Challenging Evolution

[Aron-Ra]

I purpose to you that it is the purest form of scientific method. Observation, them see where that fits into our ideas and draw a conclusion based on observation rather than on preconcieved ideas.

That is a sound suggestion, and the practice of that is the very reason that Biblical creationism was discredited even before Darwin's landmark discovery.

 

[razzelflabben]

That is a sound suggestion, and the practice of that is the very reason that Biblical creationism was discredited even before Darwin's landmark discovery.

By this I am assuming you are referring to old earth young earth creationism. Would this be a correct assumption?

 

[Aron-Ra]

By this I am assuming you are referring to old earth young earth creationism. Would this be a correct assumption?

Well, I specifically meant Biblical literalist young Earth creationism. Creationism by itself is too broad a term as it can include Hindu and even Taoist concepts as well as various Bilical versions. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific.

 

[The Bellman]

This has already been covered, but what C and ID do not do is assume things in our environment. E assumes things to be so and then sets out to prove them. C and ID offer basics and then asks science to fill in the gaps. It is the gap theory put forth in reverse. It is not God that fills the gaps, but man asking science to fill the gaps. Many think this poor scientific method, I purpose to you that it is the purest form of scientific method. Observation, them see where that fits into our ideas and draw a conclusion based on observation rather than on preconcieved ideas.

This is simply false. Creationism does not as science to fill in the gaps - creationism has nothing to do with science. It has a conclusion and insists that that is the answer - any and all evidence that contradicts that conclusion is simply ignored. Creationist organisations not only admit this, it is a central tenet of their position. ID, similarly, does not ask science to fill in the gaps - its entire position is that there are gaps that science cannot fill - therefore god.

Neither creationism nor ID use or involve the scientific method at all - both abandon it completely in order to come up with an answer they already have.

 

[Dale]

Razzleflabben in post #10:
<< I asked you how evolution addresses the vast differences between man and animals, things like guns, computers, abortions, etc. Obviously man is not perfect, but evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature, instead, he remains the top of the scale. >>
*
Humans evolved brains which they used to create tools, including guns, computers, etc. As to man evolving into a different animal, do you have some kind of information on what we ought to look like?
*
<< I asked you about your understanding of evolutionary theory, including that there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution because it is a matter or man's interpretation. >>
*
There is a lot more to science than that, but I'll give you a scenario that is not a matter of interpretation. Creationists claim that all the animals (and plants) living today AND all those known to be extinct, those known from fossils were once alive at the same time. What on earth did the world look like at that time? Has any Creationist ever tried to draw a picture of it? Did Tyrannasaurus Rex feed on sheep and goats? Until the Creationists tell us what the world looked like at that time their "theory" is hardly even a suggestion. That's quite a hole in the Creationist scheme of things.

 

[gluadys]

In discussions such as this, I find argueing for one theory or the other to be a strawman agrument for each has elements that can be proven or disproven by scientific method and though I do not believe science to hold all the answers to life, I do find it to give many answers that man lacks.

I do not agree. In so far as creationism and intelligent design claim to be scientific theories, neither has any elements that are supported by scientific evidence. Only the theory of evolution has ample evidential support.

I also maintain that for one to claim that science does hold all the answers, or that science can disprove or irrifutably prove any of the theories, it becomes a belief system.

Very few people would hold that science holds all the answers to everything. I certainly do not. Also, science does not claim to be able to irrefutably prove any theory. A basic principle of the scientific attitude is that all theories are accepted as provisional based on the knowledge we have today. Knowledge that is as yet undiscovered may change even our best established theories when it comes to light.

So if your only argument is that science cannot provide rock-solid proof that will last forever, I don't know why you are trying to make a case that science has already made for itself.

All belief systems are open to philosophical and theological discussion which makes some angry because the theory of evolution does not even touch these areas of explaination which the others do.

Why should it? The theory of evolution is not a belief system. And the fact that creationism and ID are open to philosophical and theological discussion invalidates them as scientific theory.

If a common ground of understanding can be found, then arguements can cease and the exchange of ideas can prevail.

In science the common ground of understanding is evidence.

Even in the face of so called overwhelming evidence, the similarities in the theories do not allow much room for disproof of any of the theories, only strains of the theories, and this should be recognized by all groups.

I think you need to be much clearer about what you mean by "strains" of theories. To date, the only strains you have identified are the old earth and young earth strains of creationism. What do you see as different "strains" of ID? What would you name as a "strain" of TOE which is open to disproof? and a "strain" of TOE which is still provisionally valid?

Because of this, discussions should be about evidences found, not about which theory is right or wrong.

Yes, the discussion should be about the evidences found. But the evidences are what support or disprove the theories. So they tell us which theories are provisionally right and definitely wrong.

If you have a belief system of E admit it proudly and seek within that belief system to find the philosophical and theological answers people ask about belief systems.

But I do not have a belief system about evolution. I have an array of evidence which convinces me that evolution happens. And I have no intention of seeking within a "belief system" of evolution for philosophical and theological answers. I find those in my Christian faith.

You see, the make up of each of the theories is such that science cannot prove or disprove either in our lifetimes.

Not true. Science has already done so, and found the theory of evolution to be valid, creationism to be false, and ID to be unscientific.

 

[gluadys]

There are many possibilities within the theory in support or defense of each theory. For example, as you have said before and I agreed, there are elements of each theory woven into each theory. ID has elements of C and E woven into it, C has elements of ID and E, and E has elements of C and ID.

No, that is not what I said.

I asked, "Also do you agree that both creationism and ID contain elements of evolution? If not, why not?"

You agreed that both creationism and ID contain elements of evolution.

Please note that I did not ask nor suggest that the theory of evolution contains elements of creationism, or ID. I do not agree that it does.


And while you have given a general opinion about these theories you have not answered the specific question, which was:

"Why do you find ERVs not to be compelling evidence for evolution? Why do you find them not to be compelling evidence against creationism? Why do you find they do not falsify ID?"

In your earlier post you stressed the importance of looking at the evidence. Well, this is evidence and I am asking you to look at it.

It is evidence for which the theory of evolution provides a clear and coherent explanation. Neither creationism nor ID provide an explanation of ERVs.

So, if you agree that evidence is important, please stop sliding away from it.

 

[gluadys]

I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but what I am saying is that none of the theories are proven or disproven by this evidence, which brings us back to my original assumptions, that there is no overwhelming proof for or against any of the theories. Suggestions are much different than proofs and to assurt otherwise is falsifing the observations.

I am not at all sure that you do understand. Would you mind repeating back to me in your own words what you think I said and why you agree or disagree with it?

The original question was: "Is it clear to you why adaptations are evidence in favour of evolution, but not in favour of ID? Or C either, for that matter."

 

[gluadys]

and we cannot prove that they did all come from one original mammalian carnivore kind. That is not provable.

Not provable? Of course it's provable and proven from at least three lines of concordant evidence: comparative morphology, DNA sequencing and paleontology.

So you have made my point, we can disprove strains of the theories, (all of the theories), but we cannot disprove the theory totally and should not boast to be able to do so, for this sets the stage for arguements and strawman arguements at that.

I am getting more and more confused by your phrase "strains of theories". Just how does it apply in this instance?

[quote='gluadys]At the same time, I have not met a creationist who can explain why the first is possible, but the second is not. If a canid kind can radiate into wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingos, and dogs, why can an orginal mammalian carnivore kind not radiate into canids, felids and ursids, with each of these further radiating into their genera and species?

Because in the instances we have scientifically observed, there have been reproductive problems that would limit the evolution of an original mammalian ancestor for all carnivore kinds. (please note that I am not saying that E is disproven, or that C and ID are proven, only that C and ID can explain this in light of our current scientific discussions on this thread).[/quote]

What instances, please? What reproductive problems? Are you sure they apply to the proposed radiation of mammalian carnivores from a single ancestral species?

What are you suggesting that creationism proves in this scenario? I know it asserts there is a limit to how much a kind can vary, but I have never seen an iota of evidence to support the assertion. How does ID explain anything relevant to this issue?

conclusion, what can we say of the theory of evolution in respect of what you call the "original theory of creationism"?

The TOE does not deny the first principle. It simply acknowledges that science has nothing to say about God.

The TOE insists on the second principle with the same vigour as creationism and never predicts a violation of it.

But again, the second has not been proven to successfully occur so be are back to theory which is the entire premis of my posts.

You had really better re-check your own posts. Now you are saying that a principle of what you called "the original theory of Creationism as precented in the bible" has not been proven to successfully occur, that principle being "that all living things reproduce after it's kind."

I would think that principle is shown to successfully occur many times daily.

As for the third point (which is a commentary, not a new principle), the TOE can live with that, but would point to the evidence which suggests that however many kinds were first created, all living species are descendants of one kind--that kind being either a prokaryotic cell or a precursor of a prokaryotic cell that lived somewhat over 3.5 billion years ago.

I am not sure I am understanding your point here, if sounds like you are saying that all life comes from a single cell when only moments ago you said that E offered the possibility for a variety of original original animals to start the E process. Can you clarify your point?

Let me use a short analogy to explain, based on a family tree.

My great-grandmother had 5 children. Two died young and had no children of their own. The others had respectively 1, 3 and 9 children. Aunt Gertie's single child had no children, so by the third generation, that line had died out. Two of Aunt Lena's three children did have children of their own, but with one thing and another, that line had died out completely in the 5th generation. So when we get to the 6th generation, all the living descendants of my great-grandmother come through a single line (my grandmother) in spite of the fact that my grandmother was one of 5 siblings.

Now let's apply this to what I said about kinds. Suppose God created 5 original kinds, told them to "be fruitful and multiply". And they did, to the best of their ability. But accidents happen, disease takes its toll, by 500 years later, two of those kinds are extinct. All living organisms are part of the three remaining kinds.

Another 500 years later, one of those is extinct, and all living organisms are descendants of only 2 of the original created kinds. And a 1000 years later, one of those has completely died out. Now all living species trace their origin back to the same original kind.

That is just a thought analogy. We do not know how many kinds God originally created. Maybe it was only one. Maybe it was 5 or 50 or 5000. What we do know is that all but one of them has become extinct. All current evidence about living things shows them all to be descendants of one common ancestor. Doesn't matter how many may have been originally created. Only one has survivors, and those survivors make up the whole panoply of living species today.

In short, the theory of evolution makes no assumption about the number of originally created kinds. But, based, on the evidence, it does come to a conclusion about how many originally created kinds are represented among the various species of living organisms on earth today. And that conclusion is that all of them together are the descendants of one and only one common ancestor. Furthermore, we can also conclude that said common ancestor must have been a species of prokaryote or a precursor to prokaryote species. And that it inhabited the earth more than 3 billion years ago.

And let me stress that this is not religious belief. It is not hypothesis yet to be tested. It is not unsupported assumption. This is conclusion from available evidence.

It seems you have further made my point.

Oh? Please substantiate how I have done so. Otherwise this is just blowing smoke.

 

[Jet Black]

One is that the salamanders are still salamanders.

And chordates are still chordates. what is your point here?

 

[gluadys]

In order to keep this response somewhere within reason, I am dividing it into two posts.

I believe that I have answered this before, I have no problem with scientific method. I do have a problem with the idea that scientific method can answer all of life questions, but that is another thread. My problem with the theory of E, C, and ID is not one of scientific method.

When I, among others, suggested you did not have a good grasp of scientific method, your response was: "Not at all, just the assumptions that are going along with the scientific method that I have a problem with."

And when I asked what assumptions you were referring to, you mentioned assumptions about the theory of evolution which have nothing to do with scientific method.

As for scientific method answering all of life questions, of course it doesn't. It applies to what it was designed to apply to: the scientific study of nature. It does not answer metaphysical questions.

And yet parts of the theory of E are not able to be tested so why is it considered scientific theory?

This is news to me. What parts of the theory of evolution do you consider to be untestable?

Neither [scientific method or TOE] are belief systems butBoth can be tied to a belief system.

So what? Scientists cannot be held accountable for the way people misuse their techniques and theories. The real question here, as you have pointed out several times, is whether we are dealing with fact or theory or both. Focusing on beliefs people derive from the fact and/or theory of evolution is a distraction. Leave aside the red herring and focus on the point which you earlier insisted on.

Though the origins of C or ID have roots in a belief system, neither is by theory a belief system in and of itself. This is an important distinction that few understand.

I agree, it is an important distinction and I do understand it. If creationists and IDers were content to hold their ideas as a matter of faith, I wouldn't bother with these discussions. (Well, actually, I would, as a matter of apologetics, as I consider them wrongheaded theology, not just pseudo-science.)

But they present them as "science" and want them to be given a place in the science classroom. Therefore they leave themselves open to scientific analysis and evaluation. And on that basis they both fail in their pretensions, for neither offers a coherent or testable theory that explains our observations of nature.

Some believe the TOE to be fact, this is a belief system.

On the contrary, it is an evidence-based logical conclusion.

I do not see how my opinion fits into this discussion. I can only see how my own tendencies would lead to debate off topic. Can you clarify your questioning in relation to the original assurtions?

1. Your opinion is always relevant to any discussion in which you are a participant. I should think that would be self-evident.

2. You have often mentioned "strains" of theories. I am aware of variations in creationist theory, especially on the matter of kinds. You said that your research suggests that "kinds" means "family groups" such as lions and tigers. You also said that mules, since they cannot reproduce, support the concept of kinds.

What I am asking for is clarification of these ideas you have presented. In your original two points, the second was that species reproduce after their kind---a principle evolution fully agrees with. As stated, that principle did not suggest the separate creation of kinds, only that species reproduced after their kind.

But what you are saying here suggests the separate creation of kinds. I am trying to confirm that this is your theory.

Secondly, you mentioned, as examples of "family groups" lions and tigers. Since many creationists would put these two into the same family group, I am asking for some clarity on how you see these groups as they were created. I have offered two possibilities. That originally the family group consisted of one species (e.g feline species, bean species) which then produced more species via evolution (feline--> lions and tigers, bean-->kidney bean and soy bean and romano bean, etc.). The second possibility is that the kind was created with species diversity already a part of it.

Many creationists would not consider lions and tigers, for example, to be separate family groups, but groups within the same kind. Similarly, many creationists do not consider the horse and the donkey to be separate family kinds, but groups within the same kind. But your description of why the mule is sterile suggests that you would not consider the horse and the donkey to be part of the same family group.

So we are dealing here with some of the different "strains" of creationism you were speaking of, and, since there is no point my wasting time on a "strain" of creationism you do not subscribe to, I am asking for clarification on your particular take on the creationist concept of "kind".

Is that too much to ask?

Btw, the theory of evolution does hold that the horse and donkey have a common ancestor and so are the same "kind" of critter. Have you any idea how the TOE explains the sterility of the mule?

In order for evolution theory to be supported, the genetic mutation, or new species would have to bread in order to continue this mutation. Though the species can continue to breed, the breeding is more dificult because of the mutation. This suggests a flaw in the theory but does nothing to prove the theory wrong which is what I have said from the beginning. NO Proof for or against.

Again, this suggests that you have very little understanding of the basics of genetics. For one thing you are implying that a single mutation is equivalent to a new species, which is far from being the case. While there are a few scenarios in which that can happen, they are not the principal methods of evolution. In most cases, an organism with a mutated gene has no difficulty in reproducing. We would certainly be in a bad way as a species if this were the case, for studies suggest that individual humans carry, on average, 100 mutations in their DNA.

It would appear as well, that you conceive of the new species as emerging in a single individual. But in most cases, the new species occurs as a species, i.e. as a group of inter-fertile individuals. So there is no difficulty in finding a mate among the other organisms which are part of the new species.

In short, again you have been making an incorrect prediction based on an imperfect understanding of TOE. The "flaw" you speak of does not exist, because evolution does not work as you have imagined it to work.

The quote says that history cannot be proven.

In that case it is wrong.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, I specifically meant Biblical literalist young Earth creationism. Creationism by itself is too broad a term as it can include Hindu and even Taoist concepts as well as various Bilical versions. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific.

Right, but that the biblical account of creation is specific to young earth is a fallacy on both sides of the issue. The biblical account does not specify young earth or old earth, this is a specific strain of the theory, much as has been presented by E here that there are different strains of the TOE and it is these strains that have not yet found proof. C has different strains. The heart of the teaching as found in the bible is not specific to old earth or new earth. Thus, when looking at the data to suggest an old earth, the only thing we can conclude is that the strain of C that specifies young earth is not validated. And the the theory of E is possible as well as other strains of C.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is simply false. Creationism does not as science to fill in the gaps - creationism has nothing to do with science. It has a conclusion and insists that that is the answer - any and all evidence that contradicts that conclusion is simply ignored. Creationist organisations not only admit this, it is a central tenet of their position. ID, similarly, does not ask science to fill in the gaps - its entire position is that there are gaps that science cannot fill - therefore god.

Neither creationism nor ID use or involve the scientific method at all - both abandon it completely in order to come up with an answer they already have.

And this is why we have christian scientists that explore C and ID? HOw does that work?

 

[gluadys]

This does not prove that God cannot be part of the equasion but offers much opertunity for scientific methods, to answer questions such as, why would a supreme being create crocs and gators similar but with differences, why if it is genetic differences, would it stop where it has, is it continueing, what advantages are there to the different designes, etc.

I would like to see some evidence that you have understood my point. I don't ask that you agree with it, but this is the second time I have provided a reason why TOE is to be preferred over C/ID because evolution explains the evidence and the others do not.

This is not to say the evidence is incompatible with C/ID. But C/ID offer only compatibility and not explanation, while TOE offers both compatibility and explanation. On this basis science is correct to favour TOE since the purpose of a theory is to explain observations, and in this case neither C nor ID provide the necessary explanation.

However, I am not at all sure that you understand this point or see the difference between mere compatibility and explanation. Especially, I am not sure you understand that God is not and never can be an explanation for what we observe.

You are quite right to say that I have not proven that God is not part of the equation. I have not and will not prove that, since it is unprovable. Evolution is perfectly compatible with God having a hand in the evolutionary process.

But with or without evolution, God is not an explanation for why crocs and alligators look like they ought to look if they are related by evolution. The similarities and differences in crocs and alligators are 100% explainable on the basis of evolution. Neither creationism, nor ID, nor the will of God explains them at all.

Do you understand why this is so?

My strain ends at the basics, with tendencies outside the basics, but nothing that is solid. 1. God created the world and all that is in it. 2. Plants and animals reproduce after thier kind.

I asked which "strain" of ID you subscribed to and you give me a response that is purely creationistic with no element of ID in it.

By the way, are you under the impression that fungi, kelps, diatoms, bacteria, etc do not reproduce or that they do not reproduce after their kind? Why do you limit reproduction after their kind to plants and animals? Is it because the bible specifically mentions only plants and animals and does not refer to other forms of life?

But as stated, each theory is part of the others, E contains elements compatable with C and ID. C has elements of E and ID, ID has elements of E and C. The theories are compatable on many levels. For this reason, the window of disproof is extremely small, in fact, so small that it would be all but impossible, if not impossible to disprove one without sheding considerable doubt on the other two.

As YOU stated. I profoundly disagree. The theory of evolution is a complete, stand-alone theory which does not rely at all on any element of C or ID. The reverse, I agree, is not the case. Hence, it is possible, to disprove or at least cast considerable doubt on creationism and ID without affecting the TOE. This has already been done.

It does not support the theory of evolution without doubt. See above, because of the shared elements, absolute proof is an improbable thing.

It is not a matter of "shared elements" that makes absolute proof of evolution improbable. Absolute proof is excluded from science because of the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. That is true of all science, not just evolution.

Meanwhile, absolute disproof of creationism is possible and an already accomplished fact. Neither proof nor disproof of ID is possible without a means to test the theory. This requires, as I stated earlier, a means of discriminating between intelligent and natural design. Until then ID may make metaphysical points, but it is not a scientific theory. That leaves evolution as the only theory with scientific credibility.

ID does accept the possiblities of genetics, even creationism in it's purest form accepts the possibiltiies for genetics this does nothing to disprove any of the theories or prove the any of the theories as fact.

The difference is that ID and C accept genetics only to a point. At crucial boundaries (specified complexity, border of kind) they reject genetics. Evolution does not reject genetics at any point.

Since evolution is fully compatible with genetics and the other theories are not, evolution is the better theory. And if it can be shown that genetics works at the points that C/ID say it does not work, then C/ID are not only weaker theories, they are false theories.

But, it is only the beginning point. Not the beginning, middle and end, therefore not overwhelming proof especially when one considers the possibilies that are built into the other theories when looking into genetics.

So? How do you expect to get to the middle and the end without starting at the beginning? Would we have overwhelming evidence if we left out the evidence from the beginning?

In fact I anticipated this objection when I began to work on this. Here is an introduction I had already written, but not yet posted.

I am convinced that the basic problem most people have with evolution is that they are only vaguely aware of how it works. So I think the best "evidence" for evolution is simply increasing the level of awareness of the process.

That puts the evidence provided by science in context and makes it relevant.

That is why I proposed looking at genetics, but as you say, genetics is not the whole story. So lets look at the whole story.

There are three major phases in the process of evolution:

1. Preliminary phase---from the appearance of a mutation in a single cell to its transfer into the species gene pool. (roughly equivalent to "micro-evolution")

2. Speciation phase--from a single change in a species to a new species or group of species. (in scientific terms this is "macro-evolution")

3. Appearance of higher ranking taxonomic levels (genera, families, orders, etc.) (this is what the layperson usually thinks of as "macro-evolution).

 

[razzelflabben]

Razzleflabben in post #10:
<< I asked you how evolution addresses the vast differences between man and animals, things like guns, computers, abortions, etc. Obviously man is not perfect, but evolutionary theory would indicate that man should have evolved into a different creature, instead, he remains the top of the scale. >>
*
Humans evolved brains which they used to create tools, including guns, computers, etc. As to man evolving into a different animal, do you have some kind of information on what we ought to look like?

This was directed at somone whose posts indicate a belief system and is directed at that belief system. Now, this could be an adequite explaination except that it leaves out the process of man's brain evolving. In other words, now did man survive until his brain became evolved enough to seperate him from the other creation. C addresses this issue.
*

<< I asked you about your understanding of evolutionary theory, including that there is no overwhelming evidence to support evolution because it is a matter or man's interpretation. >>
*
There is a lot more to science than that, but I'll give you a scenario that is not a matter of interpretation. Creationists claim that all the animals (and plants) living today AND all those known to be extinct, those known from fossils were once alive at the same time. What on earth did the world look like at that time? Has any Creationist ever tried to draw a picture of it? Did Tyrannasaurus Rex feed on sheep and goats? Until the Creationists tell us what the world looked like at that time their "theory" is hardly even a suggestion. That's quite a hole in the Creationist scheme of things.

Since it is only a theory, the answer would also be a theory and has been addressed by some in the christian community. Right now there is a somwhat popular speaker that does address some of these issues, but I will have to get his name for you. Please understand however, that it also remains a theory and I have never said otherwise.

 

[Jet Black]

This was directed at somone whose posts indicate a belief system and is directed at that belief system. Now, this could be an adequite explaination except that it leaves out the process of man's brain evolving. In other words, now did man survive until his brain became evolved enough to seperate him from the other creation. C addresses this issue.

(ignoring sexual selection for the moment) It's called an arms race. your question is like asking how planes flew in combat before they developed anti ground-air or air-air missile technology.

 

[gluadys]

This has already been covered, but what C and ID do not do is assume things in our environment. E assumes things to be so and then sets out to prove them. C and ID offer basics and then asks science to fill in the gaps. It is the gap theory put forth in reverse. It is not God that fills the gaps, but man asking science to fill the gaps. Many think this poor scientific method, I purpose to you that it is the purest form of scientific method. Observation, them see where that fits into our ideas and draw a conclusion based on observation rather than on preconcieved ideas.

Your own words refute your claim.

"C and ID offer basics and then asks science to fill in the gaps."

Yes, C and ID assume the existence of a intelligent designer, of specified complexities which cannot be a product of evolution, and of strictly separated kinds which cannot have a common ancestor.

They are willing for evolution to fill in the gaps, but reject a priori that any of these basics are incorrect.

That is definitely poor scientific method. It is a perversion of scientific method.

Now what assumptions are you claiming that evolution sets out to prove?

 

[gluadys]

The heart of the teaching as found in the bible is not specific to old earth or new earth. Thus, when looking at the data to suggest an old earth, the only thing we can conclude is that the strain of C that specifies young earth is not validated. And the the theory of E is possible as well as other strains of C.

We can go farther than saying young earth is not validated. We can say with certainty that young earth is scientifically falsified.

 

[razzelflabben]

I do not agree. In so far as creationism and intelligent design claim to be scientific theories, neither has any elements that are supported by scientific evidence. Only the theory of evolution has ample evidential support.

How can this be if all the theories have elements of each other in them. You also suggested this. So how then can the theory of C be totally falsified, or ID found to be unscientific? That would be a contridiction unless, we are talking about specific areas of teaching within the theories which is what I mean when I talk about strains of the theory.

Very few people would hold that science holds all the answers to everything. I certainly do not. Also, science does not claim to be able to irrefutably prove any theory. A basic principle of the scientific attitude is that all theories are accepted as provisional based on the knowledge we have today. Knowledge that is as yet undiscovered may change even our best established theories when it comes to light.

But there are those among us, that do hold science to have all the answers and they do hold E to be fact not theory. It is this that I have taken objection to and why the thread was started, not because of people who see science as part of the answer, or that E is theory not fact, but for those who do not hold the same view as you.

So if your only argument is that science cannot provide rock-solid proof that will last forever, I don't know why you are trying to make a case that science has already made for itself.

I have never tried to make a case, I was not the one who started this thread and the only reason I came here to start out with was to set the record straight as to what I said. The case was made by someone else, remember?

Why should it? The theory of evolution is not a belief system. And the fact that creationism and ID are open to philosophical and theological discussion invalidates them as scientific theory.

But when someone crosses that line and boasts that E is fact, not theory, when they boast that science holds all the answers to life, then should their belief system not be challenged as any other belief system would be? That is what started this entire discussion. Someone made posts that indicated a belief system. Questions were asked based on that belief system. That person didn't have answers and wanted to make a point and so the thread got started. It was never about scientific methods, or even scientific theory, it was about crossing the line into belief system. If one wants to avoid philisophical and theological discussions about E then one must not turn them into a belief system.

In science the common ground of understanding is evidence.

And what evidence do we have to prove or disprove any of the theories? We can prove or disprove parts of the theories but that is as far as it goes and to claim otherwise, would mean that all the theories are valid or invalid because each has woven into it elements of the other two. In other words, it say that the theory of C is totally disproven would mean that the elements of E that are woven into the theory are also disproven. It may be about semantics, but it is also about argueing rather than communicating.

I think you need to be much clearer about what you mean by "strains" of theories. To date, the only strains you have identified are the old earth and young earth strains of creationism. What do you see as different "strains" of ID? What would you name as a "strain" of TOE which is open to disproof? and a "strain" of TOE which is still provisionally valid?

It goes back to science being self healing and certain aspects of the theory that have not yet been proven. branches, segments, parts, that idea. Old earth young earth is the most promident, and most easily identified which is why I use it as an example. Also goes back to the idea that everyone has their own opinions.

Yes, the discussion should be about the evidences found. But the evidences are what support or disprove the theories. So they tell us which theories are provisionally right and definitely wrong.

But to disprove a theory that has elements of E worked into it, would mean that you also disprove E. The correct way of discussing the issue would be to say that there are areas of the theory which do not hold up to scientific data. This does not excite anger based on false representation of the facts.

But I do not have a belief system about evolution. I have an array of evidence which convinces me that evolution happens. And I have no intention of seeking within a "belief system" of evolution for philosophical and theological answers. I find those in my Christian faith.

And you are not the one I take issue with. Never have been, never will be.

Not true. Science has already done so, and found the theory of evolution to be valid, creationism to be false, and ID to be unscientific.

As discussed already, this cannot be fact, for it would invalidate E as theory as well. If each theory contains elements of the other two as you yourself have assurted, then to claim C to be false is to also claim E and ID false. To claim ID as unscientific, is to also claim E and C unscientific. If you would rather claim that science has disproven elements of C and elements of ID unscentific, that is not to claim the entire theory as such, then your evaluation is sound.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, that is not what I said.

I asked, "Also do you agree that both creationism and ID contain elements of evolution? If not, why not?"

You agreed that both creationism and ID contain elements of evolution.

Please note that I did not ask nor suggest that the theory of evolution contains elements of creationism, or ID. I do not agree that it does.

I apologize, I misinterpreted you post, please accept my apology. Yes, I do think that each theory has woven into it elements of the other two.

And while you have given a general opinion about these theories you have not answered the specific question, which was:

"Why do you find ERVs not to be compelling evidence for evolution? Why do you find them not to be compelling evidence against creationism? Why do you find they do not falsify ID?"

Because I find to many questions unanswered, because I agree with the quote on the one site you refered me to that history cannot be proven. So what scientic method would contridict these observations?

In your earlier post you stressed the importance of looking at the evidence. Well, this is evidence and I am asking you to look at it.

Actually I do not think I stressed that I was interested in looking at the evidence, only that the evidence was inconclusive. Every article I have been refered to on the subject has confirmed this and so be come back here and claim otherwise? How does that work exactly?

It is evidence for which the theory of evolution provides a clear and coherent explanation. Neither creationism nor ID provide an explanation of ERVs.

What makes you so sure of this? I can think of several explainations, but I guess since I am not a scientist, my explainations don't count, right?

So, if you agree that evidence is important, please stop sliding away from it.

How am I sliding away please, by not discussing E vs. C vs. ID theories with you. They are theories, and as such, there is no hard proof to support, I am sure you said that. And I have only seen evidence that would disprove certain elements of the theories, so what then is disproven. The theory or elements of the theory?