Evolutionary theory hinders scientific progress.

[PlastikBuddha]

My critical thinking faculties are in noguru's deoxyribonucleic acid?

I hope not. Just making a little swipe at the Stipe.

 

[Stripe]

I hope not. Just making a little swipe at the Stipe.

Ah. I see.

If you do happen to find my critical thinking faculties be sure and let me know. I'm starting a collection, don't you know...

 

[CRMRC]

Essentially science exists on the principle of reform, so I have no problem with a desire to reform evoutionary theory, or any theory. I just hope that ID advocates would look very carefully at their methods of doing so and stop appealing to political and popular forces and really dig into the scientific community with actual research supported by evidence published in reputable journals that can be reviewed and methods repeated by other actual scientists. And just like other scientists, if their experiments fail, they need to devise new ones or conclude that their hypotheses were incorrect and change their views, otherwise they are not doing science but theology. Their claims would be so much more compelling if these routes were travelled just as every other legitimate reformer of scientific theory has done.

 

[Stripe]

Essentially science exists on the principle of reform.

Really? That's interesting.

 

[Layla]

The OP is a giant strawman, as noguru pointed out. Junk DNA doens't mean useless DNA, it's DNA which we do not know the function of yet. You're basing your entire argument on a misunderstanding of scientific terms.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Yarg- it's never a good sign when the kids want to take a nap. Darn streptolococci!

 

[bob b]

Essentially science exists on the principle of reform, so I have no problem with a desire to reform evoutionary theory, or any theory. I just hope that ID advocates would look very carefully at their methods of doing so and stop appealing to political and popular forces and really dig into the scientific community with actual research supported by evidence published in reputable journals that can be reviewed and methods repeated by other actual scientists. And just like other scientists, if their experiments fail, they need to devise new ones or conclude that their hypotheses were incorrect and change their views, otherwise they are not doing science but theology. Their claims would be so much more compelling if these routes were travelled just as every other legitimate reformer of scientific theory has done.

You are talking about a double standard:

ID advocates should not appeal to political and popular forces, but evolutionists should be free to do so (as they have been doing for years).

Actually ID advocates do the same as do evolutionists, they are conducting research as best they can without government grant money AND some of them are appealling to political and popular sources in order to attempt to level the playing field. They are holding seminars which include evolution advocates as well as ID advocates.

ID does not replace the theory of natural selection. It only attempts to reform the idea that all life originated with a single hypothetical primitive protocell by showing that certain features of cells and organisms are irreducibly complex, and hence their apparent design could not have originated in a gradual step-by-step process, regardless of the amount of time available.

 

[Stripe]

Essentially science exists on the principle of reform

Johnny says it doesn't.

 

[SUTG]

ID does not replace the theory of natural selection. It only attempts to reform the idea that all life originated with a single hypothetical primitive protocell by showing that certain features of cells and organisms are irreducibly complex, and hence their apparent design could not have originated in a gradual step-by-step process, regardless of the amount of time available.

OK, so now that this has failed, what is next for the ID community?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You are talking about a double standard:

ID advocates should not appeal to political and popular forces, but evolutionists should be free to do so (as they have been doing for years).

Actually ID advocates do the same as do evolutionists, they are conducting research as best they can without government grant money AND some of them are appealling to political and popular sources in order to attempt to level the playing field. They are holding seminars which include evolution advocates as well as ID advocates.

ID does not replace the theory of natural selection. It only attempts to reform the idea that all life originated with a single hypothetical primitive protocell by showing that certain features of cells and organisms are irreducibly complex, and hence their apparent design could not have originated in a gradual step-by-step process, regardless of the amount of time available.

If evolutionists have been appealing to popularity they have done a poor job- the abysmal level of scientific understanding is proof of that. Evolutionists have been appealing to people's reason and desire for understanding- perhaps not the best choice given that despite all the facts being in the evolutionists camp, few people even understand the basic priciples, while creationists have every suburban redneck jumping on their wagon. Appeal to what people want to believe anyway, that we are special creations in universe made for our pleasure and dominion, and you seldom loose.

 

[Stripe]

OK, so now that this has failed, what is next for the ID community?

Oh. So you'd be able to tell us which came first. Are you a chicken or an egg man?

 

[SUTG]

Oh. So you'd be able to tell us which came first. Are you a chicken or an egg man?

Huh? Wasn't that another thread?

 

[Gerald]

Oh. So you'd be able to tell us which came first.

You're no better equipped; where SUTG says "insufficient data" you say "Goddidit!".

 

[SUTG]

Johnny says it doesn't.

No, he doesn't. You're misunderstanding him.

 

[Johnny]

Essentially science exists on the principle of reform

Johnny says it doesn't.

Conservatism is the very strength of the scientific method. It is in this principle that science moves continually towards closer and closer approximations of the truth.

Part of the beauty of science is that it is reliant on no single individual's career or on no single belief, and so while some scientists with vested interests may hold on to archaic ideas for the sake of holding on, the collective whole still progresses. The other beauty of science is that individuals are encouraged to topple widely-held theories. In science, the ultimate glory is overthrowing established ideas in favor of new ideas. Scientists who have done this will be immortalized in science books for generations to come.

As I asserted in the thread to which you refer, science is continually reforming and immortalizes the reformers. It is only by reformation by which we move towards the truth. Conservatism is simply a virtue by which we guide our reformations.

 

[CRMRC]

You are talking about a double standard:

ID advocates should not appeal to political and popular forces, but evolutionists should be free to do so (as they have been doing for years).

Actually ID advocates do the same as do evolutionists, they are conducting research as best they can without government grant money AND some of them are appealling to political and popular sources in order to attempt to level the playing field. They are holding seminars which include evolution advocates as well as ID advocates.

ID does not replace the theory of natural selection. It only attempts to reform the idea that all life originated with a single hypothetical primitive protocell by showing that certain features of cells and organisms are irreducibly complex, and hence their apparent design could not have originated in a gradual step-by-step process, regardless of the amount of time available.

I think what I really meant when I said ID appeals to popular and political forces, it attempts to do science by the way of grassroots movements and voting, which is purely political, rather than going the respectable route of theory-->experimental data-->journal publications-->popular support and instead goes from theory-->popular support. I really don't like it when science and politics mix much, becuase I love science and really dislike politics. But I understand why it happens in some cases, for example dealing with energy, water, global warming, weapons development, etc. because all of these are issues that, given the proper treatment by scientists, can have major implications not only for textbook writers but for the health and well being of the population at large. But when we are dealing with fundamental theories in biology, I leave it to those trained to study and experiment to do so.

Also, one of the major reasons that projects get funding is because they seem that they might get results. Right now, funding for sciences is very poor in the US (at least for the physical sciences). You will not get a grant of fantasy research, which, at this point in time, includes ID. The fact is that ID in its current state is so far fetched and non-applicable that you might be able to compare it to getting funding for doing string theory research (which is very difficult and unlikely). These things have to start small, with reasonable steps towards new models, and ultimately, towards reformation of the current one. So in the realm of evolution, it is up to the ID experimentalists (which it seems there are none of currently) to demonstrate that the evidence collected by those in support of evolution is flawed by producing some counterevidence. Basically, the burden of proof is on the scientists challenging established theory.

It seems that there must be some ID philanthropist or venture capitalist or university that would support research, which is how most science research is conducted. But like I said, money is hard to come by when you are trying to do such esoteric research that has few applications. Possible places to explore are the places in evolutionary theory that are not filled in at this point in time, and any researcher should be able to carry out these tasks without an agenda. To establish a new theory, you have to show that the current one is not quite right in some way or another, and provide a more complete model.

Dealing with science sounding concepts such as irreducible complexity seems like a new way of stating any sort of teleological argument, "It is too complex to explain so it must be _____" instead of saying that we currently cannot explain these things based on the current ideas, so we will be investigating this to come to a conclusion. I promise that compelling evidence will change science, it always does. But from what I can tell many of the claims of irreducible complexity have been researched and shown false, so it doesn't look good for the ID advocates that continue to hold ground on an argument faltering. But hey, I would love to see their research and I have no problem with them doing their best.

Basically what I am saying is that I am open to science, and other scientists are as well.

C

 

[bob b]

I think what I really meant when I said ID appeals to popular and political forces, it attempts to do science by the way of grassroots movements and voting, which is purely political, rather than going the respectable route of theory-->experimental data-->journal publications-->popular support and instead goes from theory-->popular support. I really don't like it when science and politics mix much, becuase I love science and really dislike politics. But I understand why it happens in some cases, for example dealing with energy, water, global warming, weapons development, etc. because all of these are issues that, given the proper treatment by scientists, can have major implications not only for textbook writers but for the health and well being of the population at large. But when we are dealing with fundamental theories in biology, I leave it to those trained to study and experiment to do so.

Also, one of the major reasons that projects get funding is because they seem that they might get results. Right now, funding for sciences is very poor in the US (at least for the physical sciences). You will not get a grant of fantasy research, which, at this point in time, includes ID. The fact is that ID in its current state is so far fetched and non-applicable that you might be able to compare it to getting funding for doing string theory research (which is very difficult and unlikely). These things have to start small, with reasonable steps towards new models, and ultimately, towards reformation of the current one. So in the realm of evolution, it is up to the ID experimentalists (which it seems there are none of currently) to demonstrate that the evidence collected by those in support of evolution is flawed by producing some counterevidence. Basically, the burden of proof is on the scientists challenging established theory.

It seems that there must be some ID philanthropist or venture capitalist or university that would support research, which is how most science research is conducted. But like I said, money is hard to come by when you are trying to do such esoteric research that has few applications. Possible places to explore are the places in evolutionary theory that are not filled in at this point in time, and any researcher should be able to carry out these tasks without an agenda. To establish a new theory, you have to show that the current one is not quite right in some way or another, and provide a more complete model.

Dealing with science sounding concepts such as irreducible complexity seems like a new way of stating any sort of teleological argument, "It is too complex to explain so it must be _____" instead of saying that we currently cannot explain these things based on the current ideas, so we will be investigating this to come to a conclusion. I promise that compelling evidence will change science, it always does. But from what I can tell many of the claims of irreducible complexity have been researched and shown false, so it doesn't look good for the ID advocates that continue to hold ground on an argument faltering. But hey, I would love to see their research and I have no problem with them doing their best.

Basically what I am saying is that I am open to science, and other scientists are as well.

C

I think it is rather sad that you are so poorly informed about ID.

But this is par for the course among evolutionists, who consistently publish all sorts of misconceptions about ID.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I think it is rather sad that you are so poorly informed about ID.

But this is par for the course among evolutionists, who consistently publish all sorts of misconceptions about ID.

Perhaps if ID'ers actually did some sort of scientific research and published verifiable results this wouldn't be the case.

 

[jgarden]

"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."

-Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei

Why do Christians find it mnecessary to stake the credibity of their faith to the world by getting embroiled in the 6 day creation versus the big "bang"/evolutionary interpretation?

If God just happened to have created all life, including Man, through evolutionary processses, does that in anyway diminish His role as our Creator.

On the other hand, if God created the world in literally 6 days, does that add to His role as our Creator.

All Christians really need to say is that we were created in God's image - just as we should have done 500 years ago when the Church persecuted Galileo as a heretic based on interpreting the Bible for purposes for which it was never intended.

Perhaps God put us on earth to do more important things than to get into senseless arguments with science about timelines and the mechanics of God's Creation.:bang:

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

List of people who should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions before continuing this discussion...

1) Bob B
2) Stipe