Changing the definition of science in Kansas - Page 8  

Once again, Very well said!

Fellows

Damn those mean, stubborn... um... Scientismists!

Whenever you're ready to explain what's so particularly problematical, we're ready.

Read back to what Max had to say about the ridiculous extreme of conspiratorial action this sort of statement implies.

I'm thinking the same thing, although I suspect the object of that thought is somewhat different for me than what you had in mind.

What I blame the ID guys for is:

1) Not understanding the second law of thermodynamics.
2) Not understanding the existence of self-organizing systems.
3) Not understanding the staggering number of simultaneous and successive attempts at reaching a certain state that is possible in the natural environment.
4) Confusing whether or not they can imagine value in the intermediate stages of a complex structure, and whether or not they can imagine a stepwise path towards building that complexity, with whether or not any value or any stepwise path actually exists.
5) Gratuitously misapplying the word "random" to bounded stochastic processes operating under a selective mechanism.
6) Combining any or all of these errors to come up with very flawed statistical analyses, and trumpeting their bad math as "proof" that evolution can't work.
7) For thinking that simply moving the problem of complexity from physical nature to some unexplained entity, which has to be at least as complex as that which puzzles them in the first place, solves or explains anything.

The "evidence" viewed through a total misunderstanding of which statistics to calculate and how maybe. And then your proposed solution to this supposed problem -- One Big Miracle Making Machine?

Yes, the stress those Scientismists are straining under is so... so... so unnoticeable.

Ah, yes, there's that Massive Conspiracy again. Good thing no one has uncovered the mass grave where all those "missing" statisticians have been dumped. You say you didn't know a bunch of statisticians were missing? Well, we're good at keep these things hushed up.... BWAHAHAHAHA!

I wish your commentary were.

If you're going to keep repeating this, can you just add it to your sig and be done with it?

Imagine this.

Regardless of which scenario you subscribe to...

1) Creation.
2) ID.
3) Evolution.
4) Dark Magic.
5) Cottage Cheese.

You never see 'gaps' in logic or 'problems' with your given theory.... if you take them with their associated prefaces... then each is a perfectly good explination.

Like, if God created everything, bingo, everything can be explained as a miracle. He could have blinked and put fossils in the grounds, blinked and flooded the earth etc...no missing explinations... everything has a simple answer. God.

Like, if Evolution gave rise to everything. Everything came from something else and developed over countless ages and unknown impacts of millions of systems intertwining which could lead to rapid changes or slow changes and no model can every explain the trillions of inter-relationships. No mysteries, no gaps. Everything is simple. Nature.

Like, if Cottage Cheese really is the foundational substance of the universe which grows plants, species and ecosystems as a Bi-Product of curdling. Who knows? In any case... no problems, all cheese.

My point is that the argument can't be about the 'afterthought' because nobody can dispute THAT. It's the preface which has lead to it. Can you accept the idea of a creator or of evolution? Can you come to terms with what subscribing to these beliefs means.

My good friends (a creationist) said to me the other day, "I have no problem with evolution... if you go with the idea of a world with now God... it seems the next most logical idea". I said "Only the NEXT on your list because you believe." He said "Exactly".

You are in absolutely no to know one way or the other. Just because questions haven't been answered and there are problems that remain unsolved doesn't mean obvervation, experimentation and investigation aren't capable of answering or solving them. History actually shows that in such cases it's quite the contrary.

Science doesn't. As shetline pointed out:

No, I'm pointing out your bad aim when it comes to hitting the right point.

I never claimed you did. To what thing which I said is the above supposed to be a counterpoint?

In no incarnation of science will it ever explain every aspect of anything. So? Science is about explicating where it can and saying "I don't know" where it can't. What particular value is added to science by attributing to God everything which is currently in the "I don't know" category?

Again, this totally misses the point of what is or isn't taught as science in science classrooms. There are a million things science "should not preclude".

Science cannot preclude that there's a copy of Alice in Wonderland buried on the Moon somewhere. The fact that science cannot preclude this, however, does not warrant any special mention of lunar interment of Lewis Carroll literature in science classrooms. Only the popularity of God-based explanations separates such ideas from my contrived example, not their value as scientific notions.

So, please, let's not pretend this is about what is or is not "precluded". What extra-special show that God isn't being precluded do you expect to see, clearly and specifically expressed for this one idea among many non-precludable ideas, and why is whatever you have in mind justified as something that should be taught in science classrooms?

Science does not preclude such a possibility, it simply has no evidence of (and therefor no reason to seek out) God's role in the universe. And with absolutely no evidence to show the existence of a God, let alone any examples of what said God did that actually led to creation, there is ZERO reasoning why it should be taught to our children in Science classes.

What science refuses to do is get forced into having to disprove God's role in things when there is zero evidence of God's existence to begin with. Science also refuses to attribute those things it does not yet understand to God, just as it should. It doesn't attribute ANYTHING to the unknown, hence it's being considered "unknown". If you strive to take something science has little to no understanding of and ask that God at least be considered, you must show some reason God needs to be considered.

I'd also like to ask which God we need to consider? The Catholic God? Allah? Zeus? All of them? Let's just say I accept the involvement of a superbeing and His/Her role in creation... which superbeing is THE superbeing and how do you set about proving that? How do you set about proving it was only one superbeing, and not a commitee? If a superbeing were responsible, shouldn't these questions be of the utmost importance in determining, or at the very least attempted to determine?

If it is so critically important for science to present irrefuteable proof of how evolution can occur, and also does occur, why do Creationists/IDers not hold themselves and their positions equally accountable to prove the process by which they assume things have come to be? Saying "God did it, and we aren't smart enough to know how" is no argument. All that does is allow myself and everyone else that finds evolution to be a solid theory to say "Evolution did it, and you're not smart enough to know how."

Your opinion is tangential to the issue of education. When I pointed out that almost all scientists support the theory of evolution, it was not to convince you of the validity of the theory; it was to show you that it was the only theory on the origin of life that has credibility within science. In fact, it is one of the three core theories of biology (the other two being cell and genetic theory). If you teach biology, you teach these three theories.

Your aknowledgement that evolution occurs, while weaseling in a false issue of at what level, is NOT an issue in the theory of evolution (or in education) its an issue for anti-evolutionists. The evolution that nearly all scientists support is the only theory: that all life came from a common ancestor, that all species that exist today are from previous species, and that life first occurred on earth at least a billion (or two) years ago.

This is the theory that is, and that should be, taughtits called teaching science in science courses.

I cant help but think this is more weasel speak. It is not a matter of what science should do, its a matter of what science is and does. Science presents what is known, what is theoretically supported, what avenues of further research is likely, what the major outstanding issues are, and what remains unknown. Our understanding of any theory, including evolution must be always be incomplete, as there is always more to be discovered, that is what makes it science.

And that is also what is, and what should be, taught.

Of course it is antiscientific to talk about gods and hobgoblins. The existence (or non existence) of such things are irrelevant to the scientific method and every scientific theory I know of. There always have been, and always will be, gaps in knowledge. Five hundred years ago, when crops failed, people filled their gaps with an assumption of witches to be rectified by burning the local spinster and her black cat.

Today, we are comfortable with the fact that understanding of natural events is not complete. It is almost certain we will never know everything, but today we dont need to fill in our gaps with witches, or gods.

1. Im sorry, it does not follow. I cant see how rejecting articles that add an unnecessary and non-falsifiable supernatural element to a scientific theory is reactionary.

2 & 3 ID journals, peer reviewed by whom? Fellow IDers? Every scientific discipline has a number of nationally respected publications that are reviewed by those equally qualified. For example, I know the Dembrnski (I think it was him) actually did publish his ID theory in a credible journal of philosophy. Beyond that, I know of no IDer theory published in the biological or physical science journals.

I have no doubt that one can believe in the supernatural and be a good scientist, and I have no doubt that anyone who adds spiritualism to a scientific theory is not a scientist (good or otherwise).

Maybe so, but historically, you guarantee some sort of challenge to the establishment when the establishment becomes self-contradictory. The mantra, especially in the National Geographic/SA-mediated media is "don't ask questions" "evolution is the only way" and "don't bring the statisticians into this". That's not science. When professors have to bind the consciences of their students over the question of origins, you have the Roman Catholic Church circa 1520, not a scientific community that has kept its house in order.

When the ID guys come calling with their irreducibly complex systems, the answer is "shut up, you're all fanatics". That's not a rational explanation, that's an ideology that is out of answers. That's what you're seeing on this thread, the obtuse ramblings on whether or not ID journals are reviewed by the "right people" sounds downright Medieval.

Anyway, the SA crowd has already lost --- we're just seeing what happened in the Reformation, happen here.

dmz, what do you think the statistics are for a few molecules NOT coming together somewhere in the universe?

It's nice to see you've got your Talking Points down so well. I've yet to see you substantiate any of this, but I imagine that you're hoping for Truth Through Repetition to save the day.

You'll have to excuse me now while I go help my fellow conspirators toss one of those pesky statisticians out a window.

Evidently, you're as unfamilier with the scientific and academic world, as you are of evolutionary theory. What frustrates you as 'obtuse ramblings' are the methods of intellectual world, including the humanities and the social sciences. Universities, research institutes, and conferences publish specialized journals that are edited by a discpline's experts, and are critiqued by peers. This is not 'rambling', this is what any person that has spent two years in a community college should know.

I know your conception of 'high science' is National Geographic, Discovery, and other print you can read, but these are not professional journals, they are popular newstand magazines for the lay public. Simularly, Scientific American is hybrid, a popular magazine written for sophisticated readers.

I suggest you go to a college, and find a copy of 'Nature' or 'Palentology', it will expand your world.

In the meantime, if you think any IDer has had a quality scientific article rejected by all the professional journals, I'd like to hear about it.

Till then the "don't bring the statisticians into this" claims are little more than an impoverished rant.

I wonder if there are any statistics on how many statisticians support evolution?

Funny that, you just don't hear much on the probability -- how many statisicians would believe me if I told them I'd won the lottery every day for the last 100,000 years?

There's Not enough time, that's why punctuated equilibrium has a following; it actually reduces the odds of literally billions upon billions of try/fail mutations and jumps to the good parts. Unfortunately, if you follow that chain of reasoning, the best odds are for one giant "punctuated equilibrium" event. You have better odds shooting for one successful hail Mary pass, than for billions upon billions of them. It also helps when you look at the truncated fossil record, Cambrian explosion, etc.

And look, I'm back to posting during the day. Oh boy.

Not exactly, but I know there are polling databases on evolution that contain the raw numbers by background.

You've made some excellent points, in particular on Occam's razor. However, I think one of the difficulties we have in communicating with the 'Ma and Pa Kettle Club' is their lack of a rudimentary understanding of theory building, academic research, etc. I don't mind an informed dissent, or an honest ingnorance, but without the basics the critics require a lot of tutoring.

DMZ reminds me of a friend of mine. After discussing string theory (in verbal terms), he declared it "invalid". I then went home, and went to a bookstore. I found a book on the Cosmos and string theory (200 pages of very advanced Calc equations, almost no language), copied ten pages and sent it to my friend with the notation:

"I have reviewed the attached mathimatics and found it persuasive - which equation do you disagree with?".

My point being, the subject was so far beyond us that its stupid to seriously 'disagree'.

DMZ
There is enough time, which has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium. PE does not affect chance, almost all changes in a population require a genetic expression.

However, I suggest you forward your observations to the biostatiticians, especially those with PhD's...they must have overlooked your brilliant insights!

The question isn't whether or not they'd believe your contrived example, the question is whether or not they'd believe there's any relationship between your contrived example and evolution.

All you've done so far is vigorously assert how statistically impossible evolution must be, and then you speak as if it's not merely your opinion that it is so impossible, but that the staggering impossibility is so "obvious" that you're certain that these evil evolutionists secretly know your calculations are correct, and that the only possible thing that could be going on is a Massive Conspiracy to look the other way and enforce some sort of orthodoxy.

Yet even totalitarian governments have never been that good at enforcing orthodoxy. We're somehow supposed to believe, however, that in the halls of academia scientists and professors, with no secret police, no secret torture chambers, no death squads at their disposal, armed with little more than influence over the success of various people's careers, have achieved an unparalleled degree of conformity, not based on the merits of evolution, but rather, and in the face of "obvious" flaws, have achieved this stunning conformity by means of some incredibly effective, brutally dishonest regime of enforcement?

News flash: Evolution holds its position based on merit. You can call that "perceived merit" if you wish, but nevertheless, evolution has had success in the academic world because people find it credible and convincing. If you wish to explain why that should not be so -- hopefully in some way more informative than repeated vigorous assertions -- please, be my guest. Evolutionary theory is successful not because anyone has been browbeaten into compliance, and not because anyone is being hushed up. It's certainly not the case that thousands of scientists are hiding some shameful secret of a "statistical impossibility" that they see but that they're trying to pretend not to notice.

You're totally missing the kinds of changes in the fossil record which punctuated equilibrium is used to explain. Punctuated equilibrium is not at all, for example, used to explain the evolution of a complex structure like the eye. It's merely used to explain things like changes in size or general body shape, changes in dental structure, changes in apparent diet, posture, habitat, etc -- things that might not even require new mutations, but simply a sharp rise and/or sharp drop in the frequency of certain traits already existing within a species' gene pool.

Shetline, regarding the education of DMZ, you might as well be teaching mathematics to a rock. Actually, I give the rock the edge.

Human DNA has 3 billion bases.

Find the number of base pairs in the entire known collection of plants and animals. How did those base pairs get to where they are? Mutation? What is the succes rate of 'mutation' (not the incidence -- but when it adds information, not removes it)

1 in 1,000?
1 in 100,000?
1 in 100,000,000?
1 in 100,000,000,000?

....pick a number, and remember mutations are RANDOM events, no matter how badly that giraffe needs that nifty high-speed/low-drag vascular system, he will only get it due to a RANDOM mutation --- of all the mutations that are possible, that creature has to benefit at just the right time.

How many millions of mutations have to come along for an irreducibly complex vascular system like the giraffe's to happen? How many times does the giraffe experience a random mutation that actually helps it? How long does the earlier, more primitive version have to be on the scene?

1,000,000 years?
10,000,000 years?
100,000,000 years?
100,000,000,000 years?

CMIIR, It is assumed that mammals have only been on the scene for 2,000,000 years.

No there is not enought time. Not without a miracle.

Now apply this principle to billions of creatures and billions upon billions of try/test/fail instances for ALL the features of ALL the known living things on this planet. And find the rough number of RANDOM mutations that would be needed to have descent with modification work.

That's right, there's not enough time

Nowhere near enough time, Noooooooowhere near enough. You need miracles, you need lots, and lots, and lots, of miracles, you need RANDOM events to be the basis for information addition -- and in the end, you need Chaos to be Order.

If I were still an active mod I would ban you for a week for that statement.

There is no call for insults of this nature.

Fellows

Now you have hit on something. Perhaps what we call 'evolution' and you see as creation is all just a greater expression of Entropy as we are soon to destroy ourselves (or God destroy us if you are into that sort of thing).

Perhaps the 'progress' is in fact simply the ramp up on a bump to catch up on entropy. What is a few million years of work to invent a 'perfect' parasite particle? Man.

Perhaps the ideas of 'evil' are simply the mental manifestation of the physical reality which is that we are the agents of entropy and our 'evolution' and 'progress' is simply a catalyst toward our future explorations of space and destruction?

Responding to DMZ, shetline states the following:



I actually agree completely with the argument DMZ makes.

There is not enough time for evolution to be valid to explain "common ancestor origins" based on random mutations.

Not only is there not enough time, there is complete lack of fossil evidence.


As for conspiracy as is mentioned above who knows. I think many in science lend a lot of credit to the theory of evolution. Some even view it as fact they are so sure of themselves.

Is evolution from a common ancestor a fact to explain the diverse life-set we find ourselves a part of today? No.

Fellows

Since this thread has degraded into name calling, insults, and is so far off topic, that I don't think anyone here has actually addressed the topic in several pages, it is now closed.