Chelmsford Cancer Charity Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is this good science?
Please help. I am not a scientist, but I need to know if what the author is saying is based on sound science.
Please put aside your own personal beliefs on creationism/evolution, and just examine the scholarship. I don't have the training to do this myself. Many thanks.
http://www.moriel.org/articles/notice_board/re newed_intelligent_design_contra_darwinism.htm
Please put aside your own personal beliefs on creationism/evolution, and just examine the scholarship. I don't have the training to do this myself. Many thanks.
http://www.moriel.org/articles/notice_board/re newed_intelligent_design_contra_darwinism.htm
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland,
I think you are going to struggle to get anyone with an interest in science to post any kind of arguement against this. This is NOT bbecause this is good science....it most certainly is not, but because most people with an interest in science will not get into these silly arguements with silly people....it just adds fuel to their fire.
This is not science just as a phycisist pronouncing god doesn't exist is not theology. The two are seperate and are kept so by sensible people in both camps who realise science is one thing and faith another.
In case you are in any doubt the article has no basis in science good, bad or indifferent.
I think you are going to struggle to get anyone with an interest in science to post any kind of arguement against this. This is NOT bbecause this is good science....it most certainly is not, but because most people with an interest in science will not get into these silly arguements with silly people....it just adds fuel to their fire.
This is not science just as a phycisist pronouncing god doesn't exist is not theology. The two are seperate and are kept so by sensible people in both camps who realise science is one thing and faith another.
In case you are in any doubt the article has no basis in science good, bad or indifferent.
You could well be correct jimbob860, except my experience on this site for the last two years or so reveals that this type of question usually generates the most heat, little light and scads of answers. One thread about a year or so ago ran for over 500 entries before dying a natural death. I think, and I could be wrong, that people of all interests are trying to answer the ultimate question that usually centers on Who am I and why am I here?. For example; though often at odds, I find Gef highly articulate and entertaining (I don't mean that with any polemic in view) and felt it would be illuminating to see his/her views on a clearly defined subject. It's quite unlike him/her to dismiss out of hand any subject to which any answer is provided.
Theland, I'm a little hesistant to enter any of these types of threads since I have a habit of raising hackles. I'll try to restrain myself... I do appreciate your approach and the interest it draws from a diverse crowd. Being an American and a commited believer in Yeshua rarely wins one any friends on this site!
Theland, I'm a little hesistant to enter any of these types of threads since I have a habit of raising hackles. I'll try to restrain myself... I do appreciate your approach and the interest it draws from a diverse crowd. Being an American and a commited believer in Yeshua rarely wins one any friends on this site!
Well thanks anyway for your trouble.
If I enter into a debate that involves my Christian faith, there are highly intelligent and articulate debaters, whose atheism is defended by recourse to logic, reason, and yes, science.
I am no scientist, so when somebody who shares my faith, such as Jacob Prasch, delves into science to rubbish the claims of evolutionists, I am unable to pass judgement on the science presented.
The same can be said, of course, when somebody like Richard Dawkins presents their evidence. I simply do not have the scientific knowledge to judge whether what I'm told is true or flawed.
If I enter into a debate that involves my Christian faith, there are highly intelligent and articulate debaters, whose atheism is defended by recourse to logic, reason, and yes, science.
I am no scientist, so when somebody who shares my faith, such as Jacob Prasch, delves into science to rubbish the claims of evolutionists, I am unable to pass judgement on the science presented.
The same can be said, of course, when somebody like Richard Dawkins presents their evidence. I simply do not have the scientific knowledge to judge whether what I'm told is true or flawed.
Sorry I was giving my opinion but I realise that you did not want that.
I really don't know what the article is about. It starts off with a lot of apparent scientific "facts" but then somehow manages to introduce Hitler, genocide etc.
It argues that the triplet code (sic) could not have come about by chance but surely over billions of years many combinations would have occured and only those that were successful would have perpetuated.
The article also states that Darwinism is the cause of racism. Sorry but I have better things to do at this time of night.
This is the sort of conversation I love over several bottles of wine ( I am a scientist but sometimetimes just wonder where we all came from).
However, I think the real answer lies in reading the header at the top of the article.
I have tried to be polite.
I really don't know what the article is about. It starts off with a lot of apparent scientific "facts" but then somehow manages to introduce Hitler, genocide etc.
It argues that the triplet code (sic) could not have come about by chance but surely over billions of years many combinations would have occured and only those that were successful would have perpetuated.
The article also states that Darwinism is the cause of racism. Sorry but I have better things to do at this time of night.
This is the sort of conversation I love over several bottles of wine ( I am a scientist but sometimetimes just wonder where we all came from).
However, I think the real answer lies in reading the header at the top of the article.
I have tried to be polite.
Theland,
From a scientific perspective there are several problems with "Intelligent Design".
In general terms more complex organisms sprang from more basic ones - evolution or from more comple ones - creationalism.
Now if the latter is true - how did the creator come to be? well if you ask this question you end up with either from a more complex creator (in which case you ask the question again) or you end up saying something mystical like "He always existed" or "it's unknowable"
Both of these are unscientific, the latter case flies against the whole principal of science, the former because of what we already know of space and time.
In terms of what is specifically being stated in the article this is dressing up in what appears to be scientific language the arguments that we're all so familiar with.
Intelligent design is a trojan horse for creationalism, it was concocted by religously minded americans who wanted to side-step their country's ban on teaching religion in public schools - Resulting in a law case in 2005.
The Judge said:
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions,"
So No ID is not good science
From a scientific perspective there are several problems with "Intelligent Design".
In general terms more complex organisms sprang from more basic ones - evolution or from more comple ones - creationalism.
Now if the latter is true - how did the creator come to be? well if you ask this question you end up with either from a more complex creator (in which case you ask the question again) or you end up saying something mystical like "He always existed" or "it's unknowable"
Both of these are unscientific, the latter case flies against the whole principal of science, the former because of what we already know of space and time.
In terms of what is specifically being stated in the article this is dressing up in what appears to be scientific language the arguments that we're all so familiar with.
Intelligent design is a trojan horse for creationalism, it was concocted by religously minded americans who wanted to side-step their country's ban on teaching religion in public schools - Resulting in a law case in 2005.
The Judge said:
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions,"
So No ID is not good science
The premise behind this argument appears to be that because we have not yet found all the pieces we should throw away the puzzle and simply accept the word of someone who claims to have first hand knowledge from an authority who refuses to speak directly to us for himself. Secondhand knowledge is hearsay, be it mine, God's (who ever that is) or his self proclaimed middle men. We learn from others only through their ability to relate what they are professing to our own direct experience. Trusting the potential of your own ability to reason and determine the truth based on your own best judgment is not a matter of faith in your own mind or that of another but an unavoidable choice, there is no other alternative.
Knowledge is not a gift that can be received without understanding, and therefore is not a gift at all but a reward and it is your understanding that rewards the giver through the appreciation you show for what you have been given.
Science by virtue of the new revelations of knowledge it yields and it's ability to provide with it understanding, has been at odds with religious dogma throughout history due largely to the conflicts and contradictions this new knowledge exposes in religious orthodoxy. Within religious orthodoxy requiring understanding with what you choose to accept as certain knowledge shows a disregard for the supposed virtue of faith. If what you choose to believe does not coincide with religious hearsay then it is heresy.
Eventually it is religious teachings that must be revised and they gyrate, convulse and break-dance like a drunken hippo teetering on the edge of an abyss until they come up with an interpretation of their doctrines that returns the �stolen� glory to 'God' all while doing their best to stomp on those who expose their lies.
Now that I have had my rant, I offer my thanks and praise to jake-the-peg for providing an appropriate answer to the question asked.
Knowledge is not a gift that can be received without understanding, and therefore is not a gift at all but a reward and it is your understanding that rewards the giver through the appreciation you show for what you have been given.
Science by virtue of the new revelations of knowledge it yields and it's ability to provide with it understanding, has been at odds with religious dogma throughout history due largely to the conflicts and contradictions this new knowledge exposes in religious orthodoxy. Within religious orthodoxy requiring understanding with what you choose to accept as certain knowledge shows a disregard for the supposed virtue of faith. If what you choose to believe does not coincide with religious hearsay then it is heresy.
Eventually it is religious teachings that must be revised and they gyrate, convulse and break-dance like a drunken hippo teetering on the edge of an abyss until they come up with an interpretation of their doctrines that returns the �stolen� glory to 'God' all while doing their best to stomp on those who expose their lies.
Now that I have had my rant, I offer my thanks and praise to jake-the-peg for providing an appropriate answer to the question asked.
Its not science, its an opinion piece on a religious website aimed at a non-scientific and
religious audience. but one step at a time:
Para 1. Science is a theory not a fact. If we accept his argument then all science is faith
based and we might as well stop there. However a scientific theory is evidence based and can be proved false at any time through new evidence. The famous quote by JBS Haldane sums this up well: "fossil rabbits in the cambrian period should do it". (I know Prasch argues that the central issues are not faith based, but he then argues that Darwinism - which is itself
a misleading and outdated title for evolutionary biology - is faith based. Which is it?)
Para 2: The fact that recombinant DNA does not trans-mutate across the Genus barrier in the natural environment is strong evidence against darwin (again darwin, not evolutionary biology): This means that cats don't mate with dogs. I don't think that I need to labour (geddit?) the point that phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibrium or punctuated gradualism (all evolutionary mechanism arguments) does not argue that cats ever mate with dogs. This is a misrepresentation of how evolution works and points to the fact that he is being disingenuous.
His argument that chance could not result in the right combination of left and right handed
amino acids is misleading on three counts:
1. He argues that chance could not bring about these combinations but evolutionary
biologists would argue that natural selection and not chance brought about these
combinations.
2. He argues that the process is too complex to have happened. This is an argument from
personal incredulity. I can supply you with research that shows how a dominant 'handedness'
in an amino acid is amplified.
3. This problem really refers to abiogenesis rather than evolution per se.
religious audience. but one step at a time:
Para 1. Science is a theory not a fact. If we accept his argument then all science is faith
based and we might as well stop there. However a scientific theory is evidence based and can be proved false at any time through new evidence. The famous quote by JBS Haldane sums this up well: "fossil rabbits in the cambrian period should do it". (I know Prasch argues that the central issues are not faith based, but he then argues that Darwinism - which is itself
a misleading and outdated title for evolutionary biology - is faith based. Which is it?)
Para 2: The fact that recombinant DNA does not trans-mutate across the Genus barrier in the natural environment is strong evidence against darwin (again darwin, not evolutionary biology): This means that cats don't mate with dogs. I don't think that I need to labour (geddit?) the point that phyletic gradualism, punctuated equilibrium or punctuated gradualism (all evolutionary mechanism arguments) does not argue that cats ever mate with dogs. This is a misrepresentation of how evolution works and points to the fact that he is being disingenuous.
His argument that chance could not result in the right combination of left and right handed
amino acids is misleading on three counts:
1. He argues that chance could not bring about these combinations but evolutionary
biologists would argue that natural selection and not chance brought about these
combinations.
2. He argues that the process is too complex to have happened. This is an argument from
personal incredulity. I can supply you with research that shows how a dominant 'handedness'
in an amino acid is amplified.
3. This problem really refers to abiogenesis rather than evolution per se.
Para 3 & 4: I think he is trying to say that DNA is too complex to have evolved and,
therefore, it must have been designed. Again this is an argument from personal incredulity
and like his argument that cats don't mate with dogs he kind of gets ahead of himself here
and misinterprets the theory of evolution. Small gradual change through natural selection
possibly from RNA which is a good replicator for simple organisms but does not have the
error checking abilities of DNA is one possible solution off the top of my head. Symbiotic relationships eventually leading to co-opted cells is also relevant. He ignores all the scientific literature and pronounces the problem too difficult. Loads of research available if you want.
But all this is just a preamble for his real agenda where he links 'darwinism' to all that
is bad with the world from Hitler to environmental collapse and at one point seems to link
'darwinism' to pedophilia via the Roman Catholic church. So 'darwinism' is not only bad science, according to him, but is a tool used by fascists and communists to subvert gods earth.
Its not science at all Theland. Its actually made me want to vomit such was the decayed and
sinister reasoning behind it.
therefore, it must have been designed. Again this is an argument from personal incredulity
and like his argument that cats don't mate with dogs he kind of gets ahead of himself here
and misinterprets the theory of evolution. Small gradual change through natural selection
possibly from RNA which is a good replicator for simple organisms but does not have the
error checking abilities of DNA is one possible solution off the top of my head. Symbiotic relationships eventually leading to co-opted cells is also relevant. He ignores all the scientific literature and pronounces the problem too difficult. Loads of research available if you want.
But all this is just a preamble for his real agenda where he links 'darwinism' to all that
is bad with the world from Hitler to environmental collapse and at one point seems to link
'darwinism' to pedophilia via the Roman Catholic church. So 'darwinism' is not only bad science, according to him, but is a tool used by fascists and communists to subvert gods earth.
Its not science at all Theland. Its actually made me want to vomit such was the decayed and
sinister reasoning behind it.
Theland,
Very nice question, I enjoyed reading the article. Some of the answers here have left me a little confused. Some people seem to be criticising this argument for things it is not really saying. The author is not arguing creationism vs darwinism, more that the debate should take place. His basic point is that darwinism, like creationism, is a theory. He offers some arguments against darwinism (some are better than others, i'll look at them later) but really he is saying that science is about criticising theories and producing improvements, how can you do this if only one theory is ever looked at.
Jake-the-peg has produced a sound argument vs creationism, but to say it is bad science seems redundant. It is after all, not really a science. Also the science that is looked at in the article is not creationism, The article is for the most part concerned with darwinism.
A number of anti darwinism arguments are put forward. Some are based on science, some are more social. The social ones, for the most part, are fairly weak in my opinion. Gef says the article blames darwinism for racism. This is not the case. The article says that darwinism could be used as an argument to fuel racist beliefs. This is in fact the case, e.g. "Evolution has caused us to be superior." However this is not a good anti-darwinism argument, since lets face it, religion tends to do similar things.
Very nice question, I enjoyed reading the article. Some of the answers here have left me a little confused. Some people seem to be criticising this argument for things it is not really saying. The author is not arguing creationism vs darwinism, more that the debate should take place. His basic point is that darwinism, like creationism, is a theory. He offers some arguments against darwinism (some are better than others, i'll look at them later) but really he is saying that science is about criticising theories and producing improvements, how can you do this if only one theory is ever looked at.
Jake-the-peg has produced a sound argument vs creationism, but to say it is bad science seems redundant. It is after all, not really a science. Also the science that is looked at in the article is not creationism, The article is for the most part concerned with darwinism.
A number of anti darwinism arguments are put forward. Some are based on science, some are more social. The social ones, for the most part, are fairly weak in my opinion. Gef says the article blames darwinism for racism. This is not the case. The article says that darwinism could be used as an argument to fuel racist beliefs. This is in fact the case, e.g. "Evolution has caused us to be superior." However this is not a good anti-darwinism argument, since lets face it, religion tends to do similar things.
The scientific points made in the article are for the most part strong. Ignoring the obvious bias of the author, he provides a couple of examples of complex situations where darwinism is not quite as strong as most people believe. Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution. The suggestion is that darwinism is widely accepted, and because of a lack of credible alternatives, is not reviewed and criticised as much as it should be. An example I say in a documentary springs to mind. A bacterium has flagella, each of these has over 50 parts that all work together to produce movement. Without any one of these parts, the flagella would do nothing. Now i'm not saying that this didn't evolve, and neither were the people who were making the documentary. But it is important to understand that all theories have difficult cases, when more is understood, perhaps darwinism will be proved correct, or maybe it will be replaced with another "better" theory. Who knows, all I know is that we are more likely to find the correct answers if everyone is willing to questions these "facts".
Apologies dawkins that I wrote this answer before I read your post properly. Just a couple of things though, the author does link darwinism to all the is wrong in the world. And yes, that is a weak argument. But he doesnt blame darwinism for the catholic church pedophilia, he in fact states that the loss of credibility of many christian and other beliefs makes it difficult to challenge darwinism. Your points about the weaknesses in his arguments are good. It is true, any argument that "Science is too complex to be chance" is very poor. The flagella example above is not an example of this, it is much more a criticism of evolution.
Apologies dawkins that I wrote this answer before I read your post properly. Just a couple of things though, the author does link darwinism to all the is wrong in the world. And yes, that is a weak argument. But he doesnt blame darwinism for the catholic church pedophilia, he in fact states that the loss of credibility of many christian and other beliefs makes it difficult to challenge darwinism. Your points about the weaknesses in his arguments are good. It is true, any argument that "Science is too complex to be chance" is very poor. The flagella example above is not an example of this, it is much more a criticism of evolution.
Mikey, the "scientific" points made in the article are non existent. Read dawkins posts again for an excellent rebuttal on a point by point basis.
Intelligent Design is not science at all. The idea of irreducible complexity stems from something Darwin himself once said.
It has been demonstrated exhaustively (not least in the recent Kansas court case) that the examples given by ID proponents, typically the eye, and bacterial flagellum ,are not in fact irreducible in their complexity at all.
If you want to believe in creation, fine... just don't try to portray a scientific rationale for it, or to try and offer it as a valid scientific theory, on a par with evolution.
Intelligent Design is not science at all. The idea of irreducible complexity stems from something Darwin himself once said.
It has been demonstrated exhaustively (not least in the recent Kansas court case) that the examples given by ID proponents, typically the eye, and bacterial flagellum ,are not in fact irreducible in their complexity at all.
If you want to believe in creation, fine... just don't try to portray a scientific rationale for it, or to try and offer it as a valid scientific theory, on a par with evolution.
Mickyp
The bacterial flagellar motor is a part of Behe's argument for irreducible complexity (strange that Behe believes in descent by modification but also in irreducible complexity). Previously, ID adherents used to cite the eye as irreducibly complex but when it became apparent that the eye was not irreducibly complex they searched and found the flagelum. Kenneth Miller (who believes in god) has shown that the type three secretory system (TTSS) - used by many parasitic bacteria for injecting chemicals into hosts - functions perfectly well even though "it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum". Some ID adherents have even tried to argue that Miller's research is invalid since the TTSS system is derived from the flagellum and not the other way round! If you don't get the irony of that,: they are arguing evolution to deny evolution exists! I must say it is a very odd argument to say something is too complex and we should stop trying to work out how it got where it is.
Surely:
"The other factor in the evolution debate is that the state school and Roman Catholic school systems are falling apart (since John Paul II, the Roman Catholic church accepts Darwinism). Widespread pedophilia and protection of sex criminal clergy has damaged the reputation of The Roman Catholic Church and bought into question the safety of its schools."
is an attempt to get darwinism and pedophilia into the same statement.
The bacterial flagellar motor is a part of Behe's argument for irreducible complexity (strange that Behe believes in descent by modification but also in irreducible complexity). Previously, ID adherents used to cite the eye as irreducibly complex but when it became apparent that the eye was not irreducibly complex they searched and found the flagelum. Kenneth Miller (who believes in god) has shown that the type three secretory system (TTSS) - used by many parasitic bacteria for injecting chemicals into hosts - functions perfectly well even though "it is missing most of the parts of the flagellum". Some ID adherents have even tried to argue that Miller's research is invalid since the TTSS system is derived from the flagellum and not the other way round! If you don't get the irony of that,: they are arguing evolution to deny evolution exists! I must say it is a very odd argument to say something is too complex and we should stop trying to work out how it got where it is.
Surely:
"The other factor in the evolution debate is that the state school and Roman Catholic school systems are falling apart (since John Paul II, the Roman Catholic church accepts Darwinism). Widespread pedophilia and protection of sex criminal clergy has damaged the reputation of The Roman Catholic Church and bought into question the safety of its schools."
is an attempt to get darwinism and pedophilia into the same statement.
If flagellum can indeed be shown not to be irreducible that is good enough for me. Though I wouldnt point out that there are no doubt hundreds, maybe thousands of similar examples that need to be shown likewise before you can confidently say that irreducible complexity is no longer a potential problem. That doesn't mean i'm going to start using it to try and prove the theory of evolution wrong, thats rediculous. But all theories have potential flaws that should be looked at in order to improve them.
Like I say, I believe evolution is correct, I am not a creationist, though I am religious. You say (LazyGun) "to try and offer it as a valid scientific theory" as if i have. When in fact in my post I specifically said it wasn't a science. There isn't a scientific rationale for creationism, but there is a strong need to compare all theories with evolution, if only to be sure we have the correct one.
Like I say, I believe evolution is correct, I am not a creationist, though I am religious. You say (LazyGun) "to try and offer it as a valid scientific theory" as if i have. When in fact in my post I specifically said it wasn't a science. There isn't a scientific rationale for creationism, but there is a strong need to compare all theories with evolution, if only to be sure we have the correct one.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|