Respectfully, I disagree with you too… Again, we have barely begun to scratch the surface of genetics. Take GenBank for example.. GenBank, which is a genetic sequence database, is the annotated collection of all publicly available DNA sequences.. If we look at the growth of GenBank, it appears to be doubling every 18 months. This graph alone, starting from 1982 has been virtually dead until we get to the early 90's.. From this graph alone we can clearly see that we have a tremendous amount of collecting available of nucleotide sequences and their protein translations, not to mention the study of the results..ARWallace wrote:Respectfully, I disagree. The ToE was fully supported in the 1930's when basic inheritance patterns were understood (or at least rediscovered). It continued to be supported for the next 3 decades when the structure and function of DNA was discovered. And it continues to be supported by recent advances in molecular genetics today. The only thing that happened in the 90's that revolutionized our ability to test the theory was the development of rapid, cheap and efficient means of sequencing DNA enabling the field of molecular phylogenetics to come into its own (this is what I did for my doctoral thesis). As for everyone being convinced that their research "aligns" with the ToE - you seem to hold this theory to a different standard than other theories. A theory is, by definition, an idea that has been thoroughly tested and is true beyond reasonable doubt. At some point, science agrees that the idea is a scientific truth and begin using it for its explanatory power (another hallmark of a theory). So, like any scientific theory, the ToE is used as a lens through which to examine and understand patterns and observations in science. This is not unique to the ToE - again, all theories are treated in the same way. And if patterns or observations can't be explained by evolution - or worse still are inconsistent with it, then it is time to reexamine it.
Also, I would argue that the ToE has NOT been tested beyond reasonable doubt… It should be noted that evolution itself has also found it virtually impossible to chemically produce the basic molecules required for any living system as well. Evolution has never been witnessed to chemically produce life either. It claims to have occurred over millions of years in very slow processes which scientist can't replicate. According to evolutionist Dr. Paul Davies, “The origin of life is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science. Nobody knows how a mixture of non-living chemicals can transform itself into a living cell. Because they have almost nothing to go on, scientists differ sharply on how likely such a genesis event (Abiogenesis) might be. Some think it happened only once in the universe - and we are the result. Others believe there is a deep principle built into the laws of nature that prompts life to form readily wherever there are Earth-like conditions.”
Abiogenesis is just one of the many problems DE faces… There are numerous others as well...
How? In regards to gravity, I don't think you can compare Darwinian evolution to gravity. When you look at the scientific methods of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton they made observations plus predictions that anyone could observe… Darwinian evolution is not like that. DE is a different kind of science, it's a historical science that claims what happened in the past, it's not like gravity at all… Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It's something that can be measured.. Darwin tried to make predictions with populations, such as making statements like “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers.” Ok, let's take a look at humans then… Well, I decided, and I'm sure that there are many others like me, not to increase in numbers. I have no children. How do people like me fit into this equation? Again, this is just one of many predictions that in reality can't really be measured like the force of gravity…ARWallace wrote:Well, I guess we need to define "answers". A scientific theory can provide the "what" or "how" answers, but it usually doesn't provide the "why" ones. Why does gravity behave the way it does? Why do continents float around the surface of the Earth? In a philosophical or metaphysical sense, the ToE can not explain why life evolved - it can simply provide an explanation of how it evolved. For that reason, I believe theology and religion serve a very important function...they fill in gaps not filled or fillable by science.
Well I would disagree with that… Evolution is said not to be 100% factual or completely answered when it comes to science. There are theories, yes, but no smoking guns on either side when it comes to the topic of origins. What we have here are only weights of evidence in favor of one view and sometimes neglecting the other. Sometimes even scientists don't always agree on the scientific outcome of the evolutionary or design predictions either as we have witnessed.ARWallace wrote:Now, ID does purport to explain the existence of certain structures not explainable by naturalistic explanations, and as I have been careful to point out naturalistic explanations for these questions do seem to exist.
That ID proponents do not seek to have ID taught or mandated into the public biology classrooms? Can you show me a court case where they have?ARWallace wrote:Really? This is a huge surprise to me.
ToE has NOT been tested and has passed on every account. Again, evolution has never been witnessed to create life either. It claims to have occurred over millions of years in very slow processes which scientist can't replicate… I'll leave our article Religion and Intelligent Design Impede Science and Close Off Inquiry? for the rest…ARWallace wrote:As a high school teacher, I agree that fostering critical thought is important. However, as a biology teacher I am left to wonder what "controversy" there is to teach? There are those who feel the ToE is insufficient in its explanatory power, but have yet to provide examples of structures it can't explain. There are those who oppose the theory based on religious grounds, but this hardly seems reason enough to teach the "controversy" in my classroom. Finally, at what point do we dignify every criticism of an idea in our classrooms? Science is not a democracy of ideas - only those that have been rigorously tested and have passed the testing are accepted. ToE has been tested and has passed on every account. ID has not. Would you advocate teaching the ideas promoted by Holocaust deniers in a history class? This may seem like hyperbole, but is actually an apt comparison.
No… I don't think you are understanding what I meant. I will guarantee that you will ever find a public class with a text book devoted to ID.. You will never find a public school with ID in their curricula. That is a MAJOR difference in what you are saying…ARWallace wrote:You seem to be conflating what I have been saying here. I have said twice, that public school teachers may (and in fact do) teach ID together with evolution giving it equal treatment in their classrooms. In their units on evolution, both are taught and the students are left to decide which they accept. This is currently not considered a violation of the Constitution, so there is nothing besides state standards and teacher discretion preventing them from so doing.
Messy?? Well that hardly classifies as being proved beyond a shadow of doubt… Ok, well then let's look at the closing paragraph for a better view…ARWallace wrote:This seems like a little selective quote mining. The article goes on to state: "Both he and Doolittle are at pains to stress that downgrading the tree of life doesn't mean that the theory of evolution is wrong - just that evolution is not as tidy as we would like to believe. Some evolutionary relationships are tree-like; many others are not." So we know that the trunk of the tree of life is messy which is unsurprising given how often genes may have been exchanged. And yet branching, tree-like relationships are the way most evolutionary relationships can be described - pick up virtually any scientific journal in the biological science and you see phylogenetic trees delineating the ancestor-descendant relationships in groups of organisms. But it seems at the very trunk of the tree, relationships get a bit messy. So really all that the article is saying is that the metaphor works in some cases and not others - not that evolution, per se, is wrong.
Quoting Rose…
"The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that," he says. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change." Biology is vastly more complex than we thought, he says, and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century. If he is right, the tree concept could become biology's equivalent of Newtonian mechanics: revolutionary and hugely successful in its time, but ultimately too simplistic to deal with the messy real world. "The tree of life was useful," says Bapteste. "It helped us to understand that evolution was real. But now we know more about evolution, it's time to move on."
Again, they are finding that Darwin's tree of life is too simplistic. The real world is really more complicated than that… Now while it may be true that he isn't exactly throwing out evolution, he is taking a different view on it and reconstructing the thoughts that made it up which means that it isn't written in stone (it's structure) as many would propose..
If you can doubt Darwin's tree then how can you compare Darwinism to gravity??? How can you measure a MESSY disappearing tree??
Really and how is ID rooted in religious ideology?ARWallace wrote:No, not surprised. The courts would tend to stay out of such matters until ideas which may be rooted in religious ideology are promoted in public schools. At this point, the courts will need to assess the ideas and determine whether their promotion violates the constitution.
Like how Darwinian evolution does? I thought you said earlier that it doesn't have all the answers…ARWallace wrote:The question was over how it got labeled. But if it really does have teeth and can cut it in the scientific arena, it will do so.
What I mean is that we are only looking at one product.. A Nike salesman would be a fool to sell a different product than his own… They are paid by the Nike Corporation… Science was meant to be debated and when the debate is taken away from it, people may learn about evolutionary theory but in the end they don't always believe in it because they were never allowed to debate it, or try a different shoe...ARWallace wrote:So this is a metaphor you're going with? That scientists are like shoe salesmen? I understand the comparison you are making between the ToE and ID, but do you really feel that scientists are paid to preserve their ideas at the exclusion of all others? Do you really believe this, or are you just using your metaphor to make a point?
Cheers,
G -