Darwin's evolution theory?

[tall73]

Donkeytron claims that Intelligent Design theorists have invented an inappropriate definition of science to support their theory. He wrote earlier,

I'll leave you with some testimony from michael Behe in the Dover trial. You know, the one where he says that the definition of science would have to change for ID to be considered science. And astrology would be considered scientific under his definition:


​

What he fails to point out is that the definition Behe is using was already accepted as the standard prior to the popularity of the ID theory, as we see here.


We know that dogmatic evolutionists are getting desperate when they resort to Michael Moore tactics of trying to discredit the opposition with deliberate and dishonest misrepresentations.

The truth is that creationists are different from most scientists. They do not start with a hypothesis based simply on evidence, but on a pre-existing belief. Of course...in practical terms so do some evolutionists.

Having said that, once they determine a study, use proper methods etc. then the creationists data is no less scientific than any other study, as long as the methods used are proper. So to dismiss the data is to show that you don't want to look at the facts.

So it is true that in their motivations they are not traditionally scientists. But if they use scientific method in regard to their research, then you can't dismiss their findings merely because of their motives. You of course would look more closely at their interpretation of the data however. Just as we would look more closely at the data of those on talkorigins etc. because both of these groups are apologists.

In the end the degree to which creationists are scientific is directly dependent on their adherence to scientific methods of research. And when they are following these their data is accurate. And it must be interpreted just as any other data must be.

That is why I enjoy the origins site I posted earlier, they do their own research and investigate other's research. They have at times had to reject creationist interpretation or flawed methodology, but they try to be honest on the subject.

 

[A. believer]

I think he meant to type "Astrology" in place of "Astronomy". In fact I posted the testamony a while back and you ignored it.

I responded to what he typed, regardless of what he may or may not have meant. And if by "ignored," you mean that my response didn't show the embarrassment you were hoping for, then I suppose you're right. That's not how I'd define ignored, though. By my lights, you ignored me when you failed to acknowledge my response #485.

 

[A. believer]

The truth is that creationists are different from most scientists. They do not start with a hypothesis based simply on evidence, but on a pre-existing belief. Of course...in practical terms so do some evolutionists.

Having said that, once they determine a study, use proper methods etc. then the creationists data is no less scientific than any other study, as long as the methods used are proper. So to dismiss the data is to show that you don't want to look at the facts.

So it is true that in their motivations they are not traditionally scientists. But if they use scientific method in regard to their research, then you can't dismiss their findings merely because of their motives. You of course would look more closely at their interpretation of the data however. Just as we would look more closely at the data of those on talkorigins etc. because both of these groups are apologists.

In the end the degree to which creationists are scientific is directly dependent on their adherence to scientific methods of research. And when they are following these their data is accurate. And it must be interpreted just as any other data must be.

That is why I enjoy the origins site I posted earlier, they do their own research and investigate other's research. They have at times had to reject creationist interpretation or flawed methodology, but they try to be honest on the subject.

My discussion is specifically about the ID movement, and not "creationism" per se. And the very point the ID theorists have been making all along, and that I've been making here, is that, if science is defined as "a hypothesis based on evidence," then evolutionary theory is no more science than is ID. The issue is the double standard. We can't have one definition for the evolutionists and another for the ID theorists.

 

[tall73]

My discussion is specifically about the ID movement, and not "creationism" per se. And the very point the ID theorists have been making all along, and that I've been making here, is that, if science is defined as "a hypothesis based on evidence," then evolutionary theory is no more science than is ID. The issue is the double standard. We can't have one definition for the evolutionists and another for the ID theorists.

I agree on the double standard. But the point remains that they are still essentially approaching the issue from an understanding of intelligent design, and usually a young earth perspective--and as I mentioned, that doesn't make their data less valid. Just as those coming from an old earth perspective does not make their's less valid. But it is still important to point out that they are essentially approaching it from one perspective.

 

[tall73]

Dunkel,

As to Professor Veith's explanation of diversity, I have tried to draw this up in accord with what I think his view is. This is not his material, I just made it up on Coreldraw.

This uses the example of flightless birds. He uses the example of saber tooth tigers etc. During the period in which we see these animals there were other tigers, with teeth along a whole range, from normal to saber toothed. He sees all of these as inherent possibilities, but during times of intense competition you get a more limited range--that which is more adapted to its environment.

Veith would not classify the saber tooth as a separate species. He would simply say it was the same species, but exhibiting wider variation.

 

[tall73]

The following article illustrates the vast potential for variety in a single genome, or at best, a limited genome pool. It is discussing selective breeding in dogs. The variety came about at the phenotype level through selective breeding, pairing the desired patterns of alleles that one wanted. Mutations were incidental, but were not the source of the variety. There was some initial variety at the phenotype level, as even Darwin notes, that led humans to exagerate this diversity. But the genotype would remain more or less the same.

Interestingly, dog breeds can still inter-breed (if physical size allows). They are radically different in appearance, but not a distinct species. This should make us pause in assuming that those with different phenotypes in the fossil record are of necessity different species.

This is from the following website:

http://dogs.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.extension.umn.edu%2Fdistribution%2Fyouthdevelopment%2FDA7046.html
------------------------
Early dogs

From the artwork of primitive man and the fossil remains found by anthropologists, a description of the ancestral type has been pieced together. This picture is of a fox-like, medium-sized dog with upright, pricked ears, a hooked tail and a short coat of reddish-tan color. The general description of the ancestral dog could fit several modern dog breeds. Which breed it fits best can be debated because we lack distinguishing details. The details that distinguish our modern breeds have been added to the picture by selective breeding. This process has produced all of the specific characteristics that allow us to distinguish a Basenji from a Foxhound or either of these from a Miniature Pinscher or Boxer, or a Spaniel from a Keeshond . . .


The beginning of selective breeding


When people decided to keep one dog rather than another or to acquire particular dogs with desirable characteristics, hoping to see these characteristics in the offspring, they began the process of selective breeding. This process is behind the tremendous variation reflected in our modern dog breeds. Whether by accident or design, as dogs with particular morphological (physical) characteristics became distinctive, they were also recognized for behavioral traits and for the services they began to perform for man. As particular dogs became recognized as better than average at hunting, retrieving, tracking or herding, humans selected mates for these dogs that looked similar or showed similar abilities. These breedings frequently resulted in offspring with similar or improved capabilities.

Breeds develop

As particular morphological characteristics became more clearly associated with the ability to perform valued services, the ancestors of our present-day breeds appeared. When breeding for characteristics became more predictably associated and refined in subsequent generations, the early breed specimens began to take on what today?s breeder calls type. In other words, individual dogs began to resemble their more immediate ancestors and others closely related to them more than they resembled distant ancestors and dogs not closely related to them. The inherited similarities and differences could often be observed both in physical characteristics and in particular aspects of behavior. However, the selection criteria were limited only to characteristics that could be directly observed (phenotype) in a dog or its offspring.

 

[A. believer]

I agree on the double standard. But the point remains that they are still essentially approaching the issue from an understanding of intelligent design, and usually a young earth perspective--and as I mentioned, that doesn't make their data less valid. Just as those coming from an old earth perspective does not make their's less valid. But it is still important to point out that they are essentially approaching it from one perspective.

You're confusing a few separate issues here. A Biblical creationism unashamedly presupposes the authority of Scripture, but Biblical creationism is not synonymous with Intelligent Design theory. The two positions, although compatible, are based upon two entirely different epistemologies.

Intelligent Design theory and evolutionary theory, on the other hand, are fundamentally incompatible. ID theory hypothesizes that the material world is the product of intelligence and purpose, as opposed to evolutionary theory which hypothesizes that the material world is the product of a purposeless process. Both are paradigmatic frameworks through which all evidence is interpreted. ID theorists claim that the evidence is more compatible with ID theory, while evolutionary theorists claim the opposite. The controversy is over whether both theories should be taught in science classrooms or whether the evolutionists should be able to continue to censor out contrary evidence and alternate interpretations of evidence.

 

[Silent Bob]

Astronomy is a field of science, not a scientific theory or hypothesis. But I'm not aware of the subject of astronomy coming up in Behe's testimony.

Oups yeap astrology is the right word.

 

[A. believer]

Oups yeap astrology is the right word.

So what do you regard as the significance of that testimony? Could it, perhaps, be that the mere mention of the words "astrology" and "science" in the same sentence raised such a response of incredulity in you that you failed to critically examine the point that was being made? Because that was the interrogator's desired effect, and it's a tried and true polemical method, too. If one can't win with reason, just appeal to something fuzzier.

 

[tall73]

Both are paradigmatic frameworks through which all evidence is interpreted.

The above is the part I was referring to. They interpret it through a framework.

 

[Donkeytron]

So what do you regard as the significance of that testimony? Could it, perhaps, be that the mere mention of the words "astrology" and "science" in the same sentence raised such a response of incredulity in you that you failed to critically examine the point that was being made? Because that was the interrogator's desired effect, and it's a tried and true polemical method, too. If one can't win with reason, just appeal to something fuzzier.

The point being made was that ID's most vocal and credentialed proponent says that ID is as scientifically rigorous as astrology. Heh. That was some good lawyering though, wasn't it.

 

[Silent Bob]

So what do you regard as the significance of that testimony? Could it, perhaps, be that the mere mention of the words "astrology" and "science" in the same sentence raised such a response of incredulity in you that you failed to critically examine the point that was being made? Because that was the interrogator's desired effect, and it's a tried and true polemical method, too. If one can't win with reason, just appeal to something fuzzier.

When someone calls Mrs. Cleo a scientist I don't think there is any point to discuss. Especially when that someone is supposedly a scientist.

But let me not stop there the issue here is that Behe effectively said that ID is in the same group as astrology. And therefore he just poked his own eye out.

Wanna talk reason on ID? Ok. In the ID model a designer is making things like bacteria etc. What is the proposed model on how the designer designs? And how do we distinguish between design and no-design. Can you as an ID proponent show us a single not designed thing in the world and explain the difference with a designed one?

 

[knownbeforetime]

Is re-posting allowed? I hope so because I hate being ignored.

If only there was a reliable, trustworthy observer present at creation, then we would know for sure whether it was literally 6 days or millions of years....

Oh wait, we do!

His name is God, the father of Christ. Maybe you know Him? Billions throughout history will report that he is reliable and trustworthy and His word records that he is trustworthy.

Numbers 23:19 - "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"

God didn't lie and tell us one story instead of the true one. God didn't change his mind and decide that the creation story sounded better than millions of years of death and destruction to bring about human beings. God speaks and then acts. He said, "Let there be light" and it was so. Christ is faithful to forgive you of your sins when you ask him to. His promises WILL be fufilled. He swore a sacred covenant with Abraham that his descendants would be like the sands of the sea and the messiah would come from his descent and it was fulfilled. Christ also promised to come again.

The Bible records that God is just, faithful, and trustworthy. Also, the Bible records that he was present at creation. Therefore, we have a reliable observer (and active participant) of creation. So, scientifically, I would say that His story is the right one.

Can evolutionists claim all this? NO! They pulled a few bones out of the ground and used some speculative dating methods to tell us that the world is really billions of years old. There is no reliable observer.

The difference is this: If you had a snack lying on a table and you went into another room and came back and saw that it was gone and your bestest friend said that the cat ran up and ate it, then you would look at the evidence and maybe see some fingerprints and some crumbs and perphaps conclude that your bestest friend is lying OR your bestest friend is telling the truth and cat ran up and ate it but she tried unsucessfully to discourage it. The question is: Do you believe your very reliable friend or just the evidence alone which tells a very different story?

I have faith that God inspired Moses to write the TRUE story and not some fairy tale. It is the same faith that I have that God sent his only son to die and rise again so I could be free from sin. (My faith covers the WHOLE Bible! ) Again, I would cease to be a Christian if evolution were proven beyond all doubt. God means what he says and says what he means! (I know, it's a cliche... Forgive me...)

A mini-testimony...

To you TE's out there, you don't know how freeing it is to take Genesis literally. Because you have to admit that doubt of the creation story throws doubt on the rest of the Bible. At least, that's what held me back. (Logical fallacy or not, this was true for me and most likely true for some of you.) You see, the Bible doesn't have a footnote on Genesis 1-3 saying "Refer to the works of Darwin, Gould, Behe, etc., etc." The Bible doesn't need any help.

It's freeing because man's knowledge changes daily, if not hourly. However, God's knowledge never changes. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God doesn't have "theories", he has wisdom. I suggest that instead of listening to someone's "theories", you should listen to the unchanging wisdom of God as found in His word.

To add...

Is it awful that I think the Bible makes more sense than any scientific theory?

In addition to Numbers 23:19, I would add Exodus 33:11 which says, "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend." It is clear that God did not see Moses as some stupid "goat-herder". God saw him as a friend and as someone he could be completely honest with. Also, Moses wasn't stupid. He maneuvered a million people in the desert for 40 years. That takes a little bit of brains. The Bible also says he was educated.

 

[Silent Bob]

If only there was a reliable, trustworthy observer present at creation, then we would know for sure whether it was literally 6 days or millions of years....

Great if only He directly told us!

God didn't lie and tell us one story instead of the true one. God didn't change his mind and decide that the creation story sounded better than millions of years of death and destruction to bring about human beings. God speaks and then acts. He said, "Let there be light" and it was so. Christ is faithful to forgive you of your sins when you ask him to. His promises WILL be fufilled. He swore a sacred covenant with Abraham that his descendants would be like the sands of the sea and the messiah would come from his descent and it was fulfilled. Christ also promised to come again.

Thank God that God did not personally write the Bible and that God is not a book otherwise He would also be a liar.

The Bible records that God is just, faithful, and trustworthy. Also, the Bible records that he was present at creation. Therefore, we have a reliable observer (and active participant) of creation. So, scientifically, I would say that His story is the right one.

The authors of the Bible record, not God directly. Are we supposed to worship a book nowadays? Are we supposed to think that rabbits chew the cud cause some old guy made a typo?

Can evolutionists claim all this? NO! They pulled a few bones out of the ground and used some speculative dating methods to tell us that the world is really billions of years old. There is no reliable observer.

Evolutionists (God I hate the word) claim better. They are guaranteed to offer you the BEST explanation mankind has to offer on natural phenomena. Which is much more than can be said about theologians and priests. You see, unlike theology, in science there are very few competing theories at any one time and the competition does not last. Now explain to me how in the name of God there are so many different religions and sects out there since we supposedly know everything there is to know through a book?

The difference is this: If you had a snack lying on a table and you went into another room and came back and saw that it was gone and your bestest friend said that the cat ran up and ate it, then you would look at the evidence and maybe see some fingerprints and some crumbs and perphaps conclude that your bestest friend is lying OR your bestest friend is telling the truth and cat ran up and ate it but she tried unsucessfully to discourage it. The question is: Do you believe your very reliable friend or just the evidence alone which tells a very different story?

My friend is a liar. If you refer to God thank Him for not actually telling me a single tibit of information that goes against the evidence cause He would be contradicting Himself. What is being told and paraded around is an ancient myth that some poeple ascribed to in the quite distant past. If God wanted me to believe in Creationism He should have never left all those fossils, ERV insertions, radioactive compounds, distant stars lying around or maybe just tell us directly at birth that He is sorry but He didn't have time to tidy the place up since creation.

Again, I would cease to be a Christian if evolution were proven beyond all doubt. God means what he says and says what he means! (I know, it's a cliche... Forgive me...)

The problem with Creationism EXACTLY too many people have left christianity from something as simple as a geology colege course.

I am not going to comment on the mini testimony. I have read quite a few from ex-creationists who also became ex-christians when they finally realised that they had their head in the sand. All that I am saying is that it doesnt have to be so.

 

[A. believer]

The point being made was that ID's most vocal and credentialed proponent says that ID is as scientifically rigorous as astrology.

The lack of rigorous thinking isn't the problem of the ID proponents, but of people like you who can't seem to follow the argument. Astrology is a hypothesis, albeit one that's been discarded by scientists because the evidence fails to substantiate the theory. But that it is a theory that was taken very seriously by scientists of past eras cannot be reasonably disputed, as I pointed out in this post which you continue to ignore. To break it down for you, here's Behe's point:

a) Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is a paradigmatic hypothesis within which scientists interpret evidence. Some scientists consider it the paradigm most consistent with the observable evidence.

b) Intelligent Design is a paradigmatic hypothesis within which scientists interpret evidence. Some scientists consider it the paradigm most consistent with the observable evidence.

c) Astrology is a paradigmatic hypothesis within which ancient scientists once interpreted evidence. It has been unamimously discarded by scientists in more recent centuries because of its complete lack of consistency with the observable evidence.

And in my post yesterday, I provided a link which demonstrates that the definition of science Behe is working with is the working definition of the education establishment in almost every state in the country--another extremely significant and relevant point in this discussion that you've chosen to overlook in favor of your shyster lawyer argumentation.

In light of these tactics, it seems appropriate to categorize you not only among the ignorantly deceived, but among the deliberate deceivers.

Heh. That was some good lawyering though, wasn't it.

I guess if you admire that kind of thing, it is. And since you're so eager to emulate it, you obviously do. But it's exactly the kind of "lawyering" that reinforces the stereotype that, sadly, even honest lawyers must suffer to put up with.

 

[A. believer]

When someone calls Mrs. Cleo a scientist I don't think there is any point to discuss. Especially when that someone is supposedly a scientist.

I must have missed that quote. Either that, or you've misrepresented him. I'll leave it to you to show which one is the case.

But let me not stop there the issue here is that Behe effectively said that ID is in the same group as astrology. And therefore he just poked his own eye out.

Only in the eyes of those who can't or won't follow an argument. If I'm ever unjustly accused of anything, I just pray I won't have you on the jury.

Wanna talk reason on ID? Ok. In the ID model a designer is making things like bacteria etc. What is the proposed model on how the designer designs? And how do we distinguish between design and no-design. Can you as an ID proponent show us a single not designed thing in the world and explain the difference with a designed one?

Perhaps you might consider reading literature from ID theorists.

But in the meantime, I'd like to ask you a question that I won't find an answer for by reading any professional literature. There are two opposing theories in dispute. One--evolutionary theory--proposes that the material world is the product of randomness and purposelessness. The other--Intelligent Design--proposes that the material world is the product of an intelligent mind. You, a professing Christian, claim the former. How do you reconcile the notion of a personal Creator God with a random and purposeless universe in your own mind?

 

[Donkeytron]

But in the meantime, I'd like to ask you a question that I won't find an answer for by reading any professional literature. There are two opposing theories in dispute. One--evolutionary theory--proposes that the material world is the product of randomness and purposelessness.

Evolution says no such thing. No scientific theory says such things-they are solely descriptive in nature.

 

[A. believer]

Evolution says no such thing. No scientific theory says such things-they are solely descriptive in nature.

Are you serious? This is the foundational presuppositional premise of evolutionary theory--that matter was formed through purely natural, mindless, processes, and this is what ID theorists are disputing. The theory was posed in order to answer the question as to how matter could have come about apart from any supernatural process.



The 1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers puts it this way:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modifications that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.


​

and evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson writes, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."




Carl Sagan said,

I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. (All quotes from Phillip Johnson's Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997)


​

Purposelessness is an inherent part of evolutionary theory.

 

[Donkeytron]

Are you serious? This is the foundational presuppositional premise of evolutionary theory--that matter was formed through purely natural, mindless, processes, and this is what ID theorists are disputing. The theory was posed in order to answer the question as to how matter could have come about apart from any supernatural process.



The 1995 official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers puts it this way:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modifications that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.


​

and evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson writes, "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind."




Carl Sagan said,

I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. (All quotes from Phillip Johnson's Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997)


​

Purposelessness is an inherent part of evolutionary theory.

The theory of evolution doesn't say jack about impersonality or intelligent supervision. It simply describes the mechanisms through which life changes over time. God or aliens or space monkeys could certainly be tinkering with our DNA all the time and we might never know. Maybe random mutations aren't so random? That's where I see an intelligent force being possible. ID as the current god-of-the-biochemical-processes-gaps isn't useful for studying life-or biologists everywhere would be using it.

 

[A. believer]

The theory of evolution doesn't say jack about impersonality or intelligent supervision. It simply describes the mechanisms through which life changes over time. God or aliens or space monkeys could certainly be tinkering with our DNA all the time and we might never know. Maybe random mutations aren't so random? That's where I see an intelligent force being possible. ID as the current god-of-the-biochemical-processes-gaps isn't useful for studying life-or biologists everywhere would be using it.

My goodness, you not only ignore what the ID theorists say about their own theory, but you ignore what the evolutionists say about theirs as well. Very well. Carry on with your head in the sand.