Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design in Florida

  • News
  • Thread starter vincentm
  • Start date
  • #51
Pelt
Technically, evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is the scientific theory...

Presently, evolution is shorthand for both the class of accepted theories that forms the modern synthesis or evolutionary synthesis (terms used most frequently in evolutionary biology literature ). It is also an observed fact in all its particulars. Universal common descent, on the other hand, marries evolutionary synthesis with cladistics, paleontology, geology and some other stuff to come up with a set of unobserved facts. As I understand it, this is where what passes for serious debate between pro and anti-"evolution" partisans.

A word on "theory." It's accurate or useful to argue that the term has a special meaning in science that it lacks elsewhere. The term in law, philosophy, mathematics and even colloquial use refers to an set of inferences that merits confidence based on how well it fits the evidence both in hand and subsequently uncovered (prediction). The only difference is the standard of proof thought to verify or defeat an idea.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Pelt
I've only seen "post-synthetic" refer to novel developments that add to established body called the synthesis. Evolutionary synthesis itself is essentially original Darwinism with soft inheritance replaced by population genetics and a minimum of three canonical mechanisms.
 
  • #54
670
3
Original Darwinism? Darwin basically added natural selection without knowing anything about heritability or the origin of variation. In moder evolutionary biology, Darwin is a nobody.
 
  • #55
20
1
Are you familiar with the stated goals of The Discovery Institute, the people that invented Intelligent Design? This isn't an innocent case of "oh it's just another viewpoint".

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with DI... I suspect it is organization against ID...

Regardless, Intelligent Design, Great Mother Earth, Ancient Greek Philosophy... Theoretically, it is the will of the people that should ultimately determine what is taught. What's scary is the government telling the people what truth to believe.

That was before the constitution. The constitution is a secular document.

The same guys that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution.

Intelligent design creationism does not constitute valid knowledge at all. It is an issue of what is science and demonstrably accurate and what is not science and demonstrably false. Relativists need not apply.
So we should not study Ancient Greek Philosophy? Studying the belief structure of the American Indian is not valid knowledge? Please... Who's ignorance is showing now?

Your ignorance is showing. Evolution has a massive convergence of evidence from diverse areas such as biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology and comparative anatomy.

We've known for a long time that we humans share common ancestry with the other great apes—gorillas, orangs, chimps, and bonobos. But there's an interesting problem here. We humans have 46 chromosomes; all the other great apes have 48. In a sense, we're missing a pair of chromosomes, two chromosomes. How did that happen?
If not evolution, how would you explain this?
I would say you’re probably a gorilla?

Unfortunately, that is on an entire different level. The equivalence of matter and energy and wave equations is irrelevant. Also note that Einstein made much, much more than simply state E = mc2

Obviously, It was not my intent to put down Einstein or to minimize any of his contributions.

On the contrary, one of the "theories" (ie, evolution) is a fact, and is backed by enormous amount of empirical evidence while the other is wishful speculation, whose premise is inherently unverifiable, and also a load of nonsense.
Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi? I’m surprised that in a forum that is supposed to be purely science related that their wells up such great emotion. It is the greatness of emotion that clouds objective thinking.

I don't know if you've read about evolution, but there isn't any single "equation" with millions of variables which describes evolution. Evolution is the theory/fact that http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html" [Broken] as you seem to imply. For example, natural selection is a non-random process. .

Don’t put words “in my post” so to say. Did not say evolution was a purely random process. And perhaps equation with variables is the wrong analogy. I was trying to say the universe is one single system (equation) with millions of processes (variables). And to think oneself capable of assimilating and reducing that amount of data… well… please… come on…

No. Teaching religious creationist propaganda as a science is certainly not education.
Teaching is, in part, conveying knowledge. Knowledge comes in may forms, not just the physical sciences.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
mheslep
Gold Member
317
728
Technically, evolution is an observed fact. Evolution by means of natural selection is the scientific theory, in which



http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=2
If you mean it has been repeatedly observed that, say, colonies of one cells evolve over generations then yes, that is a fact. If you refer to the past then no, as the past can not be directly observed, one must look to observations of current proxies (facts) to construct a theory.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
670
3
The same guys that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution.

Lets' see..

Benjamin Franklin - deist / atheist
Tomas Jefferson - deist / atheist
Thomas Paine - deist / atheist
John Adams - deist / atheist

The reference to the "creator" does not appear in the constitution.

So we should not study Ancient Greek Philosophy? Studying the belief structure of the American Indian is not valid knowledge? Please... Who's ignorance is showing now?

We should not teach ID creationism for the same reason that we should not teach that the earth is flat. Both are factually incorrect.

Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi? I’m surprised that in a forum that is supposed to be purely science related that their wells up such great emotion. It is the greatness of emotion that clouds objective thinking.

To teach the Greek Gods as facts are indeed nonsense. As mythology?

Don’t put words “in my post” so to say. Did not say evolution was a purely random process. And perhaps equation with variables is the wrong analogy. I was trying to say the universe is one single system (equation) with millions of processes (variables). And to think oneself capable of assimilating and reducing that amount of data… well… please… come on…

The vast majority of those "variables" does not apply in this case. It is an argument from incredulity.
 
  • #58
670
3
If you mean it has been repeatedly observed that, say, colonies of one cells evolve over generations then yes, that is a fact. If you refer to the past then no, as the past can not be directly observed, one must look to observations of current proxies (facts) to construct a theory.

You seem to be confused about the term "observe". We can observe things without actually seeing them.
 
  • #59
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,415
687
I would say you’re probably a gorilla?
I would say you're working on a ban.

Never implied that ID was fact. Again, is the study of the Greek Gods nonsense as well? The teachings of Budha? Gandhi?
Red herring. We don't study the Greek gods or the teachings of Budha in science classes. The first is the domain of mythology, the second, philosophy and comparative religions. ID is not even close to science, and it should not be treated as such.
 
  • #61
mheslep
Gold Member
317
728
Any sources (primary) at all on these labels? Don't bother with agenda sites.
Lets' see..

Benjamin Franklin - deist / atheist
Tomas Jefferson - deist / atheist
Thomas Paine - deist / atheist
Does the slash here mean 'either-or' as in there not much difference? They're opposites. Jefferson and Franklin were deists. A hard case to prove atheism.
John Adams - deist / atheist
Adams was a Unitarian.
 
  • #62
20
1
Okay.
Absolutely not okay as soon as you used the words "both theories". There are no two theories here. IDC is not a theory; it is not even science. Science belongs in science classes and non-science can look for a place in non-science classes. There's really nothing more to say about that.

It would seem, the United States government disagrees with you. It seems the courts are still sorting the issue out.

Personally, it's a joke to think it's the number of variables or the length of time involved that determines whether something is science.

That’s exactly what I posted?

You just don't recognize how much of an insult that is, do you? Besides, it's making absolutely no sense whatsoever. The statement of Darwinian natural selection is also extremely simple in form. So what?

It would never be my intent to insult anyone personally or professionally. If it makes no sense how does it become an insult anyway? I think you’re missing the point.

What does the mathematical capability of the average person have to do with the ability of professional scientists. In any case, the whole point of saying "there are so many variables" is completely moot, as far as science is concerned.

You’re missing the point. There are to many interrelated processes at work to reduce the question to a single definitive statement.

But there is no room for non-science in science.

Agreed. I would add, knowledge and understanding as it relates to the non-sciences is no less important than knowledge and understanding in the sciences.
 
  • #63
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,170
3,755
Unitarian was a disparaging term back in 18th and 19th centuries, and to those of the larger denominations, Unitarians might as well be deists since they rejected the traditional trinitarian views.
 
  • #64
670
3
deist / atheist means that they openly affirmed the existence of a creator, not the creator mentioned in Christianity.

http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/az.html (Benjamin Franklin)
http://www.ansp.org/museum/jefferson/otherPages/enlightenment.php (Thomas Jefferson)
Thomas Paine? Age of Reason, enough said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/paine_04.shtml

Adams was a Unitarian.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

He rejected the trinity and many other concepts of Christianity, thus making the claim that the US was a Christian nation quite weak. Unitarians are basically just one step removed from Deists.

A good book is https://www.amazon.com/dp/0805074422/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by Susan Jacoby.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,170
3,755
The US was founded primarily as a commercial enterprise, with an emphasis on individual/personal liberty of which freedom of religion was one aspect. The colonies had been established under the auspices of the King of England, Parliament and various commercial companies.
 
  • #66
Pelt
Unitarian was a disparaging term back in 18th and 19th centuries, and to those of the larger denominations, Unitarians might as well be deists since they rejected the traditional trinitarian views.

They still are treated disparagingly, although the orthodoxy is far more ecumenical in its dealings with them in the modern age. On a related note, the presence of a minority deists and Unitarians amongst the Founding Fathers does not nor should not lead us to conclude that the nation was founded on values of secular humanism or even humanism period. The vast majority of founders were Episcopalians and Calvinists who believed in the Trinity, the inherent fall of man, and all that good stuff. What does matter is that deist and Unitarian humanism--suspicious of both organized religion and secularism--found common ground with a Protestant religious orthodoxy to push forward two national ideals: "e pluribus unum" and "annuit cœptis."

The US was founded primarily as a commercial enterprise, with an emphasis on individual/personal liberty of which freedom of religion was one aspect. The colonies had been established under the auspices of the King of England, Parliament and various commercial companies.

Well, it was considerably more than that. If it were primarily a commercial enterprise it would've made sense to organize American politics along Dutch lines; 16th and 17th century Netherlands was the very model of economic success without the egalitarian sentiment and there were plenty of learned Dutch living in the thirteen colonies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
670
3
The vast majority of founders were Episcopalians and Calvinists who believed in the Trinity, the inherent fall of man, and all that good stuff.

The point is that:

- Some of the biggest names where deists / atheists / critical of Christianity.
- There is no mention of god or Christianity in the constitution.

Thus, making the United States not founded on Christian principles. In fact, the Establishment Clause gives more support for this notion.
 
  • #68
Pelt
He rejected the trinity and many other concepts of Christianity, thus making the claim that the US was a Christian nation quite weak. Unitarians are basically just one step removed from Deists.

Non-trinitarianism is as old as Christianity proper. It would be terribly inconvenient if we had to define Christianity in such a way that its founding isn't until the 4th century AD.

The point is that:

- Some of the biggest names where deists / atheists / critical of Christianity.
- There is no mention of god or Christianity in the constitution.

Thus, making the United States not founded on Christian principles. In fact, the Establishment Clause gives more support for this notion.

On the other hand, the large majority of the Founders were Christians who believed in a personal deity expressed in the Trinity, and the national motto is an applause of pluralism, so arguably the United States was founded on mostly Christian principles as understood by the collective wisdom of the Founders. One thing is clear, none of the framers were so egotistical to describe a Constitution that could be amended by future conventions to be a divinely inspired covenant. There's no need to rewrite history to acknowledge that fact.
 
  • #69
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,170
3,755
Well, it was considerably more than that. If it were primarily a commercial enterprise it would've made sense to organize American politics along Dutch lines; 16th and 17th century Netherlands was the very model of economic success without the egalitarian sentiment and there were plenty of learned Dutch living in the thirteen colonies.
Except the British and Dutch had a falling out -
For more than three centuries England and Holland had been the closest of friends; but now, at the close of the long and bloody Thirty Years' War, which ended with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the power of Spain was crushed, and the Dutch, no longer having anything to fear from his Catholic Majesty, rose to dispute with the English the dominion of the seas. This brought about an unfriendly rivalry between the two nations, and the unfriendliness was increased by the fact that the Dutch of new Netherland traded freely with the English colonies. They carried great quantities of Virginia tobacco to Holland, and thus at least £10,000 a year was lost in customs duties to the British government.

The first Navigation Law, 1651, was aimed largely at the Dutch trader, but the wily Dutchman ignored the law and continued as before. This was one cause that determined the English on the conquest of New Amsterdam. Another, and probably the chief one, was that the Dutch colony on the Hudson separated New England from the other English colonies and threatened British dominion in North America.

The English claimed New Netherland on the ground of the Cabot discoveries; and Charles II now, 1664, coolly gave the entire country, from the Connecticut to the Delaware, to his brother James, Duke of York, ignoring the claims of the Dutch colony, and even disregarding his own charter of two years before the younger Winthrop. Richard Nicolls of the royal navy set out with a small fleet and about five hundred of the king's veterans. Reaching New England, he was joined by several hundred of the militia of Connecticut and Long Island, and he sailed for the mouth of the Hudson.

. . . .
http://www.usahistory.info/colonies/New-York.html

This is much the history my kids learned in school.
 
  • #70
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
21
It would seem, the United States government disagrees with you. It seems the courts are still sorting the issue out.
Oh, I disagree with the US Courts on several issues. But I wasn't aware the courts were sorting this out. Have there been any instances of a court ruling that ID should be taught in a science class? I know that courts have ruled that Creationism (Aguillard) and IDC (Kitzmiller) should not be taught as science.

And in addition, there's this:

All major science organizations has taken the position that intelligent design creationism is not science.

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_statement_president_09182002_BA_georgia [Broken]
APS
Royal Society
AAAS
NSTA
http://www.aip.org/gov/gov/policy7.html [Broken]

and the list goes on...



That’s exactly what I posted?
No, it's the exact opposite.

It would never be my intent to insult anyone personally or professionally.
I don't think you realize that your statement is an insult - reducing the sum of all the great contributions in physics to one equation derived from the Lorentz transforms.

If it makes no sense how does it become an insult anyway? I think you’re missing the point.
While it is insulting to the actual contributions of physicists it serves no purpose in the context of the present debate. Besides, we're not here to debate whether Darwinian Natural Selection is or isn't science (in fact, such an assertion would be in violation of the forum guidelines). Unless we are scientists in at least a related field, our personal opinions really carry no weight.

You’re missing the point. There are to many interrelated processes at work to reduce the question to a single definitive statement.
What question?

Just because there are a huge number of variables at work does not mean science can not extract truths out of a situation. There several other fields of science that have gazillions of factors involved in their mechanisms, but still make strongly verified predictions about truths within that system.

Agreed. I would add, knowledge and understanding as it relates to the non-sciences is no less important than knowledge and understanding in the sciences.
So you would be happy for IDC to be taught as non-science in a philosophy or religion class? I'm don't doubt the philosophers or theologians would have a problem with that, but I'd breathe a sigh of relief.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #71
20
1
I would say you're working on a ban.


Red herring. We don't study the Greek gods or the teachings of Budha in science classes. The first is the domain of mythology, the second, philosophy and comparative religions. ID is not even close to science, and it should not be treated as such.

Conclusion implied by the data presented in the post and "missiles" shot from someone else's post. However, my humblest apologies to all, and more specifically, anyone for any misinterpretation of the intent of my post.

It it the purpose of study to gain knowledge. While science is nice, it is not the only form of knowledge. Science is only 1 subset of the domain of knowledge. Do any of the elements of the set of all integers belong in the set of all fractions? Of course not. However, we do study and use both sets extracting and applying what knowledge and understanding we can gain from either or both.
 
Last edited:
  • #72
mheslep
Gold Member
317
728
http://www.adherents.com/people/pa/John_Adams.html

He rejected the trinity and many other concepts of Christianity,
Yep, and you could add he was highly critical of the established church. He also said
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard Paine say what he will.
(from the 1854 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Religious_views"...)

I further note at the URL you posted:
Adams was aware of (and wary of) the risks, such as persecution of minorities and the temptation to wage holy wars, that an established religion poses. Nonetheless, he believed that religion, by uniting and morally guiding the people, had a role in public life.
a view which I believe was also strongly held by Jefferson and other founders. My favorite modern statement of this view:
...And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God....
Kennedy's Inaugural, 2nd para.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
2,112
18
Do any of the elements of the set of all integers belong in the set of all fractions? Of course not.

Did you just say [itex]\mathbb{Z}\cap\mathbb{Q}=\emptyset[/itex]?

You probably meant [itex]\mathbb{Z}\cap(\mathbb{Q}\backslash\mathbb{Z})=\emptyset[/itex]. Whatever...
 
Last edited:
  • #74
Pelt
This is much the history my kids learned in school.

You should also note that all this predates the Glorious Revolution of 1688. A Dutch dynasty took the throne in England then stabbed its mother country in the back.
 
  • #75
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,415
687
It seems, then, "good science" or "bad science" is not relevate, but the will of the people is what matters here. Both theories are part of the overall "body of knowledge" of man and that both are useful when presented in there intended purposes.
That would be mob rule. The United States of America is not have a democracy; it is a republic. To insert a bit of humor in this thread,
meetings.jpg


Personally, It's a joke to think that any one person or group of people can intellectually absorb the millions of associated variables, not to mention the random phenomenon over the eon's of time that affect the possible outcomes and call it either science or philosophy. At best, evolution is nothing more than an extrapolated guess given only a few of the variables.
Evolution does not worry about every random event that may have influenced every living entity. TO do so would be ludicrous. Evolution is big-picture science, a bit like fluid mechanics. No fluid mechanicist attempts to model every single molecule out of the 1026 or more that comprise a typical fluid sample. Nonetheless, fluid mechanics, like evolution, does an extremely good job of describing what happens in its domain.

At worst ID is just a simple story.
At worst ID is a theocracy not much different from what the Islamic extremists want to build (they just have a different name for their god). The worst of the cdesign propentists would tear down all of science. Evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. The creationist hit list includes not only biology but also astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, medicine, ... This is one reason why we at Physics Forums take the threat of creationism so seriously.
 

Related Threads on Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design in Florida

  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
3K
Top