings are fo socialists and democrats.
Rational people, like Newton, do the math.
It may seem intuitive to you, but it isn't. Aristotle (whom I hope we can agree was no intellectual lightweight) believed that all objects move towards their "natural" place, which explains why we fall towards earth. It wasn't until Newton in the 17th century that anyone inferred that gravity was a specific attractive force. We observe gravity's effects, just as we observe evolution's, but we have to infer the existence of each.
I'm not "smoking" anything, and I've refrained from insulting you as I endeavor to explain this to you. I hope you will afford me the courtesy of remaining similarly civil.
your quote of someone else:
Pick up any biology textbooks, books, articles. And you will see the pervasive use of the word “design” - biological designs in cells, tissues, structures, bio-systems, organisms, etc.
your reply:
Yes, in the sense of “the arrangement of elements or details” (one of the definitions in a dictionary I just checked).
my reply to you:
Now that’s very interesting. You seem to be suggesting that “design” can exist without a designer. But one of the main objections to ID is that design implies a designer.
Actually, I think design *does* imply a designer, but I don’t think science should be in the business of deciding what to accept and what to reject on the basis of its religious implications. It should decide that on the basis of the observed reality. I realize that’s a radical concept these days, but it wasn’t always so. That’s why Newton, Kelvin, and Pasteur, to name just a few of the greatest scientists of all time, believed strongly in ID and said so in no uncertain terms.
On the other hand, British astronomer Fred Hoyle believed in ID yet apparently remained an athiest. I don’t quite understand his thinking, but it does show that an intelligent person can believe in intelligent design without believing in an intelligent designer.
“I’m not “smoking” anything, and I’ve refrained from insulting you as I endeavor to explain this to you. I hope you will afford me the courtesy of remaining similarly civil.”
Oh, I see. You are not going to explicitly “insult” me. You are just going to implicitly insult me by patronizing me. Sorry, but no thanks.
And sorry, but gravity is more easily observed than macro-evolution by anywhere from about twelve orders of magnitude to infinity. If you don’t realize that, I *hope* for your sake that you *are* smoking something.
You implied that I was under the influence of drugs. Now I'm not sure what the culture is like wherever it is you dwell, but in my neck of the woods that's an insult. The insult was unprovoked and unappreciated, and I asked you -- politely I feel -- to refrain from similar remarks in the interest of civil discourse.
I notice that you have no response to the point I was trying to make, that the existence of evolution and gravity alike is inferred from observed phenomena. You seem to be back-peddling on your earlier claim that gravity is somehow directly observable.
No, that's not quite right.
ID fails to be science because it does not explore how design comes about. The difference may seem irrelevant to you, but it is not trivial.
Science is the business of finding regular processes that explain how larger effects come about.
Design is an observation of some feature of an object, such as complexity, beauty or regularity. Snowflakes appear to be designed, whereas pebbles generally do not.
The task of science is not simply to say, gee whiz, that looks designed. Science wants to know how it got that way. The history of science suggests that attributing effects like wind and rain, earthquakes and tornadoes, to the intentions of deities is rather lame. It ends the discussion long before anything useful has been learned.
TOE is an explanatory theory. It describes the processes by which design occurs in living things. If you wish to replace it with a more accurate or more complete theory, you must first come up with and alternative theory that explains as much as TOE, provides equivalent suggestions for continuing research, and goes on to do all of this better or more efficiently than TOE.
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.