Maria Cantwell's spokesperson, Katherine Lister, has a very lame response to Cantwell's past vote related to ID, as noted in David Postman's coverage of the issue, which includes discussion of my post on the topic. Lister says:
Cantwell spokeswoman Katharine Lister says, "It was not an intelligent design vote." And if you look at the 91 senators that voted for it, including senators Kennedy, Clinton, Murray, Feingold and Wellstone, it is hard to imagine they thought they were backing the teaching of intelligent design, or even backing "teaching the controversy."
Some commenters at my original post took a similar angle that the amendment in question was unrelated to ID. I would challenge all of them, however, to explain the goals of this portion of the amendment:
where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
How exactly are students able achieve those goals if there is no discussion of competing theories to evolution (assuming even in that context that evolution would still be the dominant point of discussion)? How are they to understand the very public debate about the "controversy", as noted by Postman's column today. More importantly, how are students expected "to be informed participants in public discussions" if as Cantwell says "intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum of our public schools"?
Based on Postman's description, I think the pro-ID folks tried to make too much of hay of Santorum's amendement. But at the same time, Cantwell is being obutse, at best, in claiming that the vote in question does not support explaining the debate to students.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Senator.
UPDATE: Some commenters are taking a presumptuous approach. They assume I personally favor the teaching of ID, similar to ID advocates in the news of late. I don't.
Putting aside the merits of the debate, evolution has the greater weight of the scientific community behind it, thus in our public school system it certainly is going to be the dominant point of the curriculum, as selected by respective states and school districts around the country (the US Deptartment of Education has little if anything to do with curriculum).
But, I hardly see how students will "be informed participants in public discussions" if the curriculum includes no discussion of competing ideas to evolution that as Postman covered remain in the public realm. I realize the mantra for many Democrats these days is often an unhinged "No!" rather than offering constructive alternatives or considering the other side's point, but even at that, the comments from JDB and thor seem a bit much.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 11, 2006 09:09 PM | Email ThisSo, let’s try to make this simple, so that even your ideologically fogged eyes might see:
Your main questions is: “how are students expected "to be informed participants in public disucssions" if as Cantwell says ‘intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum of our public schools.’”
The answer is easy, intelligent design is not science. Evolution is.
“In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Evolution matches this definition. It is capable of predicting future occurrences or observations, capable of being tested through experiments, and can be falsified through empirical observation. Evolution follows the rules of science.
“Intelligent Design” is in reality a marketing campaign for creationism (see: http://www.slate.com/id/2118320/ , http://www.slate.com/id/2128238/ ), but if we are kind, at best it is bad theology. There is nothing about it that is science. If it is science, “advocates of ID must now demonstrate how hypotheses based on it can be tested by experiment or observation. Otherwise, ID isn't science.” http://www.slate.com/id/2127052/ Until that point, until ID plays by the rules of science, “intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum of our public schools.” http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
And since the amendment was offered by Senator Santorum, perhaps his views would help us to understand the amendment? “Santorum 2005: "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."’ http://www.slate.com/id/2132687/
Wow, Santorum agrees with Cantwell.
Of course, this is not much of a surprise since a “six-week trial over the issue yielded ‘overwhelming evidence’ establishing that intelligent design ‘is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,’” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ , http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
ID cannot play by the rules of science. When faced with the rigors of scientific analysis, ID folds:
Can ID make testable predictions? Not really. If we posit that a given biological system was designed, Rothschild asks, what can we infer about the designer's abilities? Just "that the designer had the ability to make the design that is under consideration," says Behe. "Beyond that, we would be extrapolating beyond the evidence." Does Behe not understand that extrapolating beyond initial evidence is exactly the job of a hypothesis? Does he not grasp the meaninglessness of saying a designer designed things that were designed? http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/
As it stands, ID is no different from the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. http://www.venganza.org/ Do you believe that the Santorum Amendment was offered so that this theory may be taught in school? If not, how do you distinguish ID from FSMism? The failure of ID is that you can’t.
For that matter, if you believe that ID should be taught, to you also think that “that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and [we should teach] a new theory of Intelligent Falling[?]”http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
“A good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science.” You do not have to teach a non-science like intelligent falling, flying spaghetti monsters or intelligent design if you want “students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science.” A good background in real science is all one needs to see ID for what it is, theology, and not science.
The sad thing is that you work for the Department of Education, and yet you apparently did not have “[a] good science education” as demanded by the Santorum amendment. Thank goodness for political patronage, eh?
The current evolutionary theories have holes in them. Science classes should inform the students of the holes in the theories. That does not require the detailed teaching of religion (although it might be appropriate to mention that some hold to a theory of a supernatural cause/action being involved - and largely leave it at that since the supernatural is not readily testable by scientific means).
There is clearly no lameness in the clear message from Cantwell's spokeman that Senator Cantwell does not support teaching ID in science classes.
There is no clear contradiction with the Senate amendment - unless you are invested in ID. The history of evolutionary theory is replete with scientific debate. This has been true since the late 1800s and evolutionary theory continues to evolve within science. ID doesn't - and can't.
ID has been examined in some detail by objective people with the ability to make important distinctions and been exposed as little more than a marketing tool designed to raise doubts in the general public about the foundations of science generally and introduce religion into school science classes, where it clearly has no place.
McGavick has said he thinks ID has a place in science classes. Cantwell disagrees.
Pretty clear. Real simple. And it matters.
McGavick's views on this appear to be oddball and to the right of Rick Santorum - who knows something about this subject because of experience in his own state where school board members who shared views similar to McGavick's were soundly defeated in a conservative school district following their decision to put ID in local science classes.
Conservative Kansans also recently rejected proponents of ID in science classes after a vigorous public debate.
McGavick is better than this.
He's clearly being dragged down on this subject by his long-standing relationships with people at Seattle's Discovery Institute - who have unwittingly damaged GOP candidates on this subject ranging from George W. Bush, to Rick Santorum to Mike McGavick.
"But in the U.S. only 40 per cent of adults believe whole-heartedly in evolution, while 39 per cent called it "absolutely false" in the 2005 survey, which questioned 1,484 Americans and more than 33,000 people worldwide."
Posted by: Cheryl on August 12, 2006 09:10 AMYes, the theory of Evolution is incomplete. Most scientific theories are. We still haven't found the mechanism by which gravity is transmitted (waves, particles, etc.), but that doesn't make intelligent falling science.
But I agree with you that the fact that it is not science doesn't make it wrong. It just belongs to a different discipline, theology or philosophy. I would think a high school or college class on ideas and myths about creations, if presented well, would be a very good course. But don't call it science, and be inclusive of all theories, from flying spaghetti monsters to God to the world exist on the back of a giant elephant, carried on a giant tortoise, which rides on the back of a '57 Chevy.
All the more reason to teach evolution thoroughly and exclusively.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on August 12, 2006 11:14 AMhttp://www.davidicke.com
Wherein the Bush family is part of the "Reptilian Agenda". Icke promotes his own flavor of ID, and why is he any more wrong than Darwin?
Then there's "pan-spermian" origins.
And just WHO is this designer? Perhaps the designer's tool IS the process of evolution?
And don't forget H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu ...
Let's introduce the kiddies to ALL the designers ...
Posted by: StillEvolving on August 12, 2006 11:48 AMHow could I forget the exciting ID origin theory found in L. Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
All right! Scientology in the classroom, Ron's ultimate wet dream! Audit your peers for fun and profit!
ID is so cool!
Posted by: StillEvolving on August 12, 2006 12:43 PMThe amendment is typical politicians' drivel. It can be twisted to mean anything you want. You seem to be taking the creationist view of the amendment's language, but here's a pro-science interpretation:
There is no theory which competes with evolution as an explanation of the diversity of species. Evolution generates controversy not because of any weakness in the theory, but because of widespread scientific illiteracy, ironically coupled with scientism (the belief that science is the only way to seek the truth), and leavened with the populist tendency to reject the authority of experts.
By teaching students the facts about evolution and disabusing them of the false notion that there is a scientific controversy, we will indeed "prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."
Posted by: ScottM on August 12, 2006 12:49 PMMcGavick's statements about this will alienate voters. Surely he's better than that.
If this takes off Bruce Chapman will owe McGavick a whole lot more that a small campaign contribution from his wife.
Posted by: thor on August 12, 2006 01:50 PM(Here's something to consider when you hear something like this: Scientists do actually know about the laws of thermodynamics.)
Also, evolutionary theory predicts nothing about "a progression from simple to complex."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evolution_and_devolution
Posted by: ScottM on August 12, 2006 02:37 PMBelieve whatever you want. Teach your kids whatever you want.
But in science class (at least in public schools), kids should be taught science. There is no scientific controversy over the basic facts of evolution. There is no competing theory to explain what evolutionary theory explains. And in spite of creationist myth-making, there are no major holes in evolutionary theory.
Posted by: ScottM on August 12, 2006 03:27 PMI just can't bring myself to vote for a "Lieberman Republican" knowing how a McGavick win will allow the Mainstream Republicans of Washington State to further drive true conservatives out of influential positions in the party replacing them with "Lieberman Republicans".
This party control will give the Mainstream Republicans a total Veto on who gets to be the party's nominee on every state house race, every state senate race, on every Congressional Race, on every Governor's race, etc... It will mean that there will never again be conservative Republicans elected in this state ANYWHERE.
Sorry, with that much at stake, Cantwell is "the lesser of two evils".
Posted by: Steve on August 12, 2006 03:30 PMScrew the other side. Idiot Design doesn't belong in school; it belongs in the dark ages...
Posted by: Playin' Possum on August 12, 2006 04:34 PMWhich should be taught in school... We will never advance until the religions of the unholy land are destroyed.
Posted by: Playin' Possum on August 12, 2006 04:42 PMPersonally I know that the earth is hallow and field with duper powerful molemen. They and they alone are responsible for all life on earth. Since we have never been to the center of the Earth and therefore never directly observed it, the solid earth theory is bad science. I demand that my theory be taught in schools.
where do you suggest that ID be explained to students then, assuming that has to be done at some point if they are to be an informed participant in public discussions
I don't know, where should the L Ron Hubbard theory be taught, or the Hindu Creation Myth? Or the Zulu, or Egyptian? The Japanese believe that they are all descended from the Sun God, where do we teach that?
Like I said, a general class on Creation Myths would be excellent, but it has nothing to do with science. Until you play by the rules of science, you don't get through the door.
The only good thing about ID from a science point of view is that it forces people to see how science works. ID goes, hey, look, you have yet to explain the eye, or how blood clots. And then, science does just that. Hypothesis leads to experiment leads to data. ID can't do this, but the questions it raises can and are answered by science and evolution.
Again, it should be noted that no one knows 100% how evolution works, but then again, no one know 100% how gravity works. Science doesn't demand perfection, just that you play by the rules.
Posted by: JDB on August 12, 2006 09:42 PMHowever, when it comes to the origin of life and the evolution from one life form to another, it is a different story. We know that different life forms exist. we know that there is an apparent progression over time from less to more complex life forms. Unfortunatley, we lack any significant links between one type to another. we have no idea how it happened. We cannot reproduce the effect, we cannot test or measure it. We do no know how one type of cell can become another type of cell through some natural process. We do not know if it is possible. We can only guess that is MUST be true because we are living here today. But that conjuecture would be equivalent to saying we know gravity exists because we see a ball lying on the ground. We would have surmised gravity based solely on the fact that two items were touching without actually seeing how they become together nor in reproducing the event that caused them to come together. Yet, we teach in school that the evolution from one species to another is undisputed fact. The only thing undisputed, in reality, is that no other theory comes close to explaining the existince of life on this planet based on what we know now, a very important distinction.
For the origin of life, the data is even less sure. We cannot even come close to making the building blocks of life much less the exteremly complex form of self-replicating life.
And we teach this as fact in high school? What other scientific discipline do we teach unprovable theory as fact but evolution? Most other speculative science is left to the graduate students in college. It seems to me that high schoool biology should stick to teaching Gregor Mendel's discoveries in genetics and exploring the vast complexities of life and leave the specualtive out of the science room. If you want to debate where we came from, do ALL of it in a philosophy class.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on August 13, 2006 06:56 PMA) The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. By definition, biological evolution can occur only when life already exists. There is no widely accepted theory of abiogenesis, and I think most scientists and science teachers would agree that abiogenesis should not be taught in basic science courses.
B) Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with "progressing" from less complex to more complex. This is a common misunderstanding.
C) The propaganda claim that "we lack any significant links from one type [of life] to another" is simply untrue:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
D) You don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
I think you are addressing my post not in light of the points I presented but instead treating with the standard rebuttal you would give any "critic" for evolution. I think you clearly missed the points I was trying to make.
A) No, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory but the theory of evolution is dependent on a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and assumes it a priori despite the insistence of talkorigins. However, my point was to address the fact that BOTH ideas are presented as fact in high school biology. Notice that I addressed them separately, (and on purpose) because I do know the difference. You probably assumed that since I was not a cheerleader for neo-darwinsim that I must be ignorant. The problem with the debate is that it would take me 16 pages of disclaimers to "earn" enough respect to have you even start listening to the points being made. I would rather not have to do that. Maybe you can wait until I make an actual error before assuming I don't understand something.
B)"Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with "progressing" from less complex to more complex." I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Quoted from one of your own links:
Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. I simply am giving credit to this description though you did not like my choice of words and credited it to ignorance again. But since it is given as "Fact" in evolution that life started out simple and is now complex, we should quibble about my choice of words in my post above.
C) I will stand by my original statement that we lack significant links from one life form to another. What Kathleen Hunt's "FAQ" addresses is the process of inferring macroevolution based on a fossil record that may have a handful of incomplete bone samples that are extrapolated into complete skeletons that are then held up as proof of change from one animal to the next. The samples are incomplete, the transition rates are inconsistent, there is (if I recall correctly) no proof that one set of bones is in any genetic manner related to another, and most importantly of all, no explanation of how the soft tissue changes would have occurred to make one animal into another. You simply have built an entire theory (or should I say hypothesis: Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related.) on the basis of bones and bone fragments without the more critical explanation of the genetic changes, nor in how single-celled organisms eventually became multi-cellular, complex, thinking beings.
Now, I am NOT saying common descent is not possible. It is a valid explanation for the data we have, and there are plenty of supporting evidences, so I am not rejecting it as useful for scientific pursuit. The evidence presented, however is woefully inadequate for the level of "trust" placed in it, and I believe it is due to a philosophical bias that I will address below.
D) Yes, I do understand what Theory means in a scientific context. You are assuming ignorance again. I do take strong exception to the talkorigins' argument in favor of treating evolutionary theory as "fact". It is the height of hubris, something scientists have been guilty of time and time again throughout history. Just from that one link you provided: It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different.
That, my friend, is a classic example of a logical fallacy. And though not stated by others in the link, I would guess they hold a similar view. (we won't even go into the conundrum of "first life" implied in that statement.)
Newtonian physics was a "fact" too until we discovered things we did not previously know and had no idea we did not know. That is were the hubris comes in. We build our hypothesis and form our theories based on the limits of our current knowledge, the limits of our ability to perceive and measure, and the limits of our ability to imagine something we cannot see or measure. However, that does not mean what we know today is actually TRUE. What we know today is simply the best information we have based on our current limitations. It is quite possible we have not discovered something or that we have no ability TO discover that something. In other words, there may be some force, or agent OUTSIDE of our ability to perceive that is affecting the environment in which we are operating. We assume the system is closed with respect to our ability to perceive when in fact there may be influences that operate outside our perception.
This brings me to the issue of the philosophical bias. It is two fold. I have touched on part one already. The assumption is that what we can see and measure and perceive is the limit of what is possible and therefore we must find our answers within the confines of our perceptions. And that leads to the second. That all answers must constrained to naturalistic mechanisms. One does not preclude the other, however. It is possible that all physical properties are indeed naturalistic if you trace them far enough back, but it is not necessarily true that forces outside our perception have not acted upon our physical universe and thus appear to be non-naturalistic. Thus, when you assume a priori that nothing that exists today could have come about other than by the means from which you already have discovered, you have built a box around yourself that will inhibit your ability to arrive at the actual truth. All your theories, hypothesis and testing will take on the limitations with which you have bound yourself. Scientists today begin with the assumption of "naturalism" that requires them to find all their solutions within the realm of science as it is understood today. All evidence is filtered through that lens. If you study the history of science, you will discover that it has always been so. Science has always operated under a paradigm, and those who step outside that paradigm, crack pot and genius alike, are severely punished by the establishment.
No, Evolution is only fact under the current paradigm, and not because the evidence is overwhelming. It is, however, still the BEST theory going, but the holes it tries to hide from the world one could shift a galaxy through.
Just to note, I have read Futuyama, Dawkins, Dobzhansky and extensive articles in talkorigins. I have also read Behe, Bauer, Broom and Ratzsch (whom I recommend). I am no raving young earth creationist, but I once was a fully committed evolutionist who scoffed at anyone who questioned evolution.
-Eyago
Posted by: Eyago on August 14, 2006 10:52 PMNo, it isn't. It has nothing to do with the origin of life. The origin of life is outside the scope of the theory. If God created the first life form, everything evolutionary theory says still applies.
"Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa."
That means that the same processes which result in speciation also result in the creation of different genera, families, orders, etc. (that is, "higher taxa" than species). It has precisely nothing to do with an evolutionary "progression" from simple to complex.
Perhaps you should have looked up taxa before you posted that.
"I will stand by my original statement that we lack significant links from one life form to another."
Of course you will. I never expected otherwise.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to ensure that anyone reading this thread has a chance to see the evidence for common descent (which is, in fact, overwhelming).
I know what it's like to be an intelligent but impressionable youngster who hears only the creationist side. I was a creationist myself once (though never a young-earther; I was never that silly). Then I learned the truth, and it set me free. Now I no longer have to pretend that I know more about biology than biologists, more about paleontology than paleontologists, and more about genetics than geneticists. I no longer have to assume that scientists don't know about the laws of thermodynamics. I no longer have to make claims that were out-of-date 50 years ago!
Free at last!
Free at last!
Thank God Almighty
I'm free at last!
"That, my friend, is a classic example of a logical fallacy."
Really? Which fallacy (and don't say "my friend"; you haven't earned the right to be smug, Mr. Taxa)?
I assme that your quarrel is with this premise: "It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms."
That seems to me to be the only premise that a non-YEC would even question, and if you grant the premises, the conclusion does follow.
Of course, the only alternative (given that Pasteur put paid to spontaneous generation) is Special Creation, which is not scientifically testable, while evolutionary theory is testable, and has stood up to testing very well. So well, in fact, that the fish-to-tetrapod transitional species Tiktaalik was found right where it was predicted to be.
(But it's not a significant link! NO NO NO NO NO!)
"Newtonian physics was a "fact" too until we discovered things we did not previously know and had no idea we did not know."
Yeah. Well, get back to me when you've developed your alternative theory to evolution. Shouldn't be difficult, with all those "gaping holes" in evolutionary theory. And yet somehow no one ever manages it.
"The assumption is that what we can see and measure and perceive is the limit of what is possible and therefore we must find our answers within the confines of our perceptions. And that leads to the second. That all answers must constrained to naturalistic mechanisms."
Science is methodologically naturalistic. Period. If you want answers which are not discoverable through naturalistic investigation, you must seek them by means other than science.
What you need to realize is that there are means other than science for seeking the truth. Don't get caught up in science envy.
Posted by: ScottM on August 15, 2006 06:21 AM"since it is given as "Fact" in evolution that life started out simple and is now complex"
It is true that the tendency has been for life to get more complex. This is because early life was very simple.
If you start out on the east side of a hill and begin walking west, you will tend to go upward. This does not mean that walking itself has anything to do with "going upward."
In fact, evolutionary theory predicts simplification if that gives an organism an evolutionary advantage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28fallacy%29
Posted by: ScottM on August 15, 2006 06:46 AMLet me address a few points and try to get this back to the main issue at hand.
I don’t need a definition of taxa. I consulted my spouse who has a degree in biology. The issue isn’t the word taxa but the word higher. My spouse agrees with my interpretation of the sentence cited.
You are using a semantics approach to your attacks on my statements. First you take exception to my generalizing the whole “origin of life/evolution” to refer to the specific hypothesis of common decent, and then proceed to tell me how what I say has nothing to do with common descent. I am not arguing against common decent, it was ever in my original post. I believe the fallacy in question here is Ignoratio Elenchi. What I was arguing was the entire, all-encompassing, naturalistic, combined system that describes the evolution of matter and life from the big bang to our present existence that includes such things as the “primordial soup” idea that life formed on its own, that it grew in complexity from single cell life forms to multi-cell to complex organisms. I contend that the evidence for such an explanation for the origin of man is incomplete and should not be taught in schools. The fact that the hypothesis of common descent does not include the origin of life itself is not a part of my argument and is not being debated.
I know what it's like to be an intelligent but impressionable youngster who hears only the creationist side. I was a creationist myself once though never a young-earther; I was never that silly)
Lovely. And I was an intelligent and not so impressionable and not so young person who heard only the evolutionist side for 38 years. I was an evolutionist myself. I was not, and am not a creationist. I am just not a blind, adherent to the evolutionist dogma anymore. I guess that makes me silly.
As for:
“It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different.
Which fallacy? Well, several could fit here.
“It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.” This one fits into begging the question. It is not proven that all living forms come from previous living forms. We might also fit this under the fallacy of False premise. Or, one might simply use the old Geometry class example: Every swan I have seen is white, therefore all swans are white. In this case, we do not know that life comes only from other life.
Yeah. Well, get back to me when you've developed your alternative theory to evolution. Shouldn't be difficult, with all those "gaping holes" in evolutionary theory. And yet somehow no one ever manages it.
Now you are engaging in argumentum a silentio. So, because no one has yet disproven a theory makes it automatically fact. Newton’s laws were believed for a few hundred years before they were proven to be insufficient. Does that mean for those few hundred years they were fact and only until Einstein came along did the laws of physics change to make them non-factual?
Science is methodologically naturalistic. Period. If you want answers which are not discoverable through naturalistic investigation, you must seek them by means other than science.
You misunderstand the point. Science is indeed constrained by its methodologies, but the realm of truth is not constrained by our limitations to discover it. The best you can say about ANY theory is that it is true as far as we are able to test it. If reality exists in ways we are unable to test, we can never be certain that what we know is complete and accurate. If evolutionary theory (and please refrain from referring to a subset of the whole when I mean the unified discipline of origins-to-present) cannot explain some things, then it is perfectly possible that those things transcend the “naturalistic” limitations of the theory and the methodology to test them. To call evolution fact because our best naturalistic explanation can come up with nothing better is to be disloyal to the pursuit of truth.
Listen, The evolutionary theory is pretty good as far as it goes, but it is not as water tight as you want others to believe. On that basis is why I say that it should not be taught as fact in school. What it has going for it is a lot of circumstantial evidence and the fact that nothing else exists that explains it better. That is not enough to say it is fact, and in the comparison to other science taught in high school it is sorely lacking. That has been my point and is my point.
-Eyago
Oh. The rest of us were talking about evolution/ID. I didn't realize that you had changed the subject. Personally, I am not aware that such a system as you describe even exists, and it sounds far too ambitious to be very interesting at a time when there isn't even a Theory of Abiogenesis on the table.
"The issue isn?t the word taxa but the word higher. My spouse agrees with my interpretation of the sentence cited."
Then he or she is also wrong. The issue is both "higher" and "taxa." If you had realized what "taxa" meant, you would not have misinterpreted "higher" to mean "more complex."
Indeed, the concept of a "higher form of life" is something else that has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.
Here is the context in which you quoted the sentence in question (my statement is in italics):
"B)'Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with 'progressing' from less complex to more complex.' I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Quoted from one of your own links:
Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. I simply am giving credit to this description though you did not like my choice of words and credited it to ignorance again. But since it is given as "Fact" in evolution that life started out simple and is now complex, we should quibble about my choice of words in my post above."
Are you really claiming that the word "macroevolution" refers to change from simple to complex?
And here is the sentence in context. I see nothing whatever about increasing complexity in these paragraphs. It talks about microevolution and macroevolution.
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.
"Newton?s laws were believed for a few hundred years before they were proven to be insufficient. Does that mean for those few hundred years they were fact and only until Einstein came along did the laws of physics change to make them non-factual?"
As I say, creationism is waiting for its Einstein. And since, according to you, evolutionary theory is just full of gaping holes, it should be much easier to falsify than Newtonian mechanics, which was quite a good theory.
So good luck to you.
But personally, I will not be waiting on tenterhooks for the creationist equivalent of relativity (I suppose in this case it would be the Theory of Non-relativity).
Posted by: ScottM on August 15, 2006 03:08 PMThese are all very brief and basic (I understand them, so you know they're pretty basic):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_5.html