A poll for creationists

[metis]

Darwin's theory could be modified to accommodate gentle nudges in the course of evolution by an intelligent designer, but I wouldn't consider it Darwin's theory any more. Darwin says that undirected variation in biological populations subjected to natural selection, also an undirected process, can account for the tree of life and the evidence of extinct forms that we see around us today .

Again, this does not in any way eliminate the idea that there could be divine intervention in any way. What may appear to be random to us could well have been planned by God. As scientists, we do not make that judgment one way of the other because it has not been observed nor is it testable, directly or indirectly.

If it required a god's help, that's a different theory in my opinion. It's still a theory of biological evolution, but not Darwin's theory.

"Theory", in the realm of science, is very different than with the lay. A personal theory has nothing to do with a scientific theory. If you haven't done as such, let me recommend you look up "scientific theory", and even Wikipedia can give you that information.

Notice that I do not claim that Darwin's theory rules out a god. It simply fails to include any gods from its proposed mechanism.

Because it's not been observed in any way, including indirect evidence, nor is it testable. As much as I wish there was objectively-derived evidence for God, the reality is that there isn't any.

Maybe we're using the word scientific differently here. That adjective when applied to a hypothesis or theory simply means that the idea is at least in principle falsifiable. You don't need any evidence that the world may end tomorrow for it to be your hypothesis.

In science, there has to be some evidence-- our rules.

But I'd say that it is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable. If we make it through the day tomorrow, your hypothesis has been disproven. That's science to me.

A "scientific hypothesis" remains as such unless the evidence is overwhelming enough to move it our of that category and into the next level, such as being part of a "scientific theory". OTOH, if my hypothesis that the world ends today doesn't bear out, then it's just another hypothesis that would turn out to be a dead end-- it's happened many times before..

Good discussion.

Ditto, and take care.

 

[shunyadragon]

Aha! I found the source of the supposed "case study" of Danny Phillips:

Evolution - April 1998: The Danny Phillips Story


He incorrectly called a NOVA program "propaganda" when it was merely a short synopsis of scientific theory and hypothesis. A one hour show has a limited amount of rigorous science that can be shown. The fact is that the scientific evidence out there supports only the claim that life evolved from a single protozoan at this time. Perhaps the show glossed over that fact, but since it is the only concept supported by any reliable verifiable evidence at all the presentation was not unreasonable. Like I said, a single confused high school student is a very poor example to use.

Thank you!!!!

. . . for the reference, because it reveals the true motivation behind the story (not a "case study"), and the underlying reason @KenS cited this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not consider what @KenS referred to would qualify as a "case study." It was more an anecdotal story. A "case study" would be more a controlled scientific study,

That was why I put the phrase in scare quotes.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I don't totally agree with that statement, as I feel there is if you look for it. Also, I feel the same argument can be made for the beginnings of evolution. We are here so it just happened, no working ideas of how it even happened, just that we are here so it had to happen. Why couldn't it have been through God or ID?

That is a good question, but I don't think that is part of the OP. So I will let you decide.

So you believe everything that is written about evolution and do not question any part of it? I think scientists question everything as they learn more, but from what you say neither you or I can question anything?

Great points! Even scientists question other scientists' theories.

There was quite a dispute going, between E. O. Wilson and Dawkins for a while.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The science of evolution cannot be partially into neat packages to believe part and not others.

What?

Sure they can be! And are!

 

[shunyadragon]

What?

Sure they can be! And are!

Missed the point of the post. Some theists are selective on parts of the science of evolution to accept and others parts they will not. For example: Some theist will accept what they call 'micro evolution,' and reject what they call 'macro evolution.' The reality is their is no possible distinction between the two in the science of evolution.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes... that is why it is still hotly debated

Actually, it is not.

The actual reasons are an interesting subject matter for fields such as sociology. Not for biology or even theology.

 

[shunyadragon]

Great points! Even scientists question other scientists' theories.

There was quite a dispute going, between E. O. Wilson and Dawkins for a while.

This is very misleading as to the nature of the disputes and differences between different scientists, without providing a description as to actually what the disputes and differences concern. For example; The dispute between E. O. Wilson is philosophical and not the factual evidence for the science of evolution. Both E. O Willson support the science of evolution. There dispute involves the emphasis on which mechanisms of evolution are dominate. Both support the evidence of genetics in the science of evolution, Dawkins believes the evolution of the genes are dominant, and E O Wilson believes Group dynamics is the most dominant in the processes of evolution. In reality most scientists like Samir Okasha, and I take the middle road.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is the interview... not the movie that I was interested in.

But you can change the subject if you want.

There are definite problems with the interview and the question of 'Intelligent Design.' First neither is a scientist in the Biological fields involved in evolution. Being very intelligent has never been the basis of academic support for ID. Second, @Subduction Zone brought up important problems with the interview not responded to,

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, it is not.

The actual reasons are an interesting subject matter for fields such as sociology. Not for biology or even theology.

Agreed, the foundation of the science of evolution is not 'hotly debated,' neither is the question of the scientific evidence for 'Intelligent Design' among scientists. For the best evidence for the problems with ID refer to the Dover Trial and the testimony, and the resulting decision.

 

[Kenny]

Hello Metis,

I'm back from family and a conference... great time of rest and recharging of batteries.

BTW, are you making the assumption that scientists that accept the basic ToE are not "Bible believers"? Surveys of scientists indicate that roughly half of them are theists, and surveys of Christian theologians indicate that most of them (around 70% if my memory is correct) do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

Of course, that's true. I don't make that assumption rather simply pointing out that with all these intellectuals, much smarter than I, have disagreements. On your figures, that means that 30% of them still have issues that put them on the "doubt" list. None of them doubt gravity or other such items.

That is the point I'm making. I'm not going to call the 30% fringe, crazy, don't understand science, flat earthers. They are intelligent and logical thinkers than have questions as do I.

Likewise, I'm not going to call evolutionists crazy either. They have points that must be addressed.

Subjectivity is not evidence but interpretation can be, which is why peer review, which can be sometimes quite brutal, is necessary. Even though a scientist may work alone, what they find as evidence must be open to full observation from others.

No doubt. And that is what I meant. Did I use the wrong word, oh great one?

Hear me out here... If peer review was done by "creationists", we would cry foul and rightly so. Why, then, is in not wrong when the peer review is done solely by evolutionists? Shouldn't there be a mixture?

Now we're into the hypothesis stage, and what's required there is for one to state a hypothesis that must include evidence that it is at least possible. We cannot just put forth an idea without any supporting evidence and call it a "scientific hypothesis". And scientific papers to form hypotheses are a pain in the butt to write, let me tell ya.

I'm sure you would know much better than I and I trust you on that.

Actually not when it comes to the basic ToE. It's only a debate with those who use their interpretation of their scriptures as a set of blinders.

Yes... that does happen, no doubt. Mea culpa.

But do we accept as fact that life came out of non-living substance when indeed it still remains a scientific hypothesis? It can't be reproduced, there is no empirical and verifiable evidence etc.

I remember going to Talk origins and, as a layman, simply going through how many "suppositions" were given and then later watched them uste suppositions stated as "fact" for future applications.

Thus... for me... it simply leaves a question mark.

Can I change? Certainly. But on the basis of evidence.

Life has evolved and still is evolving, and this we know with certainty. We can "debate" the specifics, and we can debate what the ultimate Cause may have been, but we know that life changes over time, which is why you've become more senile with age.

Take care, my friend.

I thought "senile" was "wiser". Did I use another wrong word?

Certainly discoveries are growing at an exponential rate and I am intrested in what we will dsicover.

Blessings.

 

[Kenny]

There are definite problems with the interview and the question of 'Intelligent Design.' First neither is a scientist in the Biological fields involved in evolution. Being very intelligent has never been the basis of academic support for ID. Second, @Subduction Zone brought up important problems with the interview not responded to,

Not responding to those points because my point was that intelligent people have different position and intelligence is a necessary ingredient for intelligent discussions. There are scientist in the Biological fields who also disagree.

Lists can be found by googling.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not responding to those points because my point was that intelligent people have different position and intelligence is a necessary ingredient for intelligent discussions. There are scientist in the Biological fields who also disagree.

Lists can be found by googling.

Again, intelligence is not a qualification for understanding the science of evolution, and the requirements behind the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

The list is terribly short, and there is only one point needed to be responded to; if you assert this it needs an explanation of a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified to support 'Intelligent Design.' At present there are no falsifiable hypothesis forthcoming including all the efforts of the Discovery Institute.

 

[Kenny]

Again, intelligence is not a qualification for understanding the science of evolution, and the requirements behind the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

Let me translate what you just said... "If you are not a biologist, it doesn't matter how many letters you have behind your name... you are too ignorant to discuss the science of evolution."

Got it.

The list is terribly short,

Let me translate what you just said... "If the mayority agree, then those who disagree have no basis to discuss even if you are a biologist. Even though the majority did not agree with Einstein with his revolutionary position on the theory of realtivity, it's different when you deal with evolution.

AND, I cannot discuss this with you because you aren't a biologist."

Got it.

I believe there is a very strong element of 'faith' for the basis of the belief is what the Bible claims to be dependent on the view of the different Churches.

Ummm... what degree do you have in Theology?

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me translate what you just said... "If you are not a biologist, it doesn't matter how many letters you have behind your name... you are too ignorant to discuss the science of evolution."

Got it.

No not the case and your deliberate misrepresentation of what I said reflects your strong non-scientific agenda. Please cite me specifically and DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME.

Regardless if you have the entire Greek alphabet after your name, you need to consider: "understanding the science of evolution, and the requirements behind the falsification of theories and hypothesis."

No one needs a PhD in Biology to do this and understand the science behind evolution, and the related science-

Let me translate what you just said... "If the mayority agree, then those who disagree have no basis to discuss even if you are a biologist. Even though the majority did not agree with Einstein with his revolutionary position on the theory of realtivity, it's different when you deal with evolution.

Outstanding dodging responsibility, and misrepresentation of my posts.

AND, I cannot discuss this with you because you aren't a biologist."

Got it.

Again, again and again . . . any one even if you are an elementary student can enter the discussion intelligently if . . . they are willing to have an understanding the science of evolution, and the requirements behind the falsification of theories and hypothesis. and apply the scientific methods of Methodological Naturalism that are the foundation of all science.

The problem with the interview you presented, is neither were authorities in the field and did not refer to academic authorities to support their positions in biology. IF I was to respect such a dialogue as authoritative I most definitely would like to see recognized authorities in the field or at the minimum refer to academic authorities and reflect an understanding of Methodological Naturalism, and the requirements for falsification of theories and hypothesis.

You're avoiding the problem with 'Intelligent Design' is that there has never been proposed a hypothesis that may be falsified by scientific methods.

Ummm... what degree do you have in Theology?

No need, As with science, when I enter into a dialogue concerning Theology I refer to sources that are respected academically in Theology, and respect their methodology. I also do my own research using authoritative sources.

 

[metis]

I'm back from family and a conference... great time of rest and recharging of batteries.

Are you related to the Everready Bunny by chance?

That is the point I'm making. I'm not going to call the 30% fringe, crazy, don't understand science, flat earthers. They are intelligent and logical thinkers than have questions as do I.

Agreed, but even extremely intelligent people all so often work out of "confirmation bias". Any serious scientist tries their best to not work out of that, but we're human as well, although my wife has questioned that about me.

Hear me out here... If peer review was done by "creationists", we would cry foul and rightly so. Why, then, is in not wrong when the peer review is done solely by evolutionists? Shouldn't there be a mixture?

Actually theists do sorta work on a peer review basis, such as we see here at RF. The minute one says "I believe...", there's a line-up of others that will try and nail their butt to the wall.

"Peer review" is not a conformist approach-- quite the opposite. It means that any particular evidence that I many produce has along with it the right of others to inspect, comment, and possibly provide doubt that I'm on the right track. It's much like my wife does with me.

But do we accept as fact that life came out of non-living substance when indeed it still remains a scientific hypothesis? It can't be reproduced, there is no empirical and verifiable evidence etc.

Since there's no way to tell, this shouldn't be done.

But remember, that's a double-edged sword, and I see by far more theists claiming divine creation is a must-believe, even to the point of often demonizing those who have doubts (agnostics).

I remember going to Talk origins and, as a layman, simply going through how many "suppositions" were given and then later watched them uste suppositions stated as "fact" for future applications.

That's a no-no, as we should never take a position like that.

I thought "senile" was "wiser". Did I use another wrong word?

I think "senile" is what you may do if visiting Egypt.

Blessings.

Ditto to you, my friend, and I hope your retreat didn't set you back too far.

 

[shunyadragon]

I could not vote in the survey, but it is worthy of note that three out of the eight who voted would not support the science if there was enough evidence. All eight are faced with the science that the overwhelming amount of evidence supports the science of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is no alternative theory nor hypothesis that can be demonstrated based on the existing objective verifiable evidence.

The problem with the hypothesis for 'Intelligent Design' is that it is unable to falsify that the science of evolution, and also abiogenesis, and in particular the progressive complexity of life from simple forms found in the geologic record and life today, cannot be explained by natural laws and processes.

It is a classic paradox of trying to falsify the negative conclusion,

 

[Kenny]

I'll start here since it appears we have too many subjects that could be expounded...

No not the case and your deliberate misrepresentation of what I said reflects your strong non-scientific agenda. Please cite me specifically and DO NOT MISREPRESENT ME.

No one needs a PhD in Biology to do this and understand the science behind evolution, and the related science-

First neither is a scientist in the Biological fields involved in evolution.

Again, intelligence is not a qualification for understanding the science of evolution

It seems my position was plausible in what I interpreted.

Regardless if you have the entire Greek alphabet after your name, you need to consider: "understanding the science of evolution, and the requirements behind the falsification of theories and hypothesis."

Which are?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll start here since it appears we have too many subjects that could be expounded...






It seems my position was plausible in what I interpreted.



Which are?

Ah good, at least you admit that you have no clue as to what is and what is not evidence. Your poorly formed question at the end of your post proves this. Your ignorance of evolution has been demonstrated through countless threads. Let's get to the base of the problem. There is no specific test for a hypothesis or a scientific theory. Many of them have more than one test. But here is the important point, to be considered a scientific hypothesis or a theory a reasonable test for it must exist. I recently debated with a badly deluded flood believer that continually grasped at straws. He claimed Catastrophic Plate Tectonics was a testable hypothesis, his test was ridiculous so I rejected it. But I found a more than reasonable replacement for it and it failed. Of course he was a science denier so when the sciences show your belief to be wrong he denied the science. For the theory of evolution every fossil found is a new "test". Each fossil has the chance to be an inexplainable violation of the observed nested hierarchy of life. Each time a genome is sequence that too is an example of a testable experiment since that too is a chance to test the theory of evolution. The nested hierarchy could fail there too. WE have yet to see that happen after thousands upon thousands if not millions of tests.

Meanwhile creationist ideas are either framed as non-testable hypotheses or if testable the tests that refute their nonsense are rejected. Creationism is not science. It is religion.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'll start here since it appears we have too many subjects that could be expounded...

No complicated nor too many subjects at all.

It seems my position was plausible in what I interpreted.

It seems , , , plausible . . . and ah . . . interpreted do not work. They did not reflect the view of my posts,

Which are?

I could not be more specific.

"understanding the science of evolution, and the requirements behind the falsification of theories and hypothesis." I will add the knowledge of Methodological Naturalism and how it functions in science.

I believe you have been described in detail in a number of posts the problems with 'Intelligent Design' and trying to falsify the negative concerning issues such as the development of complexity, and the failure of the Discovery Institute to provide meaningful research that could possibly lead to falsifiable hypothesis nor theory concerning ID, despite being heavily funded by fundamentalist churches such as SDA.

Referring to very short 'lists' of of Intelligent Design and Creationist scientists out of tens of thousands of scientists world wide does not help your case.

This in part revolves around your objection to my emphasis on requiring academic authorities within the field in question, Biological sciences, as per your example of the dialogue or debate?. I will emphasis that either the people involved are academics in their field, or reference extensively the academics of the field. I would not be interested in a theological debate between mathmaticians.

You have also presented some very questionable phony stuff like your "case study" which was not a "case study" in the scientific sense, and was to put it bluntly arguing against the scientific video by the classic arguing from ignorance to make an argument for an 'Intelligent Design' video which was not based on science.