Evolution vs Incompetent Design

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Rogue

I agree there are lots of bits of information regarding natural selection. And there is certainly data that proves adaptation of a species. But one species changing to another? Where are the fossils of the half reptile half bird?
Certainly there should be some record of the animal during its period of change from one species to the next. All the fossils found (IIRC) are of one species or another.
Could there be just a bit of faith involved in the Theory(ies) of evolution?

Any farmer can tell you how species of crops and animals change over time, based on genetic mutation and selection. This is called evolution.

Similarly, the myriad types of domesticated cow have evolved from a single extinct species. By simple evolution over time. Over a remarkably short period of time, at that. Maybe five thousand years? Ten at most?

Now take that evolutionary process and extend it a thousand times. Not ten thousand years, but ten million years. That's the length of time you're talking about in your example of evolving from reptile to bird. Ten million years is a d@mn long time. Unfathomable. Plenty of evolution is going to happen in that amount of time.

And no, there is no faith in the scientific method. There may be those who have a faith in scientific results, but that's another matter. The scientific method requires the absence of faith. Skepticism and doubt are the hallmarks of the scientific method, never faith.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by sabreur

Yes, multiple times. Bacterial resistance to drugs has been observed in laboratory experiments--it's easier to see evolution at work in bacteria because they go through many generations in a short time.

And not just in the lab, as bacteria have evolved to be resistant to drugs that formerly were sure-fire remedies. You can see it with strains of TB, syphilis, staph, just about any bug you might encounter. There are even some bacterial nasties that are resistant to vancomycin, which used to be the neutron bomb for fighting infections. This isn't just a question of selection (ie: specimens of a population of bacteria that survive penicillin are the only one to breed and therefore dominate the next generation). This is actually a change to the species as different genes change, combine, and get expressed.

This is also the point about the avian flu (and influenza from previous years that become immune to last years' vaccine): the whole basis of the scare is that flu virus formerly able to infect poultry will mutate sufficiently to jump to another species (us, that is) in large numbers. Evolution in action. Kinda funny to see Bush talking about the risks of avian flu, considering he said 'the jury is still out on evolution'. What then is he worried about?

Kudos for the pro-rational-thought-process posts! (and welcome to the board, academe)

[eze]

Here is an article on a species of Mosquito that that appears to have recently evolved and adapted to climatic changes induced by global warming (or cyclical warming depending on your stance).


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n..._TVmozzie.html

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Fossil records contain lots of visible mutations. As far as currently happening mutations, we need to refer to scientific journals for an answer. A major change in species takes thousands if not millions of years. Pretty difficult to observe that 'live' in a laboratory environment.

Don't 45% of Americans believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or was that another flawed poll?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

What is it about this that is so difficult for creationists, ID'ers, and the like to comprehend?

I think many of them understand this quite well - but they act as they do because their agenda is not to increase understanding of the world through impartial study, but to proselytize their religion and suppress any view - no matter how well supported by evidence - that contradicts it.

For example: Bob Jones University has a science text whose preface says (I paraphrase), that it presents science only as consistent with a literal reading of the Bible, and that any case where it presents scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible is a mistake! That's a heck of a science book, huh?

Consider the contradiction: a faith that demands literal interpretation of an inerrant Bible, and a world full of evidence that shows that such an interpretation cannot be true. Unable to change their theology to accept that parts of the Bible are metaphor or allegory, their response is to undermine understanding of the real world that contradicts it.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Has Evolution been proven in a laboratory?

No.

BUT....

It has been shown, repeatedly and reliably, that predictions made using the theory of Evolution explain observed phenomenae now and in the future. In the lab, a population exposed to controlled stimulus changes according to the very specific mechanism of Evolution with a probability approaching 1.

It is a theory because it has not been shown to be beyond the possibility, however small, of inaccuracy. It has not shown this because it makes a sweeping, general prediction: all biological systems change according to natural selection. It therefor necessitates a systematic investigation of all biological systems in the universe and an evaluation of whether they operate according to the precepts of natural selection. Since such a cosmological census has not been performed, the Theory of Evolution remains a theory and not a law.

However, in all controlled experiments to date, the theory has accurately predicted the general final state. In fact, the theory is so accurate that the probability of it being grossly wrong is infintesimally small. It can therefor generally be taken as truth in the situations to which it applies.

James.

[jBirch]

Another note, Science can always explain who, what, where, when and how.

It can not explain why (though pure scientists often confuse how with why).

James.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I really don't understand the reason why people want religion taught in science class.

Science is not philosophy. Science is not conjecture. Science is not faith.

Description of science and religion snipped by PG

What is it about this that is so difficult for creationists, ID'ers, and the like to comprehend?

It is not a question of comprehending the difference between science and religion. What they object to is the teaching of anything that counters their religious beliefs, period. They would prefer a school where only religion, and maybe some other things needed to minimally function in society as a cogwheel, to be taught.

An american version of a madrassa, if you will.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

An american version of a madrassa, if you will.

Sadly---we have those. I saw an advertisement for one on TBN once. Bible University, or something like that. The main curriculum seemed to be Bible study, Bible discussion and attending revival meetings. Loked very madrassa-like indeed.

Fortunately it did not seem to be preaching crusade, or turning out suicide bombers.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Sadly---we have those. I saw an advertisement for one on TBN once.Bible niversity, or something like that. The main curriculum seemed to be Bible study, Bible discussion and attending revival meetings. Loked very madrassa-like indeed.

Fortunately it did not seem to be preaching crusade, or turning out suicide bombers.

What about all of those white supremacist loonies living in huts in the wilds of America?

Madrassa don't just turn out suicide bombers or preach crusade - that's an oversimpliication. They also turn out the normal number of moderates who just want to be Muslim clerics (or study the Koran deeply). Jihadists come from all walks of life and are often recruited in western universities as well.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

What about all of those white supremacist loonies living in huts in the wilds of America?

They aren't usually educated in Bible Universities, though. Or educated at all, for that matter.

[jBirch]

Just more fodder for the discussion:

From Ars Technica:

Originally Posted by Ars Technica

Intelligent Design as Philosophy Fails

1/17/2006 3:08:32 PM, by John Timmer

Any scientist hoping that the Dover verdict would keep the teaching of evolution out of controversy and courts for a little while has got to be disappointed with recent developments. The Dover verdict stated plainly that Intelligent design was not science, and didn't belong in a science class. Politicians in several states already seem intent on testing whether the ruling will apply more broadly than Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, a public school district in El Tejon, California, has taken different approach in a high school course: teach ID, but don't call it science. Taking a cue from suggestions made in the wake of Dover, they called the course the "Philosophy of Design." Both the class and the lawsuit it spawned came to an end today, but it's worth examining in detail, both because I haven't found it summarized well elsewhere, and because it points to where the controversy over the teaching of evolution might be headed.

Word of what happened has only filtered out slowly, because the whole class seems to have been thrown together in a rush. The first indication of the class and its content came when it was listed in a course guide issued on December 1st. The first syllabus for that course is simply stunning, as it centers around scientifically vacuous Young Earth Creationism (YEC) arguments, such as those based on bizarre interpretations of radioactive dating and the second law of thermodynamics, as well as claims of geologic "evidence" for a global flood. Of two pro-evolution speakers listed, one (a local parent) was not even aware of the class, and the second appears to be the recently deceased Nobel Laureate Francis Crick. I say "appears", because the name was spelled "Krich" there. The school board had what may turn out to have been its "breathtaking inanity" moment with little public notice on New Year's Day, when it approved a revised syllabus for the course, which started three days later.

Although the YEC material is gone, potential bias is not, as evidenced by the pro-ID wording of a section of the course:

What is Intelligent Design/Creationism?
• Why is this a movement and why is it gaining momentum?
• Why is it so threatening to society, the educational system, and evolutionists?

Much of the course material comes straight from the pro-ID think tank the Discovery Institute. This isn't necessarily a problem — if I were teaching a course entitled "ID is scientifically vacuous", I'd be relying on Discovery Institute materials as well. More of a concern are the qualifications of the teacher of this class — namely, that she has none. With a background in sociology and special education, she admits she isn't especially qualified in science or philosophy, and that the syllabus was a mess because the course was designed in a rush. She does apparently have a reason for leaping into the fray: "I believe that this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach."

In a development that shocked no one, a lawsuit was quickly filed. This one had all the elements that caused such a definitive verdict in the Dover case: a limited grasp of science displayed by the principal characters, the intent to teach a belief that appeals specifically to a subset of Christians, and an activist school board making questionable decisions. It looked so bad that, after an initial reflex spasm of support, even the Discovery Institute backed away from the course, fearing that a (likely) negative legal decision would seriously harm their chances of spreading ID through schools. Today, the school district opted to drop the course and settle the lawsuit prior to a trial, likely hoping to avoid racking up legal fees and ill will in the community — two things Dover now has in abundance.

Although it's over now, the situation had two unique aspects that seem likely to make a reappearance in the future. The first is that many scientists suggested that a discussion of ID might work in a philosophy course because that would provide a good context to highlight the difference between it and scientific understanding. If a "philosophy" label winds up being a way for creationists to push their typical denigrations of evolutionary theory into schools, any support for this approach will dry up fast. Biased courses such as this one also represent a wholesale abuse of philosophy and its teaching. We may find that, should future cases proceed to trial, irate philosophers will join the usual irate scientists on the list of expert witnesses. Should other courses like this be tagged as "philosophy" in the future, professional philosophers may also find the need to form an equivalent organization to the National Center for Science Education. Schools that choose to embrace the philosophy route will also have to answer questions relating to their philosophy curriculum. A public school that offers exactly one class in philosophy will come under scrutiny if that class is clearly directed towards religious motivations. For this same reason, courses on Christianity are not taught as "philosophy" classes in public schools either, except in cultural studies courses where more than one religion is studied.

Second, this course appears to have been an attempt to turn philosophy against a field that should be viewed as a limited subset of philosophical inquiry, namely science. In doing so, it turns education into a bizarre zero-sum game: learn something in science class in the morning, and learn why you shouldn't believe it in the afternoon. Chris Mooney posted a transcript of a portion of the CNN coverage of the issue which illustrates this well:

Reporter: What have you learned?
Sam Alexander, student: I've learned that evolution has become, over the years, more and more — more and more people decide that it's not completely true and that there has to be another belief or another thing that replaces it.
Reporter: And what is that?
Alexander: That is an intelligent designer.
Reporter: Meaning God?
Alexander: Yes, God, the Christian God who created earth in 6 days.

Mooney views this as an indication of the clumsy and blatant promotion of creationism in the class. More important, though, is how it illustrates how much damage to education this "philosophy" course has done during its limited run.

[Krazyhades]

The conservatives that support intelligent design as a "scientific theory" (which it's not, because it is a self-proving theory, meaning that in order to believe it you must believe it (it is based solely on faith, not on facts). These conservatives will point out erratic cases in carbon-dating and the like to "prove" that it is always wrong, and therefore saying that they must be correct. This has two logical problems: 1) Faulty cases are being taken up as an example to try and say this is true about all cases. 2) Even if evolution was incorrect (it is only a theory), that does not mean that intelligent design is.
More arguments showing the logical fallacies in intelligent design:
http://www.symbolicorder.com/2005/11...cal-fallacies/
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520
And my favorite: http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/c...allacies.shtml