The Intelligent Design/Evolution Discussion Thread

[cookiecutter]

So it isn't possible that evolution is just the means of creation and/or design? Keep in mind my initial post was regarding ID as a non-scientific idea.

It's possible, but it's also possible that a giant invisible meteor will hit the earth right after you read this post. You have to show evidence for a possibility before it should be considered

One thing that caused me to almost have a hard time taking TalkOrigins.org seriously was the article on "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

All the article did was state over and over that evolution (common descent) is a fact, and the mechanism by which it was accomplished (natural selection, etc) is the part that is in the theory stage (unknown to an extent or entirely). It was kinda strange and seemed dumb. I know (knew) I needed to read much more to see why they felt so confident in making such silly sounding claims, and I am doing that.

This flabbergasts me. "It was kinda strange and seemed dumb"?! Oh, well those scientists who have been working on this for years might as well quit, because it "seems dumb".

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

Argument from ignorance is not a valid argument.

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?

Speciation and genetic mutation are reproducible in the lab. That is the mechanism.

 

[AchrisK]

This flabbergasts me. "It was kinda strange and seemed dumb"?! Oh, well those scientists who have been working on this for years might as well quit, because it "seems dumb".

I didn't say that. Don't take me out of context. Don't be a tool and nit-pick sentences. Listen to what I am saying! I never said science should stop doing research. In fact I said it was a good thing. What sounded dumb was the reiteration of "evolution is a fact", to prove that evolution is not just a theory.

Speciation and genetic mutation are reproducible in the lab. That is the mechanism.

Not on the level required to explain the variety we see in the world. If it is a solved case and "that is the mechanism", then why this:

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.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

?

 

[AchrisK]

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...

Incorrect. This is the second time you have said that. If your only defense of evolution is to bash creationsim, then you have already lost. Let evolution defend itself. Let it tell us why it is a fact.

Don't get me wrong, I am no scholar. I am in the process of learning what evolution says myself. I am willing to accept the scientific findings in regard to evolution and species and all of that. I am not going to deny that science has accomplished some level of speciation, or that science hasn't observed relationships in living organisms. But I am not going to bow down to the evolution religion. And understand, I am not calling what science is doing religion, but I am getting a sense that there is more faith than will be admitted, and much of the study revolves around assuming evolution as fact and then look for things to support it. It's very much like what I have been accused of in regard to my spiritual beliefs.

Nobody was invoking anything. I just made a comment. Was it false?

 

[AchrisK]

Note that that is from 1981.

That is on the talkorigins.org website right now on the "Evolution is a fact and a theory" page.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Further, it was also just quoted by unknown a few posts back.

 

[CAIRATH]

Incorrect. This is the second time you have said that. If your only defense of evolution is to bash creationsim, then you have already lost. Let evolution defend itself. Let it tell us why it is a fact.

Nobody was invoking anything. I just made a comment. Was it false?

Yes, you only made a comment. And I responded to that comment (as a side note to the rest of my post I might add). You say that evolutionists are unwilling to consider the super natural, I explain why (because science minded people see no need for it when there are more reasonable explanations and because deferring an explanation to the super natural typically solves absolutely nothing) and counter that Intelligent Design proponents do the exact opposite and insist on invoking the super natural whenever they claim that something is beyond human comprehension (or atleast their view of human comprehension, warped by an unwillingness or failure to understand scientific evidence).

Unless you are going to argue that Intelligent Design at its very core is not about the super natural (which would be easily refuted) I fail to see which part of my comment was "incorrect" exactly.

But I am not going to bow down to the evolution religion. And understand, I am not calling what science is doing religion, but I am getting a sense that there is more faith than will be admitted, and much of the study revolves around assuming evolution as fact and then look for things to support it.

I already wrote this in my previous post, but again, the only way there is any "faith" involved in the evolution theory is if you insist that science claims it to be the perpetual truth which it simply doesn't. The evolution theory is a fact based on what we currently know. That means that the amount of evidence that supports it is so huge that to consider any other currently existing alternative (like ID, for which there is no evidence) is simply ridiculous. That doesn't mean it will forever remain an absolute truth. As I said, maybe a 100 years from now the theory will have been revised somewhat or will have been replaced with an altogether different theory that explains things to a more satisfactory level. The evolution theory isn't "done" or anything. It's not like scientists are patting eachother on the back, congratulating eachother on a job well done and moving on to other ventures. It represents what we know now. And that may very well differ from what we know ten years from now. If you were asked to consider the evolution theory to be the unequivocal truth for all eternity then yes it would require faith. But no scientist has ever asked or claimed that to be the case. This in stark contrast with religion and theories like ID which are based upon it, which simply state a "truth" that they feel cannot and should not be challenged and that will never evolve. That requires faith.

The fact that you compare evolution to religion (only to instantly distance yourself from the comparison) tells me that you really do have trouble making this distinction. Maybe as you read more scientific publications you'll get a clearer picture of the way scientific discourse works. Science doesn't share Religion's arrogance in assuming to have answers that cannot or should never be challenged or revised. This goes for any scientific field and evolutionary biology really is no different even if you constantly insist it is despite the fact that you yourself admit you have very little formal knowledge of the subject.

But anyway, I am just repeating my previous post now so I guess rather than continuing this rant I will just refer to my previous post in this thread.

[edit: added a few additional notes to clarify my point]

 

[cookiecutter]

CAIRATH I think I love you

 

[AchrisK]

Yes, you only made a comment. And I responded to that comment (as a side note to the rest of my post I might add). You say that evolutionists are unwilling to consider the super natural, I explain why (because science minded people see no need for it when there are more reasonable explanations and because deferring an explanation to the super natural typically solves absolutely nothing) and counter that Intelligent Design proponents do the exact opposite and insist on invoking the super natural whenever they claim that something is beyond human comprehension (or atleast their view of human comprehension, warped by an unwillingness or failure to understand scientific evidence).

My comment was to MasterOLightning based on what he said. I am not trying to argue for intelligent design. I understand that science has to deal with things that can be physically interacted with, etc. My comment was not meant to say otherwise.

Unless you are going to argue that Intelligent Design at its very core is not about the super natural (which would be easily refuted) I fail to see which part of my comment was "incorrect" exactly.

Read what I said. What is incorrect is this statement:

"...I think a far more important factor why Evolution is simply "better" than ID is because of this..."

I am not interested in evolution vs ID. I want to leave ID entirely out of this discussion. I don't want to hear any ID bashing, and I shouldn't have to because I am not defending ID. I am interested in the claims of evolution. As I said, if it does deserve the status of fact, the evidence and proof should be pretty overwhelming. And not overwhelming when compared to a rival theory, but overwhelming in and of itself.

The fact that you compare evolution to religion (only to instantly distance yourself from the comparison) tells me that you really do have trouble making this distinction. Maybe as you read more scientific publications you'll get a clearer picture of the way scientific discourse works. Science doesn't share Religion's arrogance in assuming to have answers that cannot or should never be challenged or revised. This goes for any scientific field and evolutionary biology really is no different even if you constantly insist it is despite the fact that you yourself admit you have very little formal knowledge of the subject.

You misunderstand me. I don't compare scientific research in the field of evolution to religion. I am just saying it seems that evolution is a theory that lacks the level of proof that one would think to have it considered fact. The overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points toward instantaneous existence and stasis of species. The mechanism by which macroevolutionary change happens on the level required to explain what we have before us is not known. These seem like pretty big deals. They seem significant enough for evolution to be considered a theory. Yet you have a whole page where different experts keep insiting that evolution is a fact. You have evolutionists continually saying that anyone who doesn't agree is stupid. Maybe comparing this to religion was a bit strong, but it definitely smells of a belief system, or at least cronyism.

...and yes, I do need to do more research.

 

[cookiecutter]

It is a fact and a theory, which I believe the page explains

 

[AchrisK]

It is a fact and a theory, which I believe the page explains

I understand what the page is saying. All life has a common ancestor is the "fact" of evolution. The "theory" of evolution has to do with the mechanisms which were able to accomplish that. I just question the former based on a level of evidence that doesn't seem to be as solid as many things we think of as fact. Has evolution really passed the types of tests and proofs that a typical scientific theory must pass to have the same status? If not, why has it been given that status?

 

[skeptik]

I don't understand why you continue to speak so strongly when your knowledge on the subject is admittedly weak.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Because it's a fucking debate.

Rock on!

 

[challenge_everything]

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?

When I read this, I instantly thought of the Simpsons episode where Lisa discovers the 'angel' and the townsfolk end up going on a rampage to destroy everything 'scientific'. Moe tries to smash a tyrannosaurus skeleton and is crushed by it and cries out "I hope medical science can save me".

It's the 'theory' of relativity which allows us to control atomic energy. It's the 'theory' of thermodynamics that allows us to run our machines. They are theories because we can't actually SEE what occurs at the atomic level, but we nevertheless have very strong evidence to support these occurrences as being fact. You can't repeat it in a laboratory because it takes thousands if not millions of years.

 

[challenge_everything]

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.

This is the best point. Why are we wasting our time on questioning evolution because of AchrisK's inbred resistance to the idea? The real question is whether the earliest forms of life exhibit intelligent design, or whether the creation of the world (which in turn gave rise to life) required intelligent design.

I recommend reading something by Paul Davies on this subject. Very accessible.

 

[AchrisK]

I don't understand why you continue to speak so strongly when your knowledge on the subject is admittedly weak.

So being truthful is not allowed? I didn't say my knowledge was weak, I simply admitted that I am still in the process of learning. Whose knowledge is complete in any area? Are you saying I should stop discussing this?

My knowledge may be limited, but look at you guys. You can't defend evolution without comparing it to intelligent design. You can't have this conversation without trying to discredit me personally. You misread and/or deisregard what I say and I have to keep repeating the same points.

Look at this:

This is the best point. Why are we wasting our time on questioning evolution because of AchrisK's inbred resistance to the idea? The real question is whether the earliest forms of life exhibit intelligent design, or whether the creation of the world (which in turn gave rise to life) required intelligent design.

I recommend reading something by Paul Davies on this subject. Very accessible.

So a user named challenge_everything is questioning the challenging of evolution? Ironic.

You guys seem to accept evolution without really understanding or questioning its claims. That's faith.

 

[AchrisK]

When I read this, I instantly thought of the Simpsons episode where Lisa discovers the 'angel' and the townsfolk end up going on a rampage to destroy everything 'scientific'. Moe tries to smash a tyrannosaurus skeleton and is crushed by it and cries out "I hope medical science can save me".

It's the 'theory' of relativity which allows us to control atomic energy. It's the 'theory' of thermodynamics that allows us to run our machines. They are theories because we can't actually SEE what occurs at the atomic level, but we nevertheless have very strong evidence to support these occurrences as being fact. You can't repeat it in a laboratory because it takes thousands if not millions of years.

I thought those were "laws" of thermodynamics.

 

[cookiecutter]

You guys seem to accept evolution without really understanding or questioning its claims. That's faith.

We accept that scientists who have studied this idea for 150 years are not bullshitting us. That is not faith, that is trusting in people who we know have the knowledge. Before you say this is like believing a minister, it is different. Scientists are held to strict peer review and methodology, unlike a minister who can make up anything he wants.

 

[skeptik]

So being truthful is not allowed? I didn't say my knowledge was weak, I simply admitted that I am still in the process of learning. Whose knowledge is complete in any area? Are you saying I should stop discussing this?

My knowledge may be limited, but look at you guys. You can't defend evolution without comparing it to intelligent design. You can't have this conversation without trying to discredit me personally. You misread and/or deisregard what I say and I have to keep repeating the same points.

Look at this:



So a user named challenge_everything is questioning the challenging of evolution? Ironic.

You guys seem to accept evolution without really understanding or questioning its claims. That's faith.

I'm not saying you should stop talking, I'm saying you should stop saying things like "evolution should be able to stand on its own two evolved feet (LOLZ!), but there's not enough evidence for it" when you don't know whether or not there is enough evidence for it because you haven't done enough research. Your doubts are stronger than they should be given the amount of study that you've actually done to this point.

 

[AchrisK]

We accept that scientists who have studied this idea for 150 years are not bullshitting us. That is not faith, that is trusting in people who we know have the knowledge. Before you say this is like believing a minister, it is different. Scientists are held to strict peer review and methodology, unlike a minister who can make up anything he wants.

Without comparing it to anything else, it is still faith.

Let me make myself clear yet one more time. I am not questioning the science that goes into studying the origins of the many species we see around us. Maybe I will at some point when I learn more, but I am not now. I am merely questioning the the seeming leaps to conclusions which have led to the following statements:

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

In contrast [to the theories concerning the machanisms of evolution], the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

Oh, and what do we have here? It's the all important battle cry of the evolutionist, present in both of these quotes:

"No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts..."

"...no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality."

It's no wonder that with respected evolutionists constantly saying these things, people will feel required to just accept what they say. It's indoctrination of a set of beliefs. Most educated people believe in evolution because most educated people believe in evolution. Why do they feel the need to say these things, if the facts that support their claims are so bulletproof?

 

[AchrisK]

I'm not saying you should stop talking, I'm saying you should stop saying things like "evolution should be able to stand on its own two evolved feet (LOLZ!), but there's not enough evidence for it" when you don't know whether or not there is enough evidence for it because you haven't done enough research. Your doubts are stronger than they should be given the amount of study that you've actually done to this point.

Well then, instead of telling me how much I don't know, tell me why I am wrong.

Tell me, for example, what else science calls fact. What is the precident for scientific fact, and does evolution stand up to the type of proof that was required to establish that?

 

[skeptik]

Look back on the thread. This has been done several times. Evolution has been submitted to and passed the rigors of peer review about as much as any other theory that is accepted as fact. Some evolutionary biologists feel the need to state such things as "no reasonable person would deny that..." because they are put on the defensive by those who continually reject their findings without attempting to understand or even look at them.