While the 21st Century Science Coalition may sound like it’s on the cutting edge of scientific innovation, at least one of its critics argues otherwise.
“The 21st Century Science Coalition has the wrong name,” says Dr. John G. West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.
“It should be dubbed the ‘19th Century Science Coalition,’ because it wants to turn the clock back to the 19th century by suppressing recent scientific evidence challenging Darwinism from fields like biochemistry, bioinformatics, microbiology, and paleontology,” he told The Christian Post in response to the coalition’s recruitment of more than 800 supporters from the scientific community in Texas.
Last week, the 21st Century Science Coalition warned the State Board of Education not to inject politics or religion into new science guidelines for public schools, worried that social conservatives on the 15-member board will insist that public schools teach the "weaknesses of evolution." The board plans to adopt new science curriculum standards next year.
Under the current standards for the state's science curriculum, students are expected to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information."
The 21st Century Science Coalition alleges, however, that the references to “strengths and weaknesses” have been used by politicians “to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses.”
Such explanations include concepts like Intelligent Design, which holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they could not have come about randomly but point to an intelligent designer.
To date, over 800 scientists in Texas have signed the coalition’s statement to “encourage valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to ‘strengths and weaknesses.’”
“A strong science curriculum is an essential part of a 21st-century education and should be based on established peer-reviewed empirical research,” states the introduction to the statement titled “Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools.”
In addition to asserting that scientifically sound curriculum standards must “make clear that evolution is an easily observable phenomenon that has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt,” supporters of the statement say standards must “recognize that all students are best served when matters of faith are left to families and houses of worship.”
West, however, insists that no one is proposing to teach religion in biology classes in Texas.
“The claim about religion is simply a smoke screen to cover up the effort by Darwinists to impose an ideological litmus test on science education in Texas,” he said.
“What [backers of the current curriculum] want is for students to hear about the scientific (not religious) evidence for and against Darwinism.”
Furthermore, West says Darwinists are the ones who are truly trying to undermine good science education by turning it into a form of indoctrination.
“Examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific explanations and theories is a critical part of good science education,” he insisted. “Science educators disserve students if they fail to introduce them to all of the relevant scientific evidence and help them critically analyze that evidence.”
According to reports, the State Board of Education will begin discussing the proposed new standards this fall and have tentatively set a deadline of March 2009 for final adoption. In 2011, the state is scheduled to adopt new science textbooks, which are created by publishers using the state’s curriculum standards.
In addition to the 21st Century Science Coalition, other critics of the current curriculum include Texas Freedom Network, a group that has opposed state proposals for Bible classes and Bible textbooks in the past. The network is currently spearheading the “Stand Up for Science” campaign, which accuses creationists on the State Board of Education of "working to undermine instruction on evolution in science classes."
RSS
To agentorangex, I have to say that you seem to operate out of a picture of Christians that the media has fed you. Many Christian people who have kept their faith in tact after years of college and being out in the real world have dealt with doubts fueled inwardly and outwardly. They have not been able to rest on the teaching of their churches from their younger years. That is not a luxury of being a Christian any longer - though I'll readily admit many attempt to do so - but they are usually the ones who don't dare share their faith any longer, as they don't have any "real" answers for the world around them.
So much of what else is said above has to do with mechanics of creation. I've read Genesis anew these last few years and have seen that FROM THE SCRIPTURES themselves, long (aka "huge")periods of development are intrinsic to what is being said. The core of the debate is whether it all happened randomly or if it happened by God's guiding hand. There is absolutely no way to provide proof of either - outside of making words and phrases up that lead back upon themselves. Can you observe marco-evolution taking place? No, not outside of laboratory pre-conditions within micro-evolution. But to add up (or perhaps better said, multiply) those odds of all those events taking place to get to man, those are beyond the scope of imagination (yes, I do understand that in random chance evolution, there was no goal, just outcomes). However, it takes a lot of faith to believe that, just as to believe in a God who made it all by His guiding hand. I'll go with the latter, for entirely different reasons:
The resurrection of Christ and the evidence thereof.
The evidence of God in my own life and non-random events, no matter how you slice any other knowledge up. In a real sense, I have experienced way too much of God to not realize that randomness is just a dream by those who enjoy being in a Star Trek fantasy land.
So, don't confuse mechanics of life development with God. The mechanics are incredible, and worth great study and admiration - but greater still the God who put them into place.
Darwinists suppressing evidence????
No way!
I thought it was only us "book burners" who supposedly did that?
Biochemistry - bioflemishy!, bioinformatics - bioflemformatics!, microbiology - shmicrobiology!, paleontology - shmaileontology!...what's real scientific evidence have to do with this argument anyway? Evidence only gets in the way of truth which gets in the way of the atheist's desire to suppress it.
mathetes, thank you. Though I fully realize people whom accept evolutionary science are both composed for both theists of many relgions. My position isn't to lead people to or away from God in general, my arguement is in principle how and why some persist to think and for whatever reason, they reject the science of evolution. As noted below with Steiner, when it came time to discuss the evidence of evolution and their objections based on it, rarely do they stick around as at about this time is involves facing the mirror.
agent + pro-science, i'm just passing thru so I may not see your reply; sorry, life is busy. Here's another well-respected scientist who is also a strong Christian: Henry Schaefer. Notice it was evidence which led him to faith in God thru Jesus. You'll find the article at http://www.worldmag.com/articles/14531. Enjoy.
viking, my comparison with respect to religions is that at their core and many facets in which they overlap, in their principles of how they derived knowledge (revelation, speaking with god in person), possible after life and such all resort to and require utter faith for them to be believed in at all in the first place. The certitude from all religious followers is typical in which it's always 'their god and their religion' while all others are wrong and this conclusion isn't based on exhaustive research or comparison of supotive evidence by a believer at a young age. No, they are basically offered up on a platter to the religion of their parents and this is overwhelmingly the one they are. At no point do christian parents for example (I could have prefaced it with Jewish or Muslim though) take into consideration that their religion could ever be wrong, and despite this at a very yougn age have their children groomed in their religion. If so confident they are in their religion, why don't they allow the child to reach the age of reason and then teach them their religion? Obviously for good reasons it's best to induct them into the religion immediately, the bible notes at this in reference to this.
Therefore their youth have no alternatives to logically form their own conclusions.By even objectively reviewing them all, which is rarely if ever done prior to the age by which the believer exerts absolute certitude in their religion, this is really the only way one can justify their position. As with how it is now, they are forced out of fear, partially being ostracized or out of guilt to follow the religion of their time and era. This is for the most part a matter of consequence of where and when they were born. There is no larger factor in determining one's religion, if one takes up religion at all.
agentorangex,
Hi this post may be to late to reach you on this thread but I just read your sat oct 11 447 post. First based on even a brief review of a few of the current major religions of the world it is pretty clear that despite a few surface similarities they have very significant theological doctrines.
While I agree with your observation that many times the faith of an individual is based more on familial or other associational ties rather than a critical examination of the doctrine itself I also find that this is not always the case.
The implication of your statement that all of the religions are essentially the same is true in one respect they all posit that there is more in existence than the natural world. That in fact there is some form of supernatural. If it is this core similarity that you refer to and reject then I would accept you first claim (though not your conclusion)in this modified sense.
Steiner,
"although I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence"
Explain WHY, details.
"I wish to leave this site noting that I value your input and most of all, I value you as a person;
First, thanks for responding and I equally appreciate your views.
Sure, earlier you can rail how evolutionary science is bunk and state the evidence it uses is light, or not substantial enough to logically conclude evolution as a practical and well tested science. But now, with the chips in the middle of the table as it were, do you follow through and support your premise or do you fold? You, like so many others (thanks for confirming roberteaster!) fold. I see this so many times, over and over it makes one want to puke. It's the same old game, but one of these days you need to take the sobering look into the mirror and acknowledge the evidence before making such claims.
That you're left to review and retort on the validity of the evidence and its implications you'd rather run away (wish to leave) then directly comment is only a sign, as truly everything was fine and peachy until I laid down the evidence, only then did *other* issues arise. I am sorry, but it seems just a little too coincidental...
"I pray that you know Christ..."
And I'll hope you read, study, and research evolution. Cheers.
agentorangex,
I wish to leave this site noting that I value your input and most of all, I value you as a person; although I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence.
With kids around the house, and a saintly wife whose patience is growing thin as she has a running debate with herself as to whether to take the laptop away or meld it with my skull(as kids cry for attention...)
..it simply is more important that I get my other work done...
cheers.
I pray that you know Christ...
Also, if you havent yet, get married and have some kids...they are great to have around...and the wife just as well...
cheers
roberteaster,
"Evidence is cherry-picked to avoid embarrassment"
Right, like this kind of evidence?
ERV's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Human Chromosome 2 fusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Hominid fossils part 1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
part 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
Go ahead, we would all love to hear a refutation of these.
"methodology is chosen in terms of pre-decided "discoveries."
The methodology is the very same one used for all other science theories - the Scientific Method.
"racial slavery and discrimination justified on weight of Survival of the Fittest."
Uhhhhhh, no. Slavery, racial based or not, has existed far longer than evolutionary theory, so slavery was never predicated on evolutionary theory, it existed 1000's of years prior to it, and really only recently did was it in principle abolished. So your idea doesn't follow.
"That you so proudly hail Evolution as True Science (knowledge) speaks frighteningly of your view of both the theory and the field."
Can you provide your evidence for you conclusion that it's not justifiable to define it as science? What specifically based on evidence do you object to?
If not, and I really doubt you will/can as Steiner too opted not to directly address the evidence for it, but chose to dodge it too and discuss anything but the evidence. It's ok, we both know the evidence is your kryptonite, sleep well. Ta, ta.
Agentorangex, whether approached from a philosophical, scientific, or historical point of view, Evolution is far more a philosophical ideology than science. Evidence is cherry-picked to avoid embarrassment, findings are released to press prematurely, and methodology is chosen in terms of pre-decided "discoveries." In the meantime we have seen honest scientists, researchers, and educators shunned from their professions, Jews, Gypsies, and other "non-Aryans" exterminated as counter-evolutionary elements, native Australians hunted as museum trophies, and racial slavery and discrimination justified on weight of Survival of the Fittest. Not to mention the millions murdered under Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian Communist regimes based first and foremost on a Darwinian view of mankind. That you so proudly hail Evolution as True Science (knowledge) speaks frighteningly of your view of both the theory and the field. Please. Check your sources. Whether from Astrophysics or microbiology, Darwinism is no more credible than Spontaneous Generation.
"Evolution actually militates against the basic premise of science."
Huh? explain...
"In fact, evolutionary thinking would probably discourage any thinking/reflection and encourage mutation as a means of advancement for mankind as opposed to design and reflection."
Well apparently not, evolution as a science has been around for at least 150 years and during this time we have only further ramped up our technology to make use of more knowledge to be more equipped to tackle life issues, this would be in opposition to waiting around for chance mutations to be acted on by natural selection.
Specifically I am asking for why, perhaps based on evidence, you object to Evolution as Science. What for example would you accept as evidence that the theory is well tested and well supported by evidence? Cheers.
Steiner,
'our understanding of science is perfected as we learn more, but I would not call it evolution"
Perhaps I should rephrase as you misunderstood my question. I am not asking what you think of science in general and if or how it as a process evolves. Rather, I am asking what is your objection to evolution as a science? Cheers
agentorangex,
our understanding of science is perfected as we learn more, but I would not call it evolution.
Our practice of science is not evolving. We are doing the thinking(designing experiments), testing and perfecting our ideas.
Evolution actually militates against the basic premise of science. In fact, evolutionary thinking would probably discourage any thinking/reflection and encourage mutation as a means of advancement for mankind as opposed to design and reflection.
Atheism: Still A Catastrophic Failure
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
agent, and I do agree with you on one point up until I was 19 I knew little if anything about any other religion but catholicism. I mean I heard about other religions but was told that even though they were good people religiously they were wrong. But once I was exposed to not only other religions and most specifically God's plan of salvation did I then first and foremost decide to become a Christian and eventually a Southern Baptist.
believer, interesting. Though I think you get my point and you can appreciate it. Had you or others in your family all of sudden become Muslim, Hindui or some other Pagan religion, most in your family wouldn't have liked or preferred that. There is pressure to stick with the religion one was brought up in.
agent, I grew up in a home with a very strong catholic mother too include all my relatives on her side and my father was an agnostic who basically left all the religious stuff to my mother to take care of. And yet I became a conservative Southern Baptist, my twin sister a liberal Presbyterian, and my older brother a Unitarian, go figure!!
Steiner,
"I disagree. This is not a true statement.'
Sure it is, look at the stats globally, those who are born to parents of X religion at X time in history are more likely by this single circumstance to inherit that particular religion above all others. It has nothing to do with objectively comparing all possible religions at the age of reason as so many kids are taught from an early age that their parents faith is the only true one.
They likely will know nothing of other religions and thus have nothing to objectively compare to, so they are basically born into it.
This goes a long way to explaining how we have all these religious groups and they are so heavily concentrated to particular areas globally in which they were first conceived.
"For there are people that are born in the same circumstances but choose differently.."
True they do, though this is no doubt the exception and not the norm nor the general rule. Is it, generally unacceptable in most religions to abandon the faith of ones parents. Muslims for instance have some nice laws for apostates, and such laws are enough to generally convince wayward or doubters to not want to give up their faith or religion as the penalty is death. Fear mongering at its best. And coincidentally so did the ancient Jews from the OT have such laws, and the early Church and its torture tactics were likely enough to keep any skeptics at bay.
Can you say you weren't born to Christian parents and chose to be Christian?
Again, I will reiterate, why do you reject evolutionary science? Peace.
agentorangex - it comes down to a matter of circumstance of where and when one is born with respect to which theology they hold dear or as true. in essence, my rejection is like yours in which you reject the existence or credibility of all the others-
I disagree. This is not a true statement. For there are people that are born in the same circumstances but choose differently..
Axiom of Choice
An important and fundamental axiom in set theory sometimes called Zermelo's axiom of choice. It was formulated by Zermelo in 1904 and states that, given any set of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there exists at least one set that contains exactly one element in common with each of the nonempty sets. The axiom of choice is related to the first of Hilbert's problems....
abb3w-
If we allow each of the disjoint sets to have at least 2 elements, can we conclude that there exists at least one set that contains exactly 2 elements in common with each of the nonempty sets?
steiner, My rejection of Christian theology isn't a choice out of not liking the doctrine in contrast to other theological doctrines. It's the end result of deducing that it's not in any significant way different that other theologies and it comes down to a matter of circumstance of where and when one is born with respect to which theology they hold dear or as true. in essence, my rejection is like yours in which you reject the existence or credibility of all the others.
On a scientific front, why the rejection of evolutionary science?
agentorangex,
When we begin to ask why questions we are switching to theology or philosophy.
The theological question is this: why do you not wish to emulate Jesus?
steiner, Venter and his team are engineering it, so far they just have to get it to 'boot up' to to speak and replication will ensue.
Steiner,
"Man is in the process of producing robotics & programming that not only mimic, but can eventually be described as living."
Perhaps, but this is contigent on how loosely one defines 'living'. If you define it as simple having the ability to be conciouness, then that would be one way of qualifying it, or in the case of replicating organisms that would be another way of defining 'living' and thus the looser we define it the easier it is to rationalize that we've achieved this.
"Yet, this is evidence of purpose and creation."
Oh indeed it is. However, there is a distinction in that our creations which are continually upgraded and modified by our selves and those things (organisms) which are credited as being 'created by God/Intelligent Designer'. The distinction starts in how most view God/ID as being omniscient and omnipotent in wisdom, and therefore based on this we should be able to deduce that all of his/her/its creations aught to be darn near perfect from the very first inception, he need not go into testing and continual revisions of his original product, for if he is, why call him God? We shouldn't expect any supernatural deity with such imagined powers to continually have to try and try again with creation of species and this is exactly what we see in the fossil record with all those extinct species which we're inadequate designs, or those which exhibit less than optimal design.
If you want to rationalize that his purpose is simply to create sub-optimal living beings than that might work, but it's not very theologically satisfying. On the other hand, if you consider that this ID being is continually having to create whole new species from scratch, this sorta negates the concept of him being omniscient at all.
agentorangex,
Isnt Velder the designer, and hence the living being that is in fact forcing life? or has he approached this event objectively, has an inkling that life is about to come about on its own, and has announced it so that everyone can come and look?
abb3w,
I am not implying that hydrogen is the first living thing.
The analogy is good enough to imply that hydrogen is created by a living being. Just as much as the animation details on a screen are brought about by the skill of the programmer.
Since the programmer is not part of the code, he would have to design a method to be accessed.
Outside of this method, one could still know by becoming conscious that order and design are significantly definite attributes of the environment that he lives in... Hence design should be assigned a significant quantity in testing the null hypothesis.
How is design accounted for in the V.Ly criterion?
Steiner,
"The fact that Venter is about to synthesize bacteria is evidence that life can originate from nonliving things is open to interpretation."
Open to interpretation on what grounds? Either it happens or it doesn't, with it happening it would demonstrate that non living matter can be used to form living matter.
abb3w: Oh, why couldn't Spider-Man ever beat that pesky Wall?!?! . . . sorry, a little attempt at Electric Company humer there
igh: If I needed knowledge on anything God thought I should have then he would give it unto me. He has done this in the past, I am referrencing on what was needed to build his Tabernacle in the Wilderness. All the men needed in every skill was instantly taught to them by God.
So, when you first picked up a bible, you instantly new how to read it? I had to watch the CTW's Electric Company for a while.
steiner: "No; there is evidence to support specific claims of purpose"
Cool. What purpose, and what evidence?
steiner: "Please explain what scientific evidence does one investigates to establish purpose."
Any evidence you want, so long as it yields a model supporting purpose. In fact, you're required to examine all evidence available, to insure you're not using a non-representative sample. Also, you need to show your model based on selection for "purpose" is more likely than the dominant competing hypothesis: natural selection via the second law of thermodynamics. (See doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178 by Kaila and Annila; DOI references can be resolved at doi.org).
steiner: "The evidence supports my inference"
If you take the trouble to express it mathematically, no, it doesn't. Particularly "non-living", unless you consider hydrogen to be living.
steiner: "How would an entity in the program know about the programmer?"
System call to I/O is the easiest.
steiner: "briefly explain the V.Ly criterion."
Briefest? A mathematically rigorous form of Occam's Razor.
Brief: From the paper abstract: "Basically, the ideal principle states that the prior probability associated with the hypothesis should be given by the algorithmic universal probability, and the sum of the log universal probability of the model plus the log of the probability of the data given the model should be minimized." The length of the model when expressed in universal church-turing automata program form is inverse to the probability of the model. The paper's result is mathematically dependent on ZF (independent of the Axiom of Choice), which in turn depend on the validity of formal propositional logic.
steiner: "please also briefly explain the Z.Frankel axiom(s)"
Breifly? They're some very simple axioms of set theory, which are used as the foundations for the construction of the rest of modern mathematics. It's what pure mathematicians use to prove "1+1=2". I'd recommend you check http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zermelo-FraenkelAxioms.html, and the wikipedia page for each axiom, and then ask followup questions on any that you have problems with.
Note the Axiom of Choice isn't needed for the Vitanyi-Li construction. (Including Choice is usually referred to as ZFC; including the refutation of Choice as ZF¬C, ZF!C, or ZF~C; and ZF for math valid whether choice is asserted or refuted.) Since there are both intuitively true or false alternative equivalent phrasings, it's just as well left to the pure math types when possible. This is alluded to with Bona's Observation: "The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the Well-ordering Principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's Lemma?" One of the better quips about it I've heard is "The Axiom of Choice is used to pull things out of sets that never should have been allowed in anywhere in the first place."
Many laugh when they read Gods account of creation. In Genesis 1 and John ch. 1, we are told that the Gods Word commands into being.....
Yet, when we speak of programmers and their lines of code..
Are they not doing the same thing essentially?
They speak, and the compiler takes their word and synthesizes accordingly?
How would an entity in the program know about the programmer?
agentorangex,
The fact that Venter is about to synthesize bacteria is evidence that life can originate from nonliving things is open to interpretation.
The evidence supports my inference:
That living and nonliving things ultimately only originate from what is already living.
Man is in the process of producing robotics & programming that not only mimic, but can eventually be described as living.
Yet, this is evidence of purpose and creation.
And just because man has refined his plans...the purpose, the very vision of making life was there from the beginning.
Certainly we used sand to construct, but each grain of sand and each atom has its own design.
Just like we are able to produce a movie while controlling the very settings...or write a program and account for every detail in the picture formed by lines of code...
If I needed knowledge on anything God thought I should have then he would give it unto me. He has done this in the past, I am referrencing on what was needed to build his Tabernacle in the Wilderness. All the men needed in every skill was instantly taught to them by God.
If I needed to build the starship enterprise for God, I would be given the last detail of how to do it, warp drive and all.
Knowledge is not the end-all. Worship and Praise of God is!
1Timothy 4:8 "For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
1Ti 4:9 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation."
Abb3w - please also briefly explain the Z.Frankel axiom(s.
abb3w - briefly explain the V.Ly criterion.
abb3w - No; there is evidence to support specific claims of purpose -
Please explain what scientific evidence does one investigates to establish purpose.
agentorangex: "Science evidence just has to be empirical and able to undergo repeated testing"
Strictly speaking, being repeatable and empirical aren't absolute necessities. They're a practical preference, since it does make the math a lot easier. There are also alternative forms of testing than experimentation; again, the math becomes harder.
agentorangex: "We have many competing ideas, all with varying levels of supportive evidence, but nothing as consistent and conclusive as other scienec theories like evolution."
It's worth noting that the evolutionary theory itself has a number of competing variant forms, differing on some of the more subtle questions like the role of RNA versus proteins versus DNA in the pre-cellular environment, or the relative importance of allopatric and sympatric modes for speciation. These variants are fairly closely competitive with each other; non-evolutionary alternatives aren't competitive.
steiner: "Evidence would be scientific evidence, if it can be shown to be true.?"
Wrong. First, any individual datum of evidence is, so far as science is concerned, "true".
steiner: "Have we been able to make use of peptide bonds to produce life in the laboratory?"
Not yet, but that doesn't change the validity of the current hypotheses of Abiogenesis. This dates back to the classical riddle of Heraclitus's River. Complete experimental reproducibility is not necessary for inference, due to the philosophical problem of what "complete reproducibility" means. There's a fair bit of math involved; I can go over it if you care.
steiner: "A house that is made of bricks. We conclude that the bricks came together to make the house?"
No; there is evidence to support specific claims of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose. Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" (ISBN 0521296811) for more info on that.
steiner: "What evidence?"
Existence of differentially autocatalytic polymerization reactions is the most significant. Do you need more details?
steiner: "Please explain what the premises are..."
You can use "view all" to see all the posts at once. As I mentioned in an earlier post:
Commutativity of Logical Exclusive Disjunction
Associativity of Logical Exclusive Disjunction
Definition of Logical Unary Denial via Logical Joint Denial
Definition of Logical Joint Denial via Logical Unary Denial and Logical Exclusive Disjunction
Axiom of Extensionality
Axiom of the Unordered Pair
Axiom of Subsets
Axiom of the Sum Set
Axiom of the Power Set
Axiom of Infinity
Axiom of Replacement
Axiom of Foundation
Reality is relatable to Evidence
steiner: "i still need to know the premises"
Sorry, I do work, so I don't post all the time. Which if any of the premises I list above need more explaining?
agentorangex: "The evidence is inferred by"
Strictly speaking, steiner has every reason to mock you for that (or at least, would if the spelling was better when doing so). Evidence is not inferred; evidence is the premise, from which you infer to some inference/conclusion/thesis. The correct phrasing would have been "The biogenic transition may be inferred from the evidence that...."
Never waste time trying to argue nomenclature with a pedant; you waste your time and annoy the pedant.
igh: "I Love God, I know he is the most wonderful person."
Is this in the sense of a priori premise of Faith, or is this knowledge an inference from something else such as the Bible?
igh: "This is real science."
As before, this is not the commonly accepted definition of science.
igh: "agentorangex and abb3w go for your science with all you have, but first give God the praise through his Son Jesus, and you will find such contentment and Joy you will sing unto God with a love filled heart"
Experimentally untrue.
"Evidence would be scientific evidence, if it can be shown to be true."
Science evidence just has to be empirical and able to undergo repeated testing. And those fossils of microbial life certainly are, though at the moment we really don't have a comprehensive understanding for how early life started. We have many competing ideas, all with varying levels of supportive evidence, but nothing as consistent and conclusive as other scienec theories like evolution.
'Have we been able to make use of peptide bonds to produce life in the laboratory?'
No. Though Craig Venter and other scientists are nearly done in creating synthetic life (bacteria). But we do know simple peptides and fatty amino acids form quite easily, even in water, and are robust enough to stay in a form able to house RNA so the trick is how it boots up and begins replicating.
What we find with these experiments is that the most basic and simple building blocks for life readily form, if it were the inverse then we'd be at a loss.
"A house that is made of bricks. We conclude that the bricks came together to make the house"
No. the small primitive bacteria used chemical bonds to form simply base amino acid chains and polymers. Ask anyone, life at it's most simplest level is chemistry and these molecules behave according to bonding principles now as they did then.
"evidence is iferred...! "
No. There is evidence, as per the earliest life was microbial and remained so for such a long time. The inference is based on how the earliest life of all possible life wasn't an adult sheep, horse, hawk, etc., it was very primitive and simple, just what we'd expect if simple replicating molecules came to form the first forms of life.
i still need to know the premises
A house that is made of bricks. We conclude that the bricks came together to make the house?
Evidence would be scientific evidence, if it can be shown to be true. Have we been able to make use of peptide bonds to produce life in the laboratory?
evidence is iferred...!
Steiner,
The evidence is inferred by how the very first signs of life forms are microbial, as opposed to say a dog, fish, bird, etc. Based on this the inference is that replicating polymers in using simple base peptides were the most simplest form of life and it remained this way till multi-cellular life (like eukaryotic cells) came on the scene around 1.2 billion years ago.
And microbial life remained this way for around 3.2 billion years (from 3.85 billion till about 650 million years ago in the Vendian period), this is how it's inferred.
-The potential of biogenic transition (that life came from non-life) is an inference from evidence. If you wish to refute it, you may:-
What evidence?
1) Show an error in the derivation of the formal Vitanyi-Li criterion from the foundational premises, or rigorous contradiction resulting
Please explain what the premises are...
I Love God, I know he is the most wonderful person. I want to pattern all my life to be just like his. To think as he does, to love as he does, to learn all his wisdom and ways and apply them to my life. To do this you have to purge yourself of all the wrong ways and thinking.
Pick up your cross and follow our Saviour, no matter what.
This is real science.
To live as Jesus did, speaking his words of Truth really brings prosperity, break-throughs in all Disciplines of Science. And we give him Glory and Praise. Evolution is man's way of Rebellion, stealing God's Praises and patting themselves on the back for being so clever. But look how they use these gains in knowledge, there is a real breakdown of morals and ethics, so much so that we prey on our own children. Did you know there is a "parts list" for our children? God would never have allowed this but in our Rebellion we ignore what is righteous for our own sense of pride and the lusting for money and fame.
Truely the Science of following God brings Safety and Respect to a nation. Do the other kingdoms of the world respect the USA? No, they see the abominations here and reject it. We are despised for the perversion they see this nation accepting with open arms.
God will send us what we deserve, and it is happening even now...
The birth pangs of the end times are upon us, soon there will be Ten Kingdoms come up from the ashes of a world wide failure and wars. The anti-christ will take control for God has willed this.
agentorangex and abb3w go for your science with all you have, but first give God the praise through his Son Jesus, and you will find such contentment and Joy you will sing unto God with a love filled heart. And God will see your love and obedience and give you a life filled with breakthroughs and inventions in whatever you put your hands too. You may be chosen by God to cure all cancers, build rockets to explore your entire solar system, invent new water purification systems to give clean water to famine and drought prone nations. You may even lead the world in politics or engineering, who knows? God does. And he has great plans for you , plans he ordained before the world even was.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Father in the name of Jesus, please help these lost souls awaken to Righteousness, to love your blessed son Jesus, and give there lives to him to serve and worship and Praise, Amen.
agentorangex: "I would agree, one needs faith to believe in God, this faith isn't required to understand and accept scientific explanations. "
Not that particular form of faith, but a smidge of faith is required nonetheless. Specifically, faith that formal logic is valid for inference, that the Zermelo-Frankel axioms may be self-consistently be asserted, and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.
Daniel Paul: "I believe the point of this article is that the 21st Cent Scientists don't want to look at the facts head on."
They're merely unwilling to ONLY look at the facts head on, but rather insist on examining them from every possible angle of scrutiny. Design is an optical illusion, perpetuated by those ignorant of both Evolution and Design.
Daniel Paul: "Anytime anyone wants to shut down debate they are nothing more than closed minded. These 'scientists' are closed minded."
Not really. It's the difference between being unable to think outside the box, and not wasting time thinking in cloud cuckoo-land.
igh: "There is no evidence for evolution."
Human Chromosome pair 2 correspondence to the fusion of Chimpanzee pairs 2p and 2q is a relationship which under present evidence which evolution describes "better" than the null hypothesis. Your assertion is refuted by counterexample.
To be fair, it is a separate question whether evolution is the "best" explanation of all proposed so far for this evidence. (Under the Vitanyi-Li criterion, the answer is "yes".)
igh: "You need to understand God is Science."
This is not the commonly accepted definition of science.
FreeInChrist: "Making an a priori commitment to one side of an argument hardly seems the best way to discover which side is valid."
Science does not make an a priori commitment on the existence or nonexistence of divinity. It allows inference either way; at present, the balance is to non-existence. Contrariwise, your refusal to consider the implications of one possible alternative does constitute such a priori assumption.
FreeInChrist: "As to the '...not science' part, the obvious bias and untruthfullness of this statement should be clear to anyone not suffering the same affliciton."
I would formally define science as the philosophical discipline of gathering evidence, forming conjectures about the relations between gathered evidence, formulation of hypotheses which express how evidence may be described by these conjectures, the competitive testing of hypotheses under a criterion as to which "best" describes reality, and the body of "Theory" consisting of the best-testing hypotheses. (The experimental method can be viewed as an efficient approximation algorithm for the exact.)
The formal mathematical definition of "best" is in the Vitanyi-Li paper I mentioned earlier; it implicitly presupposes that formal logic is valid for inference, that the Zermelo-Frankel axioms may be self-consistently be asserted, and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.
Intelligent Design is not science, as it does not reject hypotheses which fail competitive testing under the formal criterion.
"you can't even begin to address the evidence straight on"
I believe the point of this article is that the 21st Cent Scientists don't want to look at the facts head on. They remind me of the good ol' boy mindset around here. I was at a debate for the school board race and one guy was quite upset at some things I said (no surprise, eh?). It didn't matter that I had the written documents from the US Department of Ed to back up what I was saying. His friend, the former superintendent, was right and myself, parents and even the lawyers at the US Department of Education were just lying!
Anytime anyone wants to shut down debate they are nothing more than closed minded. These 'scientists' are closed minded.
igh, you're retorts are typical. I would expect this from some, like Star, but you're special, you can't even begin to address the evidence straight on, you have NO knowledge about science or evolution it appears.
"You need Faith in God not in science. "
I would agree, one needs faith to believe in God, this faith isn't required to understand and accept scientific explanations.
Revelation 1:5 "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
You need to understand God is Science. All that is, God made.
You need Faith in God not in science.
1Peter 1:2 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Peter 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Peter 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. "
The Son of God, our Lord, Through whom we receive Salvation. Amen.
Igh, have you bothered to read anything ELSE but the bible? 'well rounded knowledge' need not apply? Can you cite anything say from a science journal that refutes evolution or not?
"...To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
--Jesus The Christ. Messiah, Saviour of the whole world.
igh, go ahead refute chromosome 2 fusion. It's empirical evidence. And no, regurgitating biblical quotes which don't directly address the evidence for the fusion doesn't negate it, this is basic logic.
"....but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."
--Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lord's and King of King's.
"There is no evidence for evolution. Your bias believes it to be so."
Bleeehhhh, the same regurgitation of the same nonsense earlier. Igh, if there is 'no evidence for evolution', why does the evidence from fossils, genetics, embryology and so on indicate otherwise?
Can you explain and refute why all those fossils? Can you explain genetics evidence like SINES, LINES, ERV's, Human Chromosome 2 fusion, etc?
There is no evidence for evolution. Your bias believes it to be so.
All there is was made by God in the six days of Creation. All your science and evidence is corrupted. Corrupted by mans hatred for God.
Psalm 37:16 "A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked.
Psa 37:17 For the arms of the wicked shall be broken: but the LORD upholdeth the righteous.
Psa 37:18 The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever."
Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
Deuteronomy 7:10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face.
John 7:7 "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."
John 15:18 "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. "
"There is a reason that essentially every actual science organization in America supports evolution and condemns intelligent design creationsm, while the only supporters of intelligent design creationism are overt or covert apologists for religion - not science. "
As to such persons being apologists for religion, I believe there is a reason; that being that having once opened one's eyes to the inevitable and unalterable reality of God's existence, one can hardly return to blindly arguing in the opposite direction. Making an a priori commitment to one side of an argument hardly seems the best way to discover which side is valid.
As to the '...not science' part, the obvious bias and untruthfullness of this statement should be clear to anyone not suffering the same affliciton.
Unfortunately for Dr. West, there is no such thing as "scientific evidence challenging Darwinism." A cereful review of the entire body of scientific literature finds only reinforcement for the concepts of evolution. ("Darwinism" is a code term used by supporters of the pseudoscience of intelligent design creationism - when they say "Darwinism" they are usually referring to evolution, the cornerstone theory of modern biology.)
There is a reason that essentially every actual science organization in America supports evolution and condemns intelligent design creationsm, while the only supporters of intelligent design creationism are overt or covert apologists for religion - not science.
"the whole communist 'anti-God' position"
Please don't forget the hundreds of millions of capitalists in the world who are atheists.
"evolution is a necessary component"
Well, you can't expect an atheist, also known as a person who is not insane, to believe in magical creation.
Many people are very fond of the whole communist "anti-God" position today and evolution is a necessary component...
''The 21st Century Science Coalition has the wrong name,'' says Dr. John G. West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
I stopped reading right there because the Discovery Institute is the laughing stock of the scientific community. Their only purpose is to attack science education. Attacking America's education is treason.
abb3w, I guess this would explain the 'why is there something rather than nothing' question, but it also doesn't indicate that matter/energy require causation from an agent.
Foo; I thought HTML was allowed. Ah, well.
agentorangex: "Matter/energy seem to be one (again fist law of thermodynamics), they both defy the notion of needing to be created at all. As a state they can't not exist, so whence comes the agent of creation there?
Actually, the last I heard, the net energy of the universe is <a href="http://www.curtismenning.com/ZeroEnergyCalc.htm">zero within measurement limits</a>. This somehow can be related to an argument from statistical mechanics which shows that Something is a lower entropy and more natural state than Nothing, which I understand no-where near well enough to explain. Go get a physicist drunk enough to try and explain it to you.
"but please provide me some examples of things that contradict the premise. "
Matter/energy seem to be one (again fist law of thermodynamics), they both defy the notion of needing to be created at all. As a state they can't not exist, so whence comes the agent of creation there?
"You reject my premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. That's fine, but please provide me some examples of things that contradict the premise."
Well, you haven't agreed to any of my premises, we haven't agreed to the meaning of "cause" nor basis for me to indicate a "thing". So, you're putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. (Except we have neither cart nor horse yet, either.) You're the one who decided to head off into philosophy; it's not my fault you didn't plan your supply lines.
What inference are you talking about? I wish to refute how life comes from non-life.
The potential of biogenic transition (that life came from non-life) is an inference from evidence. If you wish to refute it, you may:
1) Show an error in the derivation of the formal Vitanyi-Li criterion from the foundational premises, or rigorous contradiction resulting
2) Reject one of the foundational premises
3) Agree that the criterion is correct, but provide an alternative hypothesis expression of the evidence which is superior under that criterion
4) Show me a fundamental implication of this criterion which you feel I've missed.
Which approach would you like to attempt first?
"I wish to refute how life comes from non-life. This is what your worldview asserts and I reject it. Please provide me some evidence."
I wish to refute how life comes from dirt and from a rib. This is what your worldview asserts and I reject it. Please provide me some evidence. =)
Evolutionary theory already presupposes that life exists and started (somehow?) but how it started isn't directly related to how and why life diversifies at all.
abb3w,
You reject my premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. That's fine, but please provide me some examples of things that contradict the premise.
"There are really only four possible explanations for the existence of the universe"
Again: presumes the existence of the universe needs explaining. An explanation requires expressing the relationship BETWEEN multiple observations. Since the universe is defined by evidence, you do not have no evidence of anything else to relate to. Thus, the need to explain that the universe is, this is an unjustified philosophical assumption.
Your refutations of these straw men is worse; from a philosophical stance, solpsistic rejection of the reality of evidence is legitimately possible. It's sophmoric, and is a dead end which leaves you only pure mathematics to play with (if you want it), but it's legitimate. Your description of the Big Bang is incorrect, since it omits that this origin point is also the origin of space and time. Your assertion of the absolute nature of causality is wrong; you might try to get a physicist to explain non-locality to you, but you'll want to buy Advil in the bulk size. And you still haven't defined "God", so the last is meaningless.
"1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause."
Well, as a point of order, you have yet to establish the general rule allowing inference, before making the specific inference. This is potentially fixable.
Your first premise, however, begins by making an assertion I already rejected. This isn't. Thus, your inference is invalid, because your premise was not accepted. I stated my premises (9:13 PM post). If you wish, you may reject any of them.
Would you agree that given (P OR Q), one may validly infer (Q OR P)?
abb3w,
Me: Your worldview still requires you to explain how life came from non-life-- at least if you would like me to believe you.
You: Inexact. YOU require this under YOUR current worldview before you are willing to accept this inference of the scientific worldview. Again, to reject the inference, you must indicate which assumption you wish to Refute. Of course, the real problem is that you don't understand how the worldview is derived from these.
What inference are you talking about? I wish to refute how life comes from non-life. This is what your worldview asserts and I reject it. Please provide me some evidence.
abb3w,
I guess you're allowed to make inferences, but not me. Here's one of many arguments for the existence of God:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a Cause.
There are really only four possible explanations for the existence of the universe: 1) It isn’t real (it’s an illusion), 2) It has existed for eternity, 3) It sprang into existence out of nothing with no cause, or 4) It was created by God.
1) This is false by direct experience. 2) The Big Bang Theory says that all matter, energy, and time began at some finite time in the past. 3) We have zero experience of anything coming into existence without a cause. 4) A plausible inference that is warranted by this argument as well as MUCH other evidence.
Further inferences about God from this argument: An eternal/immaterial, personal Cause exists who has great power (to create ex nihilo). God is self-existent (eternal) and distinct from His creation. He is self-sufficientâ€â€dependent on nothing. God is personal because He had the power to will a change to create the universe and this can only be done by somebody who has the power of free choice. God is sovereign because He is the Creator.
agentorangex: "again none of these have anything to do with evolutionary theory or its evidence supporting it".
Errr... technically, yes it potentially does. The validity of evolutionary theory depends on the validity of science as a means for inference from evidence. He appears to be willing to try and disestablish Science as a philosphically valid basis of inference. Showing an example of how science can make an invalid inference is a philosophically valid attack... if not scientifically.
The catch is that to do so, he must (a) show USING THE CRITERION which I keep harping on how one may infer a rigorous contradiction, or (b) reject one of the foundational assumptions. The former would require him to comprehend the criterion well enough to at least make use of it; the latter will leave him needing to produce an alternative basis of inference, and show that basis is neither equivalent nor inconsistent.
Catch-22.
"All things that BEGIN to exist require a cause"
...again implicitly assumes a FROM for them to begin TO.
"I'm saying that it is objectively true that God created the universe, i.e., it is universally and exclusively true."
Well, there's three problems with that. First, you don't define the properties of "God". Second, you don't show those properties are consistent with evidence, nor even self consistent. And third, you need to justify the creator/creation relationship you assert in that "objective" claim in fact exists between the universe and anything.
Without definition, "God" is meaningless.
After that, if you're claiming "objective truth", you will no doubt have no problems showing how these together are objectively true... which is to say, formally and self-consistently inferrable from Evidence and the basic assumptions.
"I'm saying it's more than my subjective opinion. It may not be better under your criterion, but, again, there's your philosophical assumptions popping up again!"
My criterion is not an assumption; it is an inference of those assumptions. In order to refute it, you must assert the Refutation of one of the assumptions that it derives from. Feel free to pick one from the full list: Commutativity of Logical Exclusive Disjunction, Associativity of Logical Exclusive Disjunction, Definition of Logical Unary Denial via Logical Joint Denial, Definition of Logical Joint Denial via Logical Unary Denial and Logical Exclusive Disjunction, Axiom of Extensionality, Axiom of the Unordered Pair, Axiom of Subsets, Axiom of the Sum Set, Axiom of the Power Set, Axiom of Infinity, Axiom of Replacement, the Axiom of Foundation, and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.
"Your worldview still requires you to explain how life came from non-life-- at least if you would like me to believe you."
Inexact. YOU require this under YOUR current worldview before you are willing to accept this inference of the scientific worldview. Again, to reject the inference, you must indicate which assumption you wish to Refute.
Of course, the real problem is that you don't understand how the worldview is derived from these.
tgender, again none of these have anything to do with evolutionary theory or its evidence supporting it.
tgender,
"God requires no cause because He is eternal. "
Matter/energy are eternal too. I mentioned earlier in the 1st law of thermodynamics bit earlier. So matter/energy exist without creation as per the 1st Law, so why the need to inject an agent of causation when one need not apply? This would be like invoking a Rainbow making Gnome even though we know that's not how they work.
"I have written it down and I will keep asking it until you atheists give me a good explanation. "
We don't know, yet. We have some fairly good evidence, but nothing as supportive as other science theories like gravity, atoms, evolution and so on. Again, the origins of life (replicating molecules) isn't the same as how life diversifies.
Regardless of however life got started, evolution could then ensue after wards, and that really is all that evolutionary theory can explain anyway as evolution is predicated on genetics.
tgender,
I noticed Microsoft Word 2007 (maybe others too) and it's formatting issues results in that messed up text, just an FYI.
"I'm saying that it is objectively true that God created the universe, i.e., it is universally and exclusively true.I'm saying it's more than my subjective opinion"
True on what evidence? If it's objectively obviously true, what evidence demonstrates it so? So
far all you've given is your subjective opinion of if 'I'm saying....", but regardless, this has essentially nothing to do with the validity of evolution.
Agentorangex,
“evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life, not the origins of life. Write it down.â€Â
I have written it down and I will keep asking it until you atheists give me a good explanation. I don’t really care if you consider it a part of Evolution or not. Your worldview still requires you to explain how life came from non-life…at least if you would like me to believe you. Even if you don’t want to convince anybody else, I would think this issue would bother you a bit.
Agentorangex,
“Besides, if all things require causation to exist, then what caused God to exist?â€Â
I said “all things that BEGIN to exist require a causeâ€Â. God requires no cause because He is eternal.
abb3w,
“This is "good" in that it makes you happy. However, it is not "better" UNDER THE FORMAL TESTING CRITERION.â€Â
Yes, it does make me happy, but don’t misunderstand my claim. I’m saying that it is objectively true that God created the universe, i.e., it is universally and exclusively true. I'm saying it's more than my subjective opinion. It may not be better under your criterion, but, again, there’s your philosophical assumptions popping up again!
abb3w, aiiiii me matey, but tis so much easier to nail down the objections to evolution if we stay on topic. arrrrg
agentorangex: I'll agree discussion has strayed to other areas, but they're not unfamiliar to me. I've no problem following along if others feel the need to wander off on a tangent.
crossfire: "The beliefs of Darwinists and atheists are a lot harder to defend as they are based on changing "truths" and assumptions - most of which, even when proven, don't refute the existence of the Creator."
"Assumptions" such as the existence of matter and energy, the principle of cause-and-effect, and so forth are not really "assumptions" in a strict sense, but provisional INFERENCES of the prime assumptions I already stated. The reason these inferences change is because the balance of evidence changes, or because someone puts forth a new conjecture for consideration.
To the extent that "the Creator" is given a description... yes, that description is refuted, in the same sense that a politician might hope to refute a claim that his brain is actually just a piece of cauliflower. Evidence does not support assertion of His existence; however, there is still room for Hope in God and Christ's message, and I would certainly not dissuade those who maintain that Hope.
tgender: "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Even scientists acknowledge that. What's so unjustified about that? All of our experience testifies to this."
All of our experience, however, is confined to the universe. As I note above, the principle of cause-and-effect is an inference, not an assumption. Thus, the extension of this rule beyond the universe is not mathematically justifiable.
Since this distinction is not relevant to the work of most scientists, it's understandable that this point from the Philosophy of Science escapes them.
tgender: "I see you don't have a good answer to how life came from non-life. I believe that I can provide you with one. God spoke and life came into existence."
This is "good" in that it makes you happy. However, it is not "better" UNDER THE FORMAL TESTING CRITERION... which point I indicated. Specifically, your conjecture does not allow the properties of life to be conveyed any more concisely than the null hypothesis. As such, it is inferior under the formal Vitanyi-Li criterion.
I think this discussion has gone completely off topic of evolution and now entered into cosmology, astronomy and other sciences. if you want to discuss evolution, then lets.
"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. "
If you recall, the first law of thermodynamics states briefly that energy/matter as a state can only exist, they can't not exist. They can neither be created nor destroyed, ergo the nature of their existence defies the notion of 'creation' in the first place. Besides, if all things require causation to exist, then what caused God to exist? if God can be eternal and 'self-created' and doesn't require causation, why can't the very universe be equally eternal and self created?
tgender, "Regarding the universe, how then did something come from nothing?" Well the origins of the universe isn't biology (duh), but you should note that the current theory regarding the universe (big bang theory) only explains how and why it's expanded
"I see you donn'tt have a good answer to how life came from non-life. "
Well, no not yet, but evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life, not the origins of life. Write it down.
"I believe that I can provide you with one. God spoke and life came into existence. "
And the independent objective evidence for this is.....? What physical, testable evidence and support this claim?
abb3w,
‘And now YOU have just made an implicit and unjustified philosophical assumption of your own. The question presumes there is always "from" whence to come.’
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Even scientists acknowledge that. What’s so unjustified about that? All of our experience testifies to this.
ID4234,
"Does anyone else see the irony in scientists relying so heavily on randomness?"
There are some random processes involved in evolution (like mutations and genetic drifting) but they are not completely random, they act in accordance with certain probable outcomes being more likely than others.
abb3w,
I see you don’t have a good answer to how life came from non-life. I believe that I can provide you with one. God spoke and life came into existence.
Mr. Eric Young, what at all is the difference from this article and its predecessor?
http://www.christianpost.com/article/comment/20081001/over-800-scientists-stand-against-language-critical-of-evolution.htm
ID4234, I agree wholeheartedly with you. The beliefs of Darwinists and atheists are a lot harder to defend as they are based on changing "truths" and assumptions - most of which, even when proven, don't refute the existence of the Creator. Believers, however, have solid proof - through God's divine intervention in our lives, through His Word, and most importantly through Jesus Christ who proved himself to be true through his death and resurrection. Praise God for revealing Himself to those who believe!
"Regarding the universe, how then did something come from nothing?"
And now YOU have just made an implicit and unjustified philosophical assumption of your own. The question presumes there is always "from" whence to come. Furthermore, I don't see how the general question can be meaningfully expressed for hypotheses to be evaluated.
If you care about the current best answer, you need to read up on group theory and n-dimensional geometry, and then go talk to a physicist for an explanation of Brane collisions and vacuum energy states. However, working with more than six dimensional axes gives me a headache; I stopped trying to keep up when particle physics got to superstring models.
"Couple that with the evidence that the world has not always existed."
Yep; planetary formation is described pretty well via astronomy and the mathematics of gravitation. If you have a nebula of relatively slow-moving particles, it can be big enough for the particles to be caught inside the net gravity field. If that happens, there's likely to be some net spin. If so, you're likely to get a disk. When that happens, the disk is unlikely to be perfectly uniform, and more likely to have "curdles" in it. Planets form.
"Regarding life on this planet, how did life come from non-life?"
As presently formulated, the results Evolution describes are independent of how the Last Universal Common cellular Ancestor arose. This area of research is of interest to biologists and biochemists; however, the question of how "a single cell sprang to life" is technically NOT part of the scope of the current theory of Evolution. It is a separate question, usually referred to as "Abiogenesis", sometimes as the "biogenic transition".
For a relatively recent overview of the present state of the art accessible to the lay audience, see "Minimal self-replicating systems", Robertson et alia (Chem. Soc. Rev., 2000, 29, 141 - 152, DOI: 10.1039/a803602k), which indicates the arising of life may be viewed in part as a form of autocatalytic reaction. For a more recent paper with a mathematical analysis of the biogenic transition process, see "Prevolutionary dynamics and the origin of evolution", Martin A. Nowak and Hisashi Ohtsuki (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105).
And, as I noted, it's not enough to complain about holes or weaknesses. You have to provide an alternative hypothesis BETTER under the formal testing criterion.
"How about the evidence that the world exists as do complex life forms?"
Yes, it does. Evolution explains how that complexity forms. The common claim that evolution "violates" the Second Law of Thermodynamics (sometimes phrased that "information in X cannot increase" or "information cannot be added") relies on a misunderstanding. The 2nd Law's restriction of nonincreasing order only applies to a single, isolated closed system. If you have two or more sub-systems connected by mass-energy flows (such as a glass of water and a bucket of frozen CO2), it is possible for one system to increase in order (EG: the water, crystalizing to ice) as long as the order decreases at least as much in the connected sub-system (EG: the CO2 sublimating), resulting in a combined system with nondecreasing entropy.
Furthermore, it has been shown that once you use the form of the equations to address such mass energy flows, the Second Law of Thermodynamics mathematically implies the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection will result. For full details, see "Natural selection for least action", By Ville R. I. Kaila and Arto Annila (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178).
While some claim this complexity is reminiscent of design, Technological design is itself an evolutionary process of competitive selection of variations; see historian George Basalla's book "The Evolution of Technology" (ISBN 0521296811) for elucidation. The fundamental difference between blind evolution and deliberate design is the latter has a specific element of purpose (or "agency" in philosophy jargon). ID does not have any explicit evidence to support a claim of purpose, or even at present explicit purpose to claim. No evidence, no purpose, no point, no theory, NO COOKIE!
tgender, I explicitly noted the philosophical assumptions necessary for science in an earlier post: Formal logic, math from ZF set theory, and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.
The assumption is not materialistic/natural versus spiritual/supernatural. Rather, the assumption is that inference is possible at all. (The college-level math version: If inference is possible, it has a set of rules. These may be expressed as a type-zero/unrestricted Chomsky grammar. The result of a type-zero grammar is a Recursively Enumberable language, which means that it can be recognized via a halting Church-Turing automaton.)
If this assumption is wrong, there is no way any inference can be made from evidence to reality. The only option remaining is expressing tenets of faith whose Assertions which can be neither more nor less valid than the Refutation. At that point, it literally becomes a philosophical impossibility to tell a Hawk from a Handsaw, southerly wind or not.
And ID4234, while mutation may be random as rolling dice, the overall process is as non-random as repeatedly re-rolling the ones that aren't showing sixes: the result is still "random", but involves a non-uniform distribution with as results as likely as from a pack of loaded dice.
abb3w,
“Creationism and Intelligent Design are philosophy and religion, but not science.â€Â
Science is also philosophy. Most contemporary scientists adopt a materialistic philosophy that the world in which we live can only be explained by materialistic (natural) causes. They have not proven thatâ€â€they assume it.
abb3w,
“Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates are thus, at best, supporters of a conjecture with roots established in religion, who do not test under the Minimum Description Length Induction criterion, and who are not concerned with evidence.â€Â
How about the evidence that the world exists as do complex life forms? Couple that with the evidence that the world has not always existed. Regarding the universe, how then did something come from nothing? Regarding life on this planet, how did life come from non-life?
Part of growing up is having different ways to look at the world, and to choose which to use. In our society, it's expected that science will be one view adults have available. This is one reason public schools teach students science.
So, yes, students should be able to ask questions. However, science teachers should be able to give answers based on science, indicate that is what the answers are based on, and direct the student to their parents or pastor for answers based on religion.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are philosophy and religion, but not science.
Science refers to gathering evidence, forming conjectures about the evidence, developing a formal hypothesis that indicates how the current evidence may be described under the conjecture, competitive testing of all candidate hypotheses under a formal criterion for probable correctness, plus the body of hypotheses testing best thereby which thereafter are "Theory" in the formal sense.
In the most formal sense, the criterion used for this is a more exacting Occam's Razor, proven in the absolute mathematical sense in the paper "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity" (Vitanyi/Li). This shows that the most "concise" hypothesis (a function of both the bit size of the conjecture of how the data can be described, and bits needed to convey all properties of the data thereby) is the one most likely to correctly describe the character of future data. Science thus becomes dependent (due to this paper) on the philosophical assumptions that propositional logic is valid for formal inference, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory (the modern foundation for all mathematics) are self-consistent (though they need not be complete), and that Reality is relatable to Evidence.
Ergo, it follows "strengths and weaknesses" or reference to particular arguments being strong and weak can only be made in terms of how one hypothesis compares relative to another. The default reference comparison is the null hypothesis, mathematically corresponding to simply noting there are data, making no attempt to relate them. In the case of biology, there are a number of variations that have evolved from Darwin's original concept competitive with each other. Neither "creationism" nor "intelligent design" provide more than marginal improvement over the null, and are no-where near the conciseness of the Modern Evolutionary Genetic Synthesis. Similarly, discussion of "holes" and "missing transitional forms" is also misleading, since that is precisely what science is for: for making inference from bounded set of data (evidence) to the characteristics of data we yet lack (holes).
Note that the root of the word "prove" is from the Latin probare, "to test". Thus, hypotheses that become theories may be said to have been "proven" in the sense that Science uses the word. This is distinct from the mathematical sense, in that the usual use of "proof" in mathematics indicates a rigorous derivation from axioms; however, the sense that science uses is similar to the sense that a person might seek to "prove" that their brain is not a piece of cauliflower.
Creationism and Intelligent Design advocates are thus, at best, supporters of a conjecture with roots established in religion, who do not test under the Minimum Description Length Induction criterion, and who are not concerned with evidence. As such, whatever they ARE doing, it is not science, and does not belong in high school Science classrooms.
How is it scientific to NOT consider the weaknesses of a theory? The 21st Century Science Coalition seems to be shooting themselves in their collective feet.
“Examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific explanations and theories is a critical part of good science education,†he insisted. “Science educators disserve students if they fail to introduce them to all of the relevant scientific evidence and help them critically analyze that evidence.â€Â
I think this helps students to think about what they're learning instead of copying textbooks and memorizing pages. After all, a profession needs an education, but not everything must be done by the book. I'm writing a paper on Evolution and Creationism and in my secular college, I have to ASK my professor to see if I can express my opinion that Creationism can be taught next to Evolution/Darwinism. Of course I need to be respectful about my opinion, but the question was can I express my opinion at all. Part of which I loved about my classes was open discussion. Teacher lectures are essential, but open discussion engages the student's minds. Critical thinking dives into the core of subjects and it makes the classes worth while. :D
It's laughable that these Darwinists defend randomness with such vigor. Does anyone else see the irony in scientists relying so heavily on randomness?