How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Nurvingiel]

I think those are two separate beliefs though. 1. That there is no god. 2. We evolved from random mutating ooze. (That's a new one! )

But what you say makes sense. I don't personally have a problem with those beliefs (whether a person has one or both of those beliefs), though I don't hold either of them.

[Curubethion]

Yeah, I agree, and that view shouldn't be pushed onto students in school. If it is, we also have to allow ID or related theories.

[Count Comfect]

That view is "pushed" on students in schools because science is considered something we should teach children. In turn, biology is considered an important science. And in turn again, evolution is a key part of biology.

ID and related theories are not science. Hence, they are NOT in the science classroom.

As for Nurv's point (1), that is NOT pushed on children in school.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And in turn again, evolution is a key part of biology.

Why is it a key component of biology? Biology is the study of life, and evolution is merely a theory regarding life. So is ID.

[Count Comfect]

It is a key part of biology because it is not a "mere" theory. It is a SCIENTIFIC theory, which means a hypothesis that has been backed up by evidence. ID is not. The word theory has two meanings: an unsubstantiated idea and a scientific hypothesis backed up with evidence. ID is the former. Evolution is the latter. More or less.

And it is key because a lot of modern biology is predicated on assumptions that involve evolution.

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Evolution is the latter. More or less.

You ain't kidding...and less more than more...wasn't there an LOTR quote like that?
And I would say that if you can trumpet fossils as evidence for unobserved evolution, then you can also hail complex designs and phenomena such as consciousness and culture as evidence for unobservable ID. And evolution "evidence" could be resultant of ID by evolution.

[Nurvingiel]

Completely. One could not accept, for example, the relationship between trees and pests like aminal browsing, tree diseases, and insects without first accepting microevolution, natural selection, and species adapting to niches.

Now, one could accept these things and believe in ID (I don't think this would be contradictory), but, these three factors are part of ToE. Therefore ToE is important to biology.

[Count Comfect]

Problem is, evolution is still scientific and ID not. As evolution does indeed explain consciousness and culture (although cultural evolution is more properly sociology, history and archaeology), scientifically, they aren't proof of ID.

ID is just filling the gaps in evolution with an unproven designer.

[Curubethion]

Evolution is just filling in the gaps with an unproven designer (randomness)

[Nurvingiel]

Woah. I cross-posted with Curubethion and Count Comfect in my last post there. That's why it makes no sense.

Intense.

edit:

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Evolution is just filling in the gaps with an unproven designer (randomness)

How? Who is this designer? (Unless you're just joking... )


edit 2: darn cross-post again

[Count Comfect]

Nope. Because we know randomness exists from experience while we do not know that a designer exists. So randomness is a PROVEN phenomenon, while a designer capable of guiding evolution is UNPROVEN.

Which is why evolution is not using an unproven "designer" even if you concede randomness deserves that title.

[Curubethion]

Actually, randomness is philisophically nonexistent. If you roll a die, there is no unknown "force" that determines what it lands on. What determines the roll is velocities and orientations of the die and the surfaces it hits. These are predictable...
Ever heard of chaos theory? (the denial of randomness)

[Count Comfect]

Ever hear of quantum theory (the complete and total victory of randomness)? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? An electron cannot have both its mass and its location measured at the same time, because as one gets more precise, the other gets less precise. The actual location and mass are... random, within a range.

Besides, chaos theory quickly gets out of control such that things are actually unpredictable.

[Curubethion]

Every thing is a result of observable events. If you apply extremely advanced physics, you can predict the outcome 100% of the time. Quantam theory is just that, a theory. I only referenced chaos theory to bolster my statement.

[Count Comfect]

No, you can't. They've tried. You cannot predict quantum-level events 100% of the time. Radioactive decay, for instance, of a single atom is completely unpredictable on a second-to-second basis. So is the location of a single electron.

And as I've said before, a scientific theory is not "just a theory." It is heavily backed up with evidence.

[Curubethion]

That's all based on theory. And the unpredictablility results from our lower level of technology. Eventually, we would be able to 100% predict this. It would just require incredibly advanced science.

And what is a theory, if scientific theory is not "just a theory"?

[Count Comfect]

Nope. Go look at the math underlying quantum physics. It explains that even in an ideal world, where all technology is perfect, things are unpredictable. I don't have the math or physics background to give you the proofs myself. But they are out there.

A scientific theory, as I have posted, is a hypothesis backed up by collected evidence and refined through the collection of that evidence. Traditionally (and this is much more true of quantum theory than even of evolution) it makes predictions that are then tested for, and if they prove false it is refined even more.

A theory, in COMMON usage, is a wild guess - ie, "that's just my theory."

Big difference.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

BTW, this thread isn't about evolution evidence, it's about creation. So even if it's irrelevant to evolution it is relevant to ID.

The concept of god is relevant to intelligent design? Yes I know. Thats my whole point entirely. Thanks.

[Elemmírë]

I love the ongoing marvellous but unfortunately off-topic discussion of quantum physics.

I try not to get involved in these types of debates, so I apologise if what I say has already been covered.

I have a question, and then a comment that only applies if I am correct in my assumption about said question.

Is ID a different thing from Creationism? I know that it at least grew out of a completely religious belief, but am unsure of how distinct it is from Judeo-Christian thought (or of how far such an idea could ever come from its origins).

If ID essentially is the same as Creationism, minor differences notwithstanding, how can schools be justified in teaching the ideas proposed by one religion and not those held by another? What makes this idea more plausible or "scientific" than Hindu or Buddhist beliefs about the origin of life and the universe?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by ElemmÃ*rë

If ID essentially is the same as Creationism, minor differences notwithstanding, how can schools be justified in teaching the ideas proposed by one religion and not those held by another? What makes this idea more plausible or "scientific" than Hindu or Buddhist beliefs about the origin of life and the universe?

creationists realized this very problem when they tried to push creation... so they came up with ID, saying that we had to be "intelligently designed", but not defining who that intelligent designer is

in the end, that is it's essential flaw... much like my statement that said, we had to be created by aliens, yet leaving off who those aliens are

the ideas are logical, and even possible, but the conclusion is not based upon evidence... both depend upon causes we have no evidence exist (either a designer or aliens)

evolution, on the other hand, depends upon a cause we do know exists... reproductive mutations coupled with environmental changes over time can cause changes in how an organism appears... what makes it still a theory is that we must project what we see on a very small scale to a very large one (in terms of time), but at least we have some basis to project from

ID or my alien theory have no basis to project from