|
FAQ | Members List | Calendar |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
10-05-2005, 08:53 PM | #21 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
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.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-05-2005, 09:22 PM | #22 |
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
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.
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
10-05-2005, 09:24 PM | #23 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
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.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-05-2005, 09:26 PM | #24 | |
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
Quote:
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
|
10-05-2005, 09:29 PM | #25 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
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.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-05-2005, 09:33 PM | #26 | |
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
|
10-05-2005, 09:35 PM | #27 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
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.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-05-2005, 09:35 PM | #28 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
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. |
10-05-2005, 09:36 PM | #29 |
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
Evolution is just filling in the gaps with an unproven designer (randomness)
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
10-05-2005, 09:37 PM | #30 | |||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Woah. I cross-posted with Curubethion and Count Comfect in my last post there. That's why it makes no sense.
Intense. edit: Quote:
edit 2: darn cross-post again
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Nurvingiel : 10-05-2005 at 09:39 PM. |
|||
10-05-2005, 09:38 PM | #31 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
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.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-05-2005, 09:41 PM | #32 |
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
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)
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
10-05-2005, 09:43 PM | #33 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
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.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-05-2005, 09:45 PM | #34 |
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
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.
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
10-05-2005, 09:47 PM | #35 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
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.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-05-2005, 09:50 PM | #36 |
Fenway Ranger, Lord of Red Sox Nation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: College!
Posts: 1,976
|
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"?
__________________
Adventure...betrayal...heroism... Atharon: where heroes are born. My wife once said to me—when I'd been writing for ten or fifteen years—that I could always go back to being a nuclear engineer. And I said to her, 'Harriet, would you let someone who quit his job to go write fantasy anywhere near your nuclear reactor? I wouldn't!' (Robert Jordan) |
10-05-2005, 09:53 PM | #37 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
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.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-05-2005, 10:55 PM | #38 | |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Quote:
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
|
10-05-2005, 11:11 PM | #39 |
avocatus diaboli
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Himring
Posts: 1,582
|
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?
__________________
~ I have heard the languages of apocalypse and now I shall embrace the silence ~
Neil Gaiman |
10-06-2005, 08:55 AM | #40 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 1199 | 10-05-2005 04:43 AM |
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution | Rían | General Messages | 1149 | 08-16-2004 06:07 PM |