The Intelligent Design/Evolution Discussion Thread

[Cythraul]

Because that doesn't actually explain anything. What created God?

Couldn't one raise a similar objection concerning any theoretical entity that humans posit?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Couldn't one raise a similar objection concerning any theoretical entity that humans posit?

Probly. What are you getting at?

 

[Cythraul]

I'm not trying to be mean. If you want me to use some term other than "fairy tale", fine - but I'd say that's a pretty accurate description of the concept of God.

Is it though? It's not like positing the existence of God was entirely without grounds at some point. That's why the idea of a unicorn has no important place in intellectual history, and the idea of God does.

 

[Cythraul]

Probly. What are you getting at?

Well, wouldn't that be a problem? I mean, a scientist would say something like "We posit the existence of entity A in order to account for the way things are." But couldn't I just say "Well, that doesn't explain anything..." in the same manner that you did? That's a problem. I don't think you should regard said objection as being very strong or convincing.

 

[skeptik]

Wouldn't the fact that God was created kind of negate many of the qualities ascribed to him in certain faiths (the answer is yes)? This is what makes raising this question about God different from raising it about the big bang, in that, while we may not be able to fathom something having never existed, it does not contradict the theory. We just don't know the answer.

 

[AchrisK]

I have a lot more to read, but tell me this: Is it just me, or is it a stretch to call evolution (common descent) a fact, when they don't know how it happened?

Scientific method:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Science readily admits that there are many theories on what mechanism is actually responsible for the diversity of living creatures and organisms. So if they don't know how it happened, and can't repeat it in a labratory, how can they call it fact?

 

[Cythraul]

Does it really matter whether or not the theory of evolution is proven 100% to be true? I don't think it does. What I think really matters is the idea that the theory of evolution is more justified than ID.

 

[AchrisK]

Does it really matter whether or not the theory of evolution is proven 100% to be true? I don't think it does. What I think really matters is the idea that the theory of evolution is more justified than ID.

I disagree, and that is exactly why I don't want to discuss ID. I want to see evolution stand on it's own two evolved feet If it is as valid as science seems to imply (they call it a Fact), then it should have no problem standing up to scrutiny. If it can't handle it, then maybe it should be put back to the status of theory.

BTW I do understand the following (from talkorigins.org):

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

 

[unknown]

Funny you bring up Gould...

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

 

[Death Aflame]

I don't see why creationists object to evolution simply because they believe it appears incompatible with their faith on a surface level when, in reality, the idea of creation/design via evolution doesn't seem all that far removed. I mean the means aren't the point, the main idea is that we were created. How this was done should not be nearly as important as determining and, eventually, committing to why it (creation) was done in the first place.

 

[AchrisK]

Funny you bring up Gould...

Dude, I already referenced the entire page that that was taken from. It doesn't prove anything. All it does is restate that evolution is considered a fact.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I just came across this Science Daily article (via this Wikinews one) about recently discovered cases of gene transfer from simpler organisms to more complex ones.

Basically, it opens up a possible mechanism of evolution for biologists to investigate. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what kinds of results they're able to achieve through experimentation.

 

[MasterOLightning]

I've always understood a theory to be as close to fact as an idea can get. When people are arguing that evolution is a theory rather than a fact, they are really just not understanding each other's vocabulary.

One thing I always consider in advanced scientific discussions is the nature of the human brain. Isn't it somewhat arrogant of us to think that we are of the highest order of intelligence in the entire universe? The most brilliant of human teachers could not teach the most brilliant of cats calculus. A cat's brain simply can't comprehend it. Do we think that our brains are as good as brains can be? Or is it more reasonable to think that are just some things we can never come around to, as hard as we try? Eventually we reach the point where we are the cat trying to learn calculus. Or maybe we can learn it all? If anything, that would seem to be evidence of intelligent design.

 

[AchrisK]

I don't see why creationists object to evolution simply because they believe it appears incompatible with their faith on a surface level when, in reality, the idea of creation/design via evolution doesn't seem all that far removed. I mean the means aren't the point, the main idea is that we were created. How this was done should not be nearly as important as determining and, eventually, committing to why it (creation) was done in the first place.

I think for people who want to take the creation story literally, it is seen as an affront to that belief. It is also seen as trying to explain away God. But there are a lot of creationists whose beliefs span quite a range regarding evolution, the big bang, etc.

 

[AchrisK]

I've always understood a theory to be as close to fact as an idea can get. When people are arguing that evolution is a theory rather than a fact, they are really just not understanding each other's vocabulary.

One thing I always consider in advanced scientific discussions is the nature of the human brain. Isn't it somewhat arrogant of us to think that we are of the highest order of intelligence in the entire universe? The most brilliant of human teachers could not teach the most brilliant of cats calculus. A cat's brain simply can't comprehend it. Do we think that our brains are as good as brains can be? Or is it more reasonable to think that are just some things we can never come around to, as hard as we try? Eventually we reach the point where we are the cat trying to learn calculus. Or maybe we can learn it all? If anything, that would seem to be evidence of intelligent design.

I think semantics definitely play a role in the whole thing, and are probably abused to some extent by both sides of the argument. Like when you call something a fact, the general population interprets that as...well...fact. So to use that term regarding evolution is to continually imply that there is no question. But it seems to me that if the method is unknown and the "fact" is a bunch of assumptions based on observed relationships, then that is misleading. Also, creationists emphasise "theory" in an attempt to discredit evolution. But there is nothing wrong with trying to understand the world we live in.

I agree with your second paragraph, but evolutionists are typically unwilling to even consider the supernatural.

 

[AchrisK]

I just came across this Science Daily article (via this Wikinews one) about recently discovered cases of gene transfer from simpler organisms to more complex ones.

Basically, it opens up a possible mechanism of evolution for biologists to investigate. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what kinds of results they're able to achieve through experimentation.

Yeah, that's interesting. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

 

[CAIRATH]

...but evolutionists are typically unwilling to even consider the supernatural.

And creationists cannot stop invoking it despite there being no well established need for it at all (other than reaffirming their already present beliefs and reconciling them with reality as we understand it today).

Leaving aside which theory has the best arguments for now, I think a far more important factor why Evolution is simply "better" than ID is because of this...

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

The key difference between scientific and religious dogma based ideas is that scientific ideas evolve over time. Science is and always has been a quest for knowledge. And as we learn new things we find out that sometimes what we used to consider "fact" or "true" turns out to be incomplete or wrong. If you look at the scientific field over the past 500 years you'll find a huge amount of theories that were eventually disproven, causing them to either be revised or thrown out the window entirely in favour of a new one. Constantly expanding and updating our collective understanding of reality as we learn new things.

Religion on the other hand is based on a set of ideas that were established a long time ago in a period where people, compared to the people roaming this earth today, were utterly ignorant and lived in very different cultures with a very different frame of reference. Yet those ideas evolve very slowly, if at all. For the most part they are simply presented as "law" and people are encouraged to follow them without question. The same applies to ID which really is nothing more than religious Creationism reworded to make it appear more scientific. It doesn't offer any truths, it doesn't offer any testable hypotheses, it doesn't offer any perspective on expanding our knowledge. It simply states "Don't break your little head over all of this, God did it. Don't even try to understand it." It's the ultimate cop-out and in essence is not simply unscientific, but basically anti-science.

That key difference is why Evolution has earned its place in the science classroom and why we need to fight very hard to make sure ID stays out of it (in most countries this doesn't even seem to be much of an issue but in America it seems to be). As long as mankind sticks to doing that then one hundred years from now people might not be learning Darwinist evolution the way we learn it today, but chances are they will be learning an expanded or updated version of it or they will be learning some new theory and Darwin's theory will have found its place in science history as just another intermediate theory as so many scientific theories have. Either way it will mean that people are always at the cutting edge of human understanding of reality. Striving for anything less is an insult to human intellect if you ask me.

If you're religious and truly believe that God created us and our complex organs such as the brain, you'd think he'd actually want us to use them.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

What caused the big bang to occur? What existed before the big bang?

A dense form of energy

 

[zabu of nΩd]

A dense form of energy

Oh shit, so that's what it was.

 

[Matt]

i did not no that !.