The Intelligent Design/Evolution Discussion Thread

[AchrisK]

You might for instance look at the fact that Einstein's theory of general relativity is currently incompatible with the laws of quantum mechanics. All attempts at creating a unified theory have been unsuccessful so far, yet both theories hold up to empirical evidence and are considered facts. Something can be known to be incomplete and yet still be true based on what we currently know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Field_Theory

This is interesting, but I don't know that it applies as a precident for what science defines as fact (which is the point about evolution that I am questioning). It seems like this article is saying they haven't been able to find a single theory that can bring Strong nuclear force, Electromagnetic force, Weak nuclear force and Gravitational force together into a single framework that can be used to describe and predict for all four force-mediating fields. This doesn't seem to question the facthood of any single theory. It may be that they are too different from each other in ways that make a single unifying theory unrealistic, or maybe one day they will find a correlation that will allow a single unifying theory.

 

[AchrisK]

Your insistance that trusting the results of scientific process is the same thing as "faith" is also pretty aggravating.

First you need to understand that I am not saying that the discoveries of evolutionary scientists are lies or are invalid or require faith. I keep saying this, yet you keep saying things like:

"...this isn't just people having random ideas or opinions and jotting them down..."

and

"I still cannot help but feel from the way you are responding ... you ... seem ...to consider evolution as just another idea that has no more merit than religious theories."

In so doing you attempt to paint me as some kind of irrational fanatic who is paranoid about anything that comes from the scientific community. This is a cheap debating tactic that I don't appreciate.

Quotes from me:

I want to say I understand that evolution is the best natural explanation for what we see around us. I can accept that. I also support science doing research towards finding this stuff out. To oppose that would be ridiculous. I also don't fault science for doing so without regards to supernatural events. Doing so wouldn't make sense. But my biggest objection is with the evolutionary community who insist that evolution (i.e. common descent) is fact.

That says it pretty clearly.

Also:

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?

Is this such an unreasonable request? It's not a statement of denial. It is a request to help set a precident. That seems totally reasonable to me.

It's not the scientific results I am skeptical of, it's the conclusions/assumptions that are made based on those results (or possibly the conclusions/assumptions that were made beforehand that science has been trying so hard to show to have been correct).

So please stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

The world didn't turn oout very well. If anything, I'd call it unintelligent design.

 

[challenge_everything]

Cairath: well done on one the best posts I've read in a long time. I think no further response is necessary. Can we talk about ID now?

 

[Faint]

The world didn't turn oout very well. If anything, I'd call it unintelligent design.

I am yet to seen an apparent reality to justify the claim that God exits because, as far as I'm concerned, stating that unicorns exists is just as tenable. Empirical arguments for the existence of God are shit.

 

[skeptik]

Is this such an unreasonable request? It's not a statement of denial. It is a request to help set a precident. That seems totally reasonable to me.

We've already done this.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I am yet to seen

I think the religious debate has already been done to death here, but we do have a separate thread for it fyi.

 

[cookiecutter]

AchrisK: Evolution is considered a fact because the gradual change from one species to another has been observed. It is also considered a theory because there is a massive amount of evidence to show that this is the method through which all life on earth came to its present form. CAIRATH et al. tell me if I've made a mistake here.

 

[AchrisK]

AchrisK: Evolution is considered a fact because the gradual change from one species to another has been observed.

I believe that this may be only one of many reasons it is considered fact. I think reading the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent will outline most of what science points to as the basis for the fact part of evolution.

I am unsure of the level of gradualness of any observed speciation and the level of human interaction involved in causing these changes, and if these changes resulted in favorable offspring (the whole natural selection thing). I realize it may be impossible for a human to observe the type of gradualness that is claimed in common descent, but I guess some bacteria or other micro-organisms, and fruitflies, reproduce at such a rate that allows us to make potential relative comparisons.

It is also considered a theory because there is a massive amount of evidence to show that this is the method through which all life on earth came to its present form. CAIRATH et al. tell me if I've made a mistake here.

Well the theory part has to do with how it happened. It's still considered theory based on our lack of total understanding and proof of how it could happen. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the following still holds true, even though it is from 1981:

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

...and I am not trying to play a semantics game when I talk about the theory of evolution (as described above). This (and most of what I have quoted throughout) is from Talkorigins.org and is the scientific position on evolution. Theories are good things and are not random shots in the dark. Natural selection is a real thing, but neither it nor an acceptable alternative has been fully proven as the mechanism (in whole or in part) of common descent.

Darwin was a genius and had an amazing and logical mind. He thought the whole thing through so well. It's amazing how far we have come from Darwin's time, yet how close to his original ideas we still look for the answers, because he really did think it through to an amazing level. I want to read The Origin of Species when I get a chance.

 

[AchrisK]

We've already done this.

No, I don't think we have. I have been offered no reasonable precident. Well, gravity has been mentioned, but it seems like a much more solid fact than evolution. It's fully observable and the results are repeatable all day long and there are no questions as to the fact of it in the real world. I just don't see evolution as being this sure of a thing, do you?

Also, some have cited definitions of fact from talkorigins.org, but I am interested to see how they compare to other scientific facts.

Anyway, I plan to read this (Evolution as Fact and Theory) to get a deeper understanding of the fact claim. Some quotes on talkorigins.com have been taken from this, but it would be good to read the whole thing.

 

[AchrisK]

Cairath: well done on one the best posts I've read in a long time. I think no further response is necessary. Can we talk about ID now?

You can talk about it, but don't expect me to defend it.

 

[CAIRATH]

First you need to understand that I am not saying that the discoveries of evolutionary scientists are lies or are invalid or require faith.

[...]

In so doing you attempt to paint me as some kind of irrational fanatic who is paranoid about anything that comes from the scientific community.

[...]

It's not the scientific results I am skeptical of, it's the conclusions/assumptions that are made based on those results (or possibly the conclusions/assumptions that were made beforehand that science has been trying so hard to show to have been correct).

It was not a cheap debating trick (and wasn't meant to be), it was a genuine observation based on comments you've made in this thread and the religion thread and in the very post I just quoted. And you did literally say several times that you feel it requires faith or that people's assumption that evolution is correct is based on faith (which I've explained several times by now is not true and I will not repeat that again), otherwise I wouldn't even have brought that up in the first place.

Here's some quotes just from this thread:

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.

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

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

You can keep saying that, but it doesn't prove anything. You are accepting that on faith and insisting that everyone else should too.

By not investigating both sides of the issue and making up your own mind, you are taking some of what you believe on faith.

Anyway...

This is interesting, but I don't know that it applies as a precident for what science defines as fact (which is the point about evolution that I am questioning). It seems like this article is saying they haven't been able to find a single theory that can bring Strong nuclear force, Electromagnetic force, Weak nuclear force and Gravitational force together into a single framework that can be used to describe and predict for all four force-mediating fields. This doesn't seem to question the facthood of any single theory. It may be that they are too different from each other in ways that make a single unifying theory unrealistic, or maybe one day they will find a correlation that will allow a single unifying theory.

It atleast shows that theories that are essentially incompatible and under some circumstances even inconsistent with eachother, which suggests some level of incompleteness or inaccuracy in one or both that has yet to be resolved (and I assume will be at some point in the future, there certainly are enough theoretical physicists working on that problem), can still be considered true based on what we currently know.

The reason why the question you keep asking is so difficult to answer is because the question answers itself in a way (which I assume for you is not a satisfying enough answer, but it's true nonetheless). There are really no discrete steps that signify when a theory is elevated to fact. It's all a matter of consensus in the scientific community. If a theory stands the test of time and cannot be proven wrong (which so far has not yet been done to evolution) and the amount of evidence that supports the theory is considered overwhelming then it will be considered a scientific fact. And again, scientific fact does not mean immutable fact.

I personally see no reason to consider evolutionary biology any different from any other scientific fields as far as going through this process goes. But you apparently do, which again kind of suggests that you feel there is some kind of hidden agenda at work here. I guess you might argue that the fact that evolution has to duke it out against ID in the American school system could be a reason for bias, but on the other hand I don't get the impression that this is as much of an issue anywhere else in the world and science is hardly a predominantly American affair. But then we're getting into personal motivations of people which is impossible to discuss with any kind of certainty. The scientific process at its core is not susceptable to issues like these. If a theory has no convincing proof or if it is scientifically proven false and fails to hold up under peer review then it will never make it through no matter what the driving motivations of the people who initiated it are. The world wide scientific community is huge, with people from all kinds of geographical, ethnic, cultural and even religious backgrounds. Getting a theory successfully past that amount of scrutiny and into consensus is not something that is going to happen when the theory in question is shoddy.

I honestly have no idea how one would even search for the kind of specific and exact precedent you're asking, let alone compare them in any kind of meaningful and quantifiable way.

 

[CAIRATH]

Anyway, it's cool you are enjoying Darwin as much as you are. Sometimes it really is too bad that Richard Dawkins has such an aggressive writing style when it comes to issues of religion because I think you (and people like you) might otherwise enjoy his works a lot too. They really are very well written. As it stands you'd probably get (understandably) annoyed by most of his books. The Selfish Gene does focus entirely on the biology though, so if you look past the man's opinions I really recommend that book.

As a whole I still feel somewhat ambivalent about Dawkins in general. I love reading his books and I find myself agreeing with his opinions as far as religion goes, but I also feel that the way he goes about it is basically preaching to the choir. In other words people who already are atheists will probably find their opinions validated by his works but I have a hard time envisioning a religious person abandoning their faith as a result of reading his book. Infact I have a hard time envisioning a religious person even picking up a book like The God Delusion in the first place.

Anyway, again, The Selfish Gene is entirely a work about evolutionary biology. Religion is not mentioned in it at all as far as I can remember. See the Amazon.com reviews for an idea of what to expect. Highly recommended.

Uh... I just noticed, that first review sure is something. Apparently a lot of people get depressed from reading about science or something. That doesn't seem like the best introduction to get someone to read a book. But oh well.

 

[AchrisK]

It was not a cheap debating trick (and wasn't meant to be), it was a genuine observation based on comments you've made in this thread and the religion thread and in the very post I just quoted. And you did literally say several times that you feel it requires faith or that people's assumption that evolution is correct is based on faith (which I've explained several times by now is not true and I will not repeat that again), otherwise I wouldn't even have brought that up in the first place.

Here's some quotes just from this thread:

[...]

The reason why the question you keep asking is so difficult to answer is because the question answers itself in a way (which I assume for you is not a satisfying enough answer, but it's true nonetheless). There are really no discrete steps that signify when a theory is elevated to fact. It's all a matter of consensus in the scientific community. If a theory stands the test of time and cannot be proven wrong (which so far has not yet been done to evolution) and the amount of evidence that supports the theory is considered overwhelming then it will be considered a scientific fact. And again, scientific fact does not mean immutable fact.

I personally see no reason to consider evolutionary biology any different from any other scientific fields as far as going through this process goes. But you apparently do, which again kind of suggests that you feel there is some kind of hidden agenda at work here. I guess you might argue that the fact that evolution has to duke it out against ID in the American school system could be a reason for bias, but on the other hand I don't get the impression that this is as much of an issue anywhere else in the world and science is hardly a predominantly American affair. But then we're getting into personal motivations of people which is impossible to discuss with any kind of certainty. The scientific process at its core is not susceptable to issues like these. If a theory has no convincing proof or if it is scientifically proven false and fails to hold up under peer review then it will never make it through no matter what the driving motivations of the people who initiated it are. The world wide scientific community is huge, with people from all kinds of geographical, ethnic, cultural and even religious backgrounds. Getting a theory successfully past that amount of scrutiny and into consensus is not something that is going to happen when the theory in question is shoddy.

I will concede that I have a suspicion that evolutionary science, more than other scientific disciplines, has had a sort of agenda. I suppose that must be obvious, but I don't want to pretend it isn't the case, if I have given that impression. This is not to say that I believe this is true of everyone involved, or that they don't believe what they are doing, or that they are not doing worthy research and discovering great and helpful things.

I also concede (and I have already stated it) that based on finding a natural answer for the existence of everything, that evolutionary science cannot be faulted (read: I do not fault them) for the direction of their theories and research, and even their theoretical conclusions, and even the community’s desire and motivation to want to consider it fact. It is the best theory in existence.

Maybe even while typing this I am seeing that much of evolutionary science doesn’t have an agenda so much as it is pursuing its best explanation. But there are still things that seem to imply agenda. Scathing disapproval for any scientist that would bring objections; findings by paleontologists which do not support evolution being considered failures (in regards to evolution); evolutionists getting so angry at creationists and so often resorting to bashing and belittling; and just evidence against that may be disregarded or explanied away.

I guess what I object to is the way evolution is presented to the average person in society. Most people do trust science, especially in regard to the more lofty areas of study. So science calling evolution a fact is a very powerful thing. This is evidenced by many of the opposing arguments in this thread which have been based around a trust in the scientific community. But there seems to be a lack of balance when evolution is presented. Things like calling it fact and not presenting its inadequacies. Only presenting supporting evidence (potential fossils of transitional forms) and leaving out or explaining away other evidence that leaves science scratching its head (overwhelming fossil evidence over the years for the appearance and stability of species, and I am not talking specifically about the Cambrian Explosion). And I understand (more than before) the position that science is in, in needing to come up with potential explanation for these things. But I still feel it is presented in an imbalanced way to the average Joe, and that within the field there seem to be unspoken rules against opposition. I think Darwin himself was more balanced.

It may be time for me to stop arguing this and just continue researching.

 

[cookiecutter]

Anyway, it's cool you are enjoying Darwin as much as you are. Sometimes it really is too bad that Richard Dawkins has such an aggressive writing style when it comes to issues of religion because I think you (and people like you) might otherwise enjoy his works a lot too. They really are very well written. As it stands you'd probably get (understandably) annoyed by most of his books. The Selfish Gene does focus entirely on the biology though, so if you look past the man's opinions I really recommend that book.

As a whole I still feel somewhat ambivalent about Dawkins in general. I love reading his books and I find myself agreeing with his opinions as far as religion goes, but I also feel that the way he goes about it is basically preaching to the choir. In other words people who already are atheists will probably find their opinions validated by his works but I have a hard time envisioning a religious person abandoning their faith as a result of reading his book. Infact I have a hard time envisioning a religious person even picking up a book like The God Delusion in the first place.

Anyway, again, The Selfish Gene is entirely a work about evolutionary biology. Religion is not mentioned in it at all as far as I can remember. See the Amazon.com reviews for an idea of what to expect. Highly recommended.

Uh... I just noticed, that first review sure is something. Apparently a lot of people get depressed from reading about science or something. That doesn't seem like the best introduction to get someone to read a book. But oh well.

I think you are right about Dawkins, but his style is a necessary one. He, as he so often states, wants to raise consciousness about Atheism, the dangers of religion, etc. and he has done this wonderfully. He has riled up the theologians into trying to prove him wrong, which exposes their terrible arguments to the light of day. There are authors, such as Dan Dennett(sp?) who are more friendly and soft in their approach, and that is also a very necessary one, but I think Dawkins' hard edged approach is good. Another thing to remember as well is that Dawkins only sounds so aggressive because religion always gets special treatment. As he points out in his new preface, look how we talk about music here. "CoB sucks ass!" Religion however, never got that higher level of criticism before.

Maybe even while typing this I am seeing that much of evolutionary science doesn’t have an agenda so much as it is pursuing its best explanation. But there are still things that seem to imply agenda. Scathing disapproval for any scientist that would bring objections; findings by paleontologists which do not support evolution being considered failures (in regards to evolution); evolutionists getting so angry at creationists and so often resorting to bashing and belittling; and just evidence against that may be disregarded or explanied away

The reason scientists get so up in arms about Creationists is because they are so incredibly and obviously wrong and no amount of evidence ever changes their mind. I get frustrated just thinking about it and I'm not even close to a scientist.

 

[CAIRATH]

I think you are right about Dawkins, but his style is a necessary one. He, as he so often states, wants to raise consciousness about Atheism, the dangers of religion, etc. and he has done this wonderfully. He has riled up the theologians into trying to prove him wrong, which exposes their terrible arguments to the light of day. There are authors, such as Dan Dennett(sp?) who are more friendly and soft in their approach, and that is also a very necessary one, but I think Dawkins' hard edged approach is good. Another thing to remember as well is that Dawkins only sounds so aggressive because religion always gets special treatment. As he points out in his new preface, look how we talk about music here. "CoB sucks ass!" Religion however, never got that higher level of criticism before.

I understand and agree with all that. And again, I am a fan of both the man himself and his works. I just sometimes feel that his approach to consciousness raising is kind of self-limiting because the people who would need it most simply will never subject themselves to a book like The God Delusion. But you're right, there probably are other authors outthere who can bridge that gap.

 

[CAIRATH]

As for how heated the debate between evolutionists and creationists tends to get, I think that is just because it is one of the main areas of science that actively threatens and contradicts religious dogma and because of what is at stake for both sides as a result of that.

What's at stake for the Church is their truth and therefor their entire authority which is based solely on that truth. Therefor they have a kneejerk reaction to prove evolution wrong simply because it is the only acceptable outcome to them. That is where Intelligent Design and all of the Christian based evolution debunking sites and books come in.

The problem with those is that they are for the most part utterly insipid (something that considering what you've been reading lately and your reluctance to defend ID I think you agree with). The majority of that kind of material is written by people who clearly have very little knowledge of the subject at hand and who are simply interested in blindly convincing themselves and anyone else they can reach that evolution is wrong and go about that in the form of employing pseudo science to make their explanation more credible than simply saying "It's wrong because the bible says so." It is that distortion of science that I imagine scientists find extremely aggravating and that causes them to be more aggressive in asserting their side of the story and hammering on the fact that their side of the story is actually based on something and is not on par with the creationist side at all.

For science minded people, what's at stake is science itself in a way. They fear the objectivity of science is at risk once "alternative" completely unscientific theories like ID become acceptable to be taught in class rooms alongside real science. Which would be a very dangerous precedent. People like Richard Dawkins essentially fear a new Dark Age where superstition and irrational thought win out over science and logic, something that would be extremely harmful for mankind as a whole. And while that is a bit overly dramatic in my opinion, you can't deny that especially in a country like the US there is a prevailing public opinion that does point into that general direction (I believe recent polls show something like 60% of Americans outright rejecting evolution and being in favour of creationism being taught in school alongside it).

 

[AchrisK]

As for how heated the debate between evolutionists and creationists tends to get, I think that is just because it is one of the main areas of science that actively threatens and contradicts religious dogma and because of what is at stake for both sides as a result of that.

What's at stake for the Church is their truth and therefor their entire authority which is based solely on that truth. Therefor they have a kneejerk reaction to prove evolution wrong simply because it is the only acceptable outcome to them. That is where Intelligent Design and all of the Christian based evolution debunking sites and books come in.

The problem with those is that they are for the most part utterly insipid (something that considering what you've been reading lately and your reluctance to defend ID I think you agree with). The majority of that kind of material is written by people who clearly have very little knowledge of the subject at hand and who are simply interested in blindly convincing themselves and anyone else they can reach that evolution is wrong and go about that in the form of employing pseudo science to make their explanation more credible than simply saying "It's wrong because the bible says so." It is that distortion of science that I imagine scientists find extremely aggravating and that causes them to be more aggressive in asserting their side of the story and hammering on the fact that their side of the story is actually based on something and is not on par with the creationist side at all.

For science minded people, what's at stake is science itself in a way. They fear the objectivity of science is at risk once "alternative" completely unscientific theories like ID become acceptable to be taught in class rooms alongside real science. Which would be a very dangerous precedent. People like Richard Dawkins essentially fear a new Dark Age where superstition and irrational thought win out over science and logic, something that would be extremely harmful for mankind as a whole. And while that is a bit overly dramatic in my opinion, you can't deny that especially in a country like the US there is a prevailing public opinion that does point into that general direction (I believe recent polls show something like 60% of Americans outright rejecting evolution and being in favour of creationism being taught in school alongside it).

Yeah, that site seems pretty ignorant.

There is a lot at stake for both sides in this debate, and I think that probably adds to the way science presents evolution. If creationists never challenged science on evolution, I bet the presentation of evolution would be more balanced.

I don't want to mislead anyone. I am still a creationist, which includes intelligent design. I am not sure of what all I believe as far as specifics, and that is what I am investigating. But I will not defend ID in a scientific conversation at this point because I don’t know enough, but more importantly I understand that at its base it is unscientific, in that it is a supernatural claim that cannot be proven and is not falsifiable. To me that doesn’t automatically mean it is false, but I understand that it makes no sense for science to pursue it. I really need to read a Behe book to get a grasp on the type of evidence ID is using and what claims they are making.

note: I am not looking to defend myself regarding how dumb I am for being a Christian and believing in God. That can be done in the religion thread.

I would not lump all creationist writers who question evolution into the same category, and I would not write them off as uneducated, unscientific fanatics. Some of them are very scientific and some have a respect for evolutionary science and for Darwin. Have you ever read any of them? I am reading Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson and it seems to approach the issues pretty respectfully and scientifically (though he is a law professor). As far as I know it was written before “Intelligent Design” was what it is today, and doesn’t necessarily offer an alternate theory as any of its main points. It doesn’t seem to be evangelical in nature, though I haven’t reached the end yet. It seems to just present potential problems with evolutionary claims. Also, from what I have heard of Behe, he is also respectful and scientific and non-evangelical. Yes, he seems to have ID as the basis for his studies, but regardless they do provide scientific data and information. Stuff to think about. I believe that some of these types of books are healthy for anyone really interested in the whole issue.

 

[Death Aflame]

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.

The key word in my initial post was 'non-scientific'. In other words, evolution is still perfectly compatible with the idea of a designer, god, deity, eternal force of creation etc. that is found in the world's major religions and many other metaphysical ideas. I think this point gets overlooked far too often. I am sure if it was given more consideration (mainly by religious leaders in the US, where the majority of this 'schism' is occurring) these fruitless creationist vs. evolutionist debates would cease or, at least, be less rampant.

 

[cookiecutter]

For science minded people, what's at stake is science itself in a way. They fear the objectivity of science is at risk once "alternative" completely unscientific theories like ID become acceptable to be taught in class rooms alongside real science. Which would be a very dangerous precedent. People like Richard Dawkins essentially fear a new Dark Age where superstition and irrational thought win out over science and logic, something that would be extremely harmful for mankind as a whole. And while that is a bit overly dramatic in my opinion, you can't deny that especially in a country like the US there is a prevailing public opinion that does point into that general direction (I believe recent polls show something like 60% of Americans outright rejecting evolution and being in favour of creationism being taught in school alongside it).

This something I fear. One of the worst feelings I have ever known is to know conclusively that I was right, yet people did not believe me. It pains me deeply to think that people believe something that is so obviously wrong.

Here are some real poll results about evolution beliefs in America: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847&pg=1. Disheartening.