Evolution theory stickers taken off textbooks

[jerickson314]

Just a thought: Are there religions that support evolutionary theory?

If there are, there would be hell to pay with "separation of church and state" doctrines.

You bet!

So taking these examples, how would one determine whether or not a hydrogen atom (or any other structure or property in nature) was designed?

Ever heard of Dembski's filter? I've seen a lot of people criticize it because it might give false positives. However, isn't a 99% success rate enough?

And hydgrogen atoms may be designed. Ever heard of the "anthropic principle"? Design is everywhere.

[Kelly]

Everything around us may have been designed. (I happen to think so.) But if ID is to be considered as a science, there needs to be an experimental means to determine this. How does one do this?

[jerickson314]

Ahh, I see what you are saying. I am beginning to think more and more that ID is true and is excellent philosophy, but isn't truly "science". Dembski's filter is methodical but not experimental.

But when a scientific finding is significantly questioned by a philosophical one, I do think it is a good idea to discuss this when discussing the scientific finding. It would be silly to say that science class must be 100% science. For instance, in my class in the public school we discussed the different views and wrote papers on our views before we studied the "scientific" side of evolution, which (although I disagree here) was treated as fact from then on. This approach was at least better than ignoring the opposing views.

What separates evolution from the other theories is the significance of the controversy. This is analagous to how a debate in civics class over abortion is more likely than a debate over districting or something.

[Kelly]

The problem with Dembinski's filter is that the probabilities it generates are based on anthropocentric ignorance. Here's how it works:

1. If some observation has high probability of occurring according to known physical laws, accept this as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step.

2. If the hypothesis assigns some event a high probability of occurring according to random events then accept randomness as the cause; otherwise move down the list.

3. Having eliminated physical law and randomness, the only alternative is design.

The probabilities in steps one and two are based on our current knowledge. With sufficient ignorance, all events have low probability of occurring. Thus, the likelihood of a designer is inversely proportional to our understanding of nature.

Perhaps this is why many religious fundamentalists want to eliminate science from our schools: it increases the chance that God exists.

[Kelly]

jerickson314, I think you are absolutely correct that ID is a great philosophy! I happen to believe it with all my heart. As a scientist I am constantly awed and humbled by nature, and absolutely believe that none of this is the result of pure chance. However, as a scientist I also recognize the limitations of science (hence the question regarding how science could ever prove ID) and absolutely do not want our young people to be given anything less than the best scientific education that one can get, even if sometimes this may cause our youth to question their religious beliefs. If evolution is a fact of nature, then so be it.

I believe I come closer to God by studying His creation; imposing my own wishes and prejudices on this process of discovery only lengthens my journey to God. No one should fear the revelations of God's universe; any contradiction these revelations pose exist solely in our ignorance, not in His message.

These stickers were placed on biology books as a result of our prejudices and ignorance, not out of a genuine interest to promote the truth.

[jerickson314]

The problem with Dembinski's filter is that the probabilities it generates are based on anthropocentric ignorance. Here's how it works:

1. If some observation has high probability of occurring according to known physical laws, accept this as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step.

2. If the hypothesis assigns some event a high probability of occurring according to random events then accept randomness as the cause; otherwise move down the list.

3. Having eliminated physical law and randomness, the only alternative is design.

Right. Although Dembski's filter isn't the only way to discern design. Most of us here consider the biblical record to be of supreme value for this use, although we are well aware this will never be labeled as "science".

The probabilities in steps one and two are based on our current knowledge. With sufficient ignorance, all events have low probability of occurring. Thus, the likelihood of a designer is inversely proportional to our understanding of nature.

Not necessarily. There is no support for the assertion that the likelihood of a designer is reduced by understanding, only a past record of where this occured in some instances. There is no reason to generalize that the same will be the case with all scientific knowledge. We discussed this sort of thing here.

Basically, you are using a lot of hasty generalization here.

Perhaps this is why many religious fundamentalists want to eliminate science from our schools: it increases the chance that God exists.

I might be considered a "fundamentalist", since I believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. However, I certainly wouldn't want to eliminate science. I believe that no study will refute a true belief and thus doesn't need to be feared. Misinformation could be a problem, as might be the case with evolution.

Nonetheless, I would say that any fundamentalists who want to eliminate science education are quite misguided. But as mentioned above, science will never disprove the existence of God.

[Forge]

Nonetheless, I would say that any fundamentalists who want to eliminate science education are quite misguided. But as mentioned above, science will never disprove the existence of God.

Unless the secular fundamentalists allow it to

[Kelly]

jerickson314, I don't think we disagree. I am not saying that the probability that a designer exists is a function of our understanding. He either exists or He doesn't. There is no probability involved. I am merely criticizing the validity of Dembinski's filter. Nothing more.

I absolutely believe that science can never disprove the existence of God. For at the end of the day, when science has discovered all that can be discovered using the scientific method, there will still remain that question, why is any of this here at all? Science can only address what is here and how it works, not why it is here.

[Kelly]

The theory of evolution is a work in progress. Maybe it is correct; maybe it isn't. It is fine to criticize it based on its scientific merit, but in order to offer 'opposing' theories on a scientific basis it is first necessary to pose questions which can be answered scientifically. I do not believe ID fits this criterion: it offers no uniquely testable hypotheses.

I personally believe that there is overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs and that we are descendents of a common ancestor. Based only on probabilities that the molecular phylogenetic record shows (sequence homology), it is highly unlikely that we were created distinct and separate from the rest of the biosphere. I do not see this as a contradiction to my religious beliefs.

However, in order for a competing theory to be advanced, it must be based on testable hypotheses. In the case of ID, this means making a non-trivial prediction about some measurable property of the world around us that could potentially falsify the hypothesis that a designer exists. (Current lack of understanding does not count.)

[Felgar]

As a scientist I am constantly awed and humbled by nature, and absolutely believe that none of this is the result of pure chance. However, as a scientist I also recognize the limitations of science (hence the question regarding how science could ever prove ID) and absolutely do not want our young people to be given anything less than the best scientific education that one can get, even if sometimes this may cause our youth to question their religious beliefs. If evolution is a fact of nature, then so be it.

I believe I come closer to God by studying His creation; imposing my own wishes and prejudices on this process of discovery only lengthens my journey to God. No one should fear the revelations of God's universe; any contradiction these revelations pose exist solely in our ignorance, not in His message.

I very strongly agree with your statements here. The big question though, is whether evolution is a fact of nature.

You are right, that it is very difficult to devise a test to determine if something has been designed. One reason for that, is that everything we experience has been designed, so we have nothing to compare nature with.

[Kurieuo]

Everything around us may have been designed. (I happen to think so.) But if ID is to be considered as a science, there needs to be an experimental means to determine this. How does one do this?

Well first thing to do is to collects points of observations that exhibit intelligence. The science itself is conducted on the actual thing in question, to work out whether or not it displays certain characteristics that have been worked out within the methodology one uses.

For example, the famous bacterial flagellum had experiments done to it to see whether it expressed the quality of what has come to be known as irreducibly complex. Whether or not you agree this indicates design, well that is irrelevent since assumably you would be able to come up with your own methodology wherein experiments could be conducted to detect design.

In passing, I think I came across news at ARN that Wells recently had a paper published in the Rivista di Biologia journal wherein he makes certain predictions about his hypothesis that the centrioles of cells generate a polar ejection force. It says he writes within that, "If the hypothesis presented here withstands these and other experimental tests, then it may contribute to a better understanding not only of cell division, but also of cancer." He is apparently very upfront (as might be expected) that his assumptions are based on the thesis that the centriole is a designed object.

Kurieuo.

[Forge]

One reason for that, is that everything we experience has been designed, so we have nothing to compare nature with.

How so? (I might be completely misunderstaning you, so be patient) The water jetting out of a facet doesn't show design, does it?

[Kelly]

The problem is that virtually everything we see around us exhibits the qualities of intelligent design, at least if function and elegance are any measure. Scientists can study the function and appreciate the elegance, but it is not clear how we could ever determine intentional design. I can just as easily accept—or perhaps more easily accept—that the core properties of our universe are the products of design, and everything else is a logical progression of consequences that may or may not involve any further intervention on the designer's part. Evolution of life clearly falls into this category: a well-designed system does not require constant maintenance.

Our perspective is limited by our current understanding of design principles. Except for certain classes of computer code, we have never designed and built self-replicating machines, so we really have no experience as designers of anything that could potentially evolve and experience selective pressures. Our concept of irreducible complexity is a by-product of this. However, even in our limited tenure as designers, there are plenty of examples of humanly-created systems which seem initially to exhibit irreducible complexity, but if one looks at the historical development one sees that components that are essential to function often start life as an adjunct to function. It is only the static perspective that suggests irreducible complexity.

Unfortunately, it all comes back to arguments based on incomplete knowledge or understanding. We do not understand how any physical principles could account for an observation, so we resort to the supernatural for explanation. Although this tendency of humans seems to be as innate and compelling as the drive to reproduce, it carries one very detrimental consequence: acceptance of a supernatural explanation marks the end of the line for any inquiry that might reveal a genuine truth about nature. This is unacceptable to most scientists.

[LittleShepherd]

Although this tendency of humans seems to be as innate and compelling as the drive to reproduce, it carries one very detrimental consequence: acceptance of a supernatural explanation marks the end of the line for any inquiry that might reveal a genuine truth about nature. This is unacceptable to most scientists.

I see no such "detrimental consequence." When a scientist becomes a Christian, for example, he doesn't give up his experiments and his formulas and just throw it all out the window. He keeps plugging away, looking for more observable truths. That he now has faith in Christ doesn't change that.

[Felgar]

One reason for that, is that everything we experience has been designed, so we have nothing to compare nature with.

How so? (I might be completely misunderstaning you, so be patient) The water jetting out of a facet doesn't show design, does it?

Well, given that God designed the universe, and that we cannot leave the universe, His design permeates everything. Let's take just a normal mountain: Is it designed? It is affected by water erosion, gravity, tectonic movement, plant growth, animal activity, etc. All of those things are a result of God's design, so how can we ever see something that's NOT designed? In the end everything is bound by God's design.

Does that clear up my statement? In many respects I find myself in agreement with Kelly's statements:

The problem is that virtually everything we see around us exhibits the qualities of intelligent design, at least if function and elegance are any measure. Scientists can study the function and appreciate the elegance, but it is not clear how we could ever determine intentional design.

Where Kelly goes off track is the highly erroneus assumption that faith stiffles development. In fact, faith is the very thing that spures on development through (among other things) the desire to better know God by understanding His creation, by the desire to do God's will by helping less fortunate, and by the prosperity of nations who have called upon God (those being the Western nations primarily).