How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And does a chemist look at the AIDS virus and ask, "Could this have occurred naturally?" and stop there? OF course not! His/her goal is KNOWLEDGE about the virus; how it works; what affects it and how; etc. Really, the ONLY field in science whose main question is "could this have occurred naturally?" is evolution; I can't think of ANY other field where it is asked at all, or is asked as a main goal type of question.

it's the first question he asks... and he certainly doesn't say, "did this occur naturally or was this disease implanted by an intelligent designer into this human being for some greater purpose?"... though, if intelligent design was the accepted norm, this would be a perfectly logical question.. do you not agree?

and, to follow that logic, the chemist might ask, "should we look for cures via natural means, or would it be better the try and figure out and appease this intelligent being?"

i goes back to my unanswered question about what ID would actually contribute to the field of science... does it help us predict anything? does it help us effect the world around us? does it help us develop cures for diseases?

in fact, all it tells us is that any and everything we observe may very well be being influenced by some completely undetectable intelligence way beyond our understanding and that we can, in fact, depend upon nothing

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

two people, father and son or mother and daughter, are a small "society"... the "intrinsic value" is placed by one upon the other for their own reasons... nothing more, nothing less

So if a husband and wife are their own society, and the husband doesn't value the wife, it's fine if he knocks her off? I know you don't think that, but IMO the value that we automatically place on every human being is an indicator of something beyond evolution. Even if someone kills someone that raped them, for example, we might say he deserved it, but it is still a tragedy that the rape occurred (a crime against a valuable human being) and that the guy did it (a tragedy that a valuable human being made such a horrific choice) and that the guy got killed (a valuable human life that ended tragically and had the potential to be better).

i goes back to my unanswered question about what ID would actually contribute to the field of science... does it help us predict anything? does it help us effect the world around us? does it help us develop cures for diseases?

it might - but IMO, knowledge in and of itself is a good thing and a valuable contribution to us, independent of how it can be milked for good. I think the worldview that consists mainly of "how can this help me?" is too small of a worldview; it misses out on so much. I think some of the best findings of science are findings that start with "Oh, look! How cool this is!"

in fact, all it tells us is that any and everything we observe may very well be being influenced by some completely undetectable intelligence way beyond our understanding and that we can, in fact, depend upon nothing

First, it wouldn't be undetectable if we knew it existed, or had made a reasonable conclusion that it existed based on evaluation of evidence. And second, if it was indeed the case, would you prefer to be ignorant of it? And saying that we can, in fact, depend upon nothing, is making conclusions about the nature of the being; ID doesn't do that.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Absolutely not! The word "science" means "knowledge". It's basically only recently in the history of science that this naturalistic angle came in, and IMO it's from the evolutionists who are worried (and rightly) that their emperor might be shown to have no clothes.

Incorrect. Science has its roots in 'natural philosophy', which can be traced back to the Ancient Greek Philosophers, and earlier.

Originally Posted by wikipedia.com

Early scientists, regardless of their field of study, called themselves "natural philosophers".

Furthermore, the very basis of science developed accordingly:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia.com

Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge - based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism - aimed at finding out the truth. The basic units of knowledge are theories, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

you mean you don't have "made in heaven" stamped on your butt?

Thank you for your explanation - I am still not sure how they would delineate between 'designed' and naturally occurring. What would be the control? And how would appropriate criteria be drafted up? IMO, the very nature of ID (hehe) ensures that it will never be able to approach it from a scientific basis (that which is "knowable"), unless this supernatural element steps forward and acknowledges that certain aspects of life were designed. It is problematic that ID is pushing to look for signatures. I am particularly concerned because creationism, its clear predecessor, point-blank refused to acknowledge scientific fact in pushing its agenda, and it worries me that ID will fall for the same trap (eg young earth, grand canyon development, etc). I do appreciate your explanations though, even if I don't find it plausible.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

but IMO, knowledge in and of itself is a good thing and a valuable contribution to us, independent of how it can be milked for good.

or "bad"

you did not address this very important point about what we choose to define as "science":

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's the first question [the chemist] asks [about AIDS]... and he certainly doesn't say, "did this occur naturally or was this disease implanted by an intelligent designer into this human being for some greater purpose?"... though, if intelligent design was the accepted norm, this would be a perfectly logical question.. do you not agree?

and, to follow that logic, the chemist might ask, "should we look for cures via natural means, or would it be better the try and figure out and appease this intelligent being?"

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

science deals with the natural and ID deals with the supernatural

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Science has its roots in 'natural philosophy', which can be traced back to the Ancient Greek Philosophers, and earlier.

YES. This goes back to my point about philosophical truths. Science (coined in the 19th century, by the way, to try to reunite the fields of natural philosophy after they started fragmenting what had been a single discipline into what we now know as physics, chemistry, etc) IS naturalistic. It looks for natural explanations, and it always has. Newton believed that God was behind gravity - but he didn't just say "God makes things fall", he went and tried to explain what natural processes God used. I say this as an example of how it is NOT inherently atheistic - but it DOES look for natural processes.

And so to be science, and not pure philosophy, a theory has to explain the world in terms of NATURAL philosophy. That's why Plato, despite trying to explain the world in terms of it being a reflection of an ideal world of Forms, is not considered to be scientific, but Aristotle trying to explain (albeit wrongly) pregnancy by saying the man's blood combines with the woman's flesh to make her quicken, IS. ID may be wonderfully correct philosophy. But it is NOT science, until the Intelligent Designer (or another being capable of ID, even if not the original Designer) comes forward and becomes empirically observed, and thus part of our natural, scientific world.

This also goes to the (over and over repeated) SETI point. There are beings capable of manipulating radio waves - us. Thus we can look for evidence of other creatures like us doing that. There are NO beings (known to us at least) capable of designing life - so we can't look for creatures doing that because we have no idea what it would look like.

As for arrowheads and radio waves, bj is right. We are capable of making them, thus we know what a made one looks like. Imagine if you lived in a world where every rock was an arrowhead. You would have no proof of whether this was by design (someone hit every rock until it was an arrowhead) or by nature, because you'd have no idea what a NON-arrowhead rock was like. That's what we have with ID - even if all life is designed, we can't look for 'hallmarks of design' because we wouldn't have NONdesigned life to compare it to. It's nonprovable.

And knowledge is a wonderful thing - but once you go to "knowledge" as opposed to SCIENTIFIC knowledge, you open up philosophy, which is. not. science. And that's where ID falls.

[Lotesse]

*claps hands excitedly* BRAVO! INDEED! THANK you, Count Comfect. If ONLY I could learn to voice myself HALF as coherently & well as this from time to time, then I wouldn't be reduced to saying "bah" all the time in frustration.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Thank you for your explanation - I am still not sure how they would delineate between 'designed' and naturally occurring. What would be the control? And how would appropriate criteria be drafted up?

Good questions - let's let those scientists who are interested in the subject work on those questions! Sounds like it's something that needs developing, as I've always said. And the supernatural being does NOT need to step forward in order to do this.

For the rest - Interesting that you include philosophy in science! Most evolutionists always say quite the opposite ...

Seriously, we'd have to get into a major history of science in order to resolve this question. I don't agree with everything your sources say, altho I agree with a lot of it.

I assume you grant that it's a possibility that an intelligent being/beings created our world. Do you not, then, agree that it's close-minded to not even explore if this question CAN be framed and studied in a scientific manner? Would you prefer to completely shut out this entire area and just dogmatically repeat "I can only consider ways that this world may have formed by mindless natural processes"? To me, that seems the height of silliness, frankly, and IMO it's often driven by a fear of the unknown and a lack of courage and a small mindset.

As I noted many times before (but you may have missed, BoP) the whole reason I even brought the subject up was because I was fascinated by the total HYSTERIA on the evolution side - name-calling, doomsday predictions, rampant fear and hysteria, deep, knee-jerk reactions from the gut - when the good people of Kansas decided to put a little sticker on their biology books that dared to say that evolution was not fact. I'm not talking about Pennsylvania, which is a different question - I think they went too far with an undeveloped field - it was the Kansas thing that just amazed me.

Originally Posted by brownie

you did not address this very important point about what we choose to define as "science":

geez, gimme a break! It's several against one, and I'm just picking and choosing, because I have to go start the Christmas cookies. For a quick answer, frankly, I thought it such a minor point in the whole scope of science that it was the lowest item on the list of things to address, and I could tell it would take some time to do so clearly. I might give it a shot after Christmas cookies, tho, since you brought it up again and it looks like it's important to you. And YOU are important to ME!

[rohirrim TR]

Here is an article that is not exactly related, its sort of on topic and i'm just gonna post it and run so peace out y'all click here

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

geez, gimme a break! It's several against one, and I'm just picking and choosing, because I have to go start the Christmas cookies. For a quick answer, frankly, I thought it such a minor point in the whole scope of science that it was the lowest item on the list of things to address, and I could tell it would take some time to do so clearly. I might give it a shot after Christmas cookies, tho, since you brought it up again and it looks like it's important to you. And YOU are important to ME!

it's not that important... i just was wondering how much thought you had given to the implications of how science is applied in real world situations if we began to accept something like ID

this is much more important that the whole "i'd just like to know" thing... but cookies are important too... take your time

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I assume you grant that it's a possibility that an intelligent being/beings created our world. Do you not, then, agree that it's close-minded to not even explore if this question CAN be framed and studied in a scientific manner? Would you prefer to completely shut out this entire area and just dogmatically repeat "I can only consider ways that this world may have formed by mindless natural processes"? To me, that seems the height of silliness, frankly, and IMO it's often driven by a fear of the unknown and a lack of courage and a small mindset.

that is why it is important to study both science and philosophy... studying one in exclusion of the other is folly... but so is not recognizing the differences between the two approaches

you can scientifically study natural processes

and you can philosopically discuss supernatural processes

both are fine, as long as you don't blur the line between what is observable and what you would think is "true" from a philosophical point of view... that hurts both forms of study

[Rían]

but don't forget the full meaning of philosophy - it includes logical analysis skills. Originally it was the love of/search for wisdom. It's not just thinking about pie-in-the-sky stuff, like I think most people think it means.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with you about philosophy RÃ*an.

You can also think phisolophically about natural processes.

About what said earlier RÃ*an, I imagine a lot of papers get thrown out without being read, if they were submitted to a very busy journal. I imagine that editors somewhat subjectively decide which articles they will read and throw out the rest, ID or not. I think it's too bad all the papers don't get a chance, but this might happen a lot with busy journals.

[Count Comfect]

You can certainly think philosophically about natural processes. Philosophical thinking is a very broad thing. But it's different from thinking scientifically, because while it doesn't have to include supernatural processes, it can, and science cannot.

I'd say not that philosophy is in science, but science is in philosophy. Philosophy (just means love of knowledge, after all) is a much broader field than most people think. Doesn't mean that all philosophy is science though - just the natural philosophy.

[rohirrim TR]

"Christianity is the mother of science"
~Alfred North Whitehead~ British philosopher and scientist.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

"Christianity is the mother of science"
~Alfred North Whitehead~ British philosopher and scientist.

and, like most mom's, it has a hard time letting go

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I noted many times before (but you may have missed, BoP) the whole reason I even brought the subject up was because I was fascinated by the total HYSTERIA on the evolution side - name-calling, doomsday predictions, rampant fear and hysteria, deep, knee-jerk reactions from the gut - when the good people of Kansas decided to put a little sticker on their biology books that dared to say that evolution was not fact.

but wait... you cant have it both ways. You said before that the real issue is people stifling research in the intelligent design area when I said this was about not bringing it to our school system. And then you turn around and say you started all this because of a specific school system issue? Well they deserve vitriol when they attempt to highjack our public school system science program with religious notions if you ask me. But they should certainly be allowed to research whatever it is they want assuming they are using their own (near bottomless by the way) funds to do it.

And I rather disagree that there is some kind of hostile organized witch hunt against intelligent design people outside of the whole school issue. I think them forcing this issue on public school kids is the thing that has caused such outrage because its such an insidious and despicable thing to do. But as far as pure lab work, I just dont see how you can stop that stuff. They will certainly be greeted with rightful dubiousness if they try to publish stuff that just doesnt show anything other then what they perceive is the "inadequacies" of evolution (irreducible complexity, etc.). But if they can show proof of a designer how can anyone ignore that really?

[rohirrim TR]

well here it is folks, the reason that this is such a dead end arguement is because we're trying to argue philosophy, scientifically click here

[inked]

Want some philosophical considerations....

lengthy but worth it:

#1 http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1397#comments

#2 http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1405#comments

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As I noted many times before (but you may have missed, BoP) the whole reason I even brought the subject up was because I was fascinated by the total HYSTERIA on the evolution side - name-calling, doomsday predictions, rampant fear and hysteria, deep, knee-jerk reactions from the gut - when the good people of Kansas decided to put a little sticker on their biology books that dared to say that evolution was not fact.

America is more or less the world's centrum of science. It's not a coincidence that most Nobel Prize winners are Americans. So I think it's only rational that many Americans show some strong reactions when Kansas embarrasses the whole country in front of the world and kind of spoils America's scientific reputation. However I don't think at all that the "evolution side" is as bad as you describe it.

European papers have followed the ID debate closely and it seems that the general opinion over here is that the debate is tragicomic. At least that's the impression I've got and that's what I think myself.

[Insidious Rex]

Well good news:

Evolution Opponents Lose in Kan. Primary

By JOHN HANNA
The Associated Press
Wednesday, August 2, 2006


TOPEKA, Kan. -- Conservative Republicans who approved new classroom standards that call evolution into question lost control of the State Board of Education in Tuesday's primary election.

A victory by pro-evolution Republican candidate Jana Shaver over conservative Republican Brad Patzer, who supported the standards treating evolution as a flawed theory, meant conservatives would at best have five of 10 seats on the board.

Five seats were up for election in the primary, the latest skirmish in a seesawing battle between faith and science that has opened Kansas up to international ridicule.

Conservative Republican John Bacon kept his seat by besting two pro-evolution challengers. But Shaver's win split the makeup of the board between evolution supporters and opponents. She won a seat that was vacant because a conservative Republican evolution opponent was retiring.

Besides Bacon and Shaver's races, the seats of two conservative Republicans who oppose evolution were up for grabs, along with that of a Democrat who favors evolution.

Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat who opposed the new standards, defeated a more conservative Democrat who favored the anti-evolution language with 65 percent of the vote.

One conservative incumbent, Ken Willard, held on to his seat, but another, Connie Morris, was losing to a pro-evolution candidate.

Morris' race in western Kansas was the most closely watched. The former teacher has described evolution as "an age-old fairy tale" and "a nice bedtime story" unsupported by science.

So we continue to avoid the domino effect of school boards jumping on the creationist bandwagon thank god. One can only hope this will continue and ignorance will no longer compete head to head with science.