Thread: Expelled!

Gentlemen I would like to thank you. When some Mods and myself fist so this thread. It was something we thought it could expode. But I am very impressed how you have had a respectful conversation over a sensitive subject. This is a great example of what kind of site we want to be. Thanks
Don

To keep this razor related:
Why not apply Occam's razor to this debate?
"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

On the idea of keeping "religion" out of schools, that should also apply to Atheism as well.
When I was growing up (I still am, I suppose? ) It was refered to as "the theory of evolution", now they have dropped the "the theory" part, and put it forth as proven fact, now it is simply "Evolution". That's not right. Go right ahead and teach it for what it is- an idea, a theory of how things came to be, not a scientifically proven fact, because it certainly is not that.

So, the idea of evolution certainly is an attractive one, and you can show that there have been changes and or differences in creatures on this earth over a very long time period. "Survival of the fittest" and all that. Go ahead and teach "survival of the fittest" if you like.

But in my mind that does not therefore carry back to explain the creation of life through random occurance. There is a postulation of "irreducable complexity", that is to say that there is a certain level of complexity that is required for life to exist. Even the most "simple" living cells are rather complex: mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, nucleus, etc, etc.

So, evolutionists say that at some distant past, there was a nice protien soup floating on the ocean, swamp, or some such, and perhaps a bolt of lightning provided the energy for "the simplest early life". But if you stop to think about this hand waving argument, #1 if a bolt of lightning hits anything, it's toast. #2 this "first created life", even suppose it could be created in such a fashion, would require that in the merest infintessimal chance occurance that somehow even one cell was brought into being, which would require all of the above mentioned hardware (nucleus, mitochondria, ectoplasmic reticulum, etc....I just love saying ectoplasmic reticulum actually... ) to come into random occurance at one time, AND that cell would also be able to have full reproductive capabilities, so as to have progeny and thus start life as we know it on planet earth?

Wow! Now that is rather remarkable.



Or it may be as simple as there is a God, and He created everything.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

I definitely think there is room for opposing viewpoint of the origin of life as taught in schools. Especially since they now have to teach opposing viewpoints in sex ed so as not to offend the tiny minority of kids with two mommies. Why are people who entertain the notion of a Creator held in less esteem than those both the church and natural selection would deem unfit to reproduce.

I don't know what it's like in the US, but when I went to school in Sweden we had these classes about religion. We were taught about how the world began according to all the larger religions along with the Edda and the Kalevala (and probably some more I can't remember). I'm sure you've got something comparable that gives kids some basic understanding of various religions and what their impact has been and is.

If you want opposing viewpoints in a biology class, then I'm sure no one objects as long as scientific theories are discussed. You can have discussions about mutations, and self organising complex emergent systems and so on. But I wouldn't like to see intelligent design in a biology class, since it isn't a scientific theory.

I don't think there is much resistance against teaching people about intelligent design. I do think there rightfully is resistance against teaching it as if it were science, as opposed to a question of faith.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

When I was growing up (I still am, I suppose? ) It was refered to as "the theory of evolution", now they have dropped the "the theory" part, and put it forth as proven fact, now it is simply "Evolution". That's not right. Go right ahead and teach it for what it is- an idea, a theory of how things came to be, not a scientifically proven fact, because it certainly is not that.

Evolution is a scientific theory. The word "theory" in this context is something different from the word "theory" as it is used in everyday language.

I'm not going to wade in with much, because much of what I would have said has already been said, but I do want to say it's great to see that I'm not the only one who questions evolutionary theory. I know someone else mentioned it, but it really is amazing how many people will look at you like a mental deficient if they find out you don't necessarily believe in evolution.

As a side note, I went to public schools here in Canada. Evolutionary theory was taught simply as evolution. It was present as absolute and total fact.

Oh, also, it's pretty funny if you keep your eyes open... Wait until next time they find another 'early man' missing link type critter, like Lucy. There will be hooplah for a couple days about it, then the issue will kind of disappear. Get looking around and you'll usually find that the subject was discovered to be something much more mundane. The retraction however, is very rarely publicized in anyway. If you don't look for it, you won't find it.

There are many issues with this debate.

Primarily, scientific terms have specific definitions UNLIKE words in everyday speech. When we say scientific theory we are using the scientific definition of theory.

Theory: an explanation, based on direct and extensive observation that has been tested, rigorously, and has been verified as being accurate.

So it means nothing to say that teaching Evolution is different from teaching the theory of Evolution, they are one and the same.

Additionally, Intelligent design is not a scientific theory by nature of it's arguments. It supposes that supernatural events lead to the existence of all or most of the creatures on earth. This alone rules it out of the realm of science because science is the study of naturalistic cause and effect scenarios. We observe a phenomenon and examine nature in an attempt to discover the cause of the phenomenon. This is not a new development, the rules were not amended to exclude supernatural causes when Intelligent Design was anounced. It has been like this since the Greeks, and it continued up through the Renaissance to modern times.

Intelligent Design is metaphysical science while Evolution is naturalistic science. They are inherently non-interchangeable.

Irreducibly complex: the idea that no part of a biological organ or organism can be taken away or reduced in complexity and still produce a working part or organism

This is fundamentally incorrect as it supposes a purpose for the given organ or organism. The human eye is often used as an example. The claim is that the human eye is no longer a functioning human eye if you remove a piece of it. And in making that statement they have named the function of the eye so that anything less is in fact no longer an eye. But in reality there are sundry forms of less (and more) complicated eyes in the natural world and just because we know what ours are capable of does not mean that they'd be useless if they were less complicated than they are currently. A photo receptor (light sensor) is better than complete blindness, fuzzy vision is better still, the human eye is yet one step up, and an eagles eyes are one better. Irreducible complexity is hand waving at best.

And, probably most importantly, Evolution does not claim to explain the existence of the universe, it explains how natural processes lead to ever more complex biological entities. DNA was not formed by lightning striking a primordial soup, that may be a nice cinematographical image, but it is not a realistic explanation. In reality, chemicals bond with one another, everything we see around us is composed of chemical elements bound to other chemical elements. Nucleotide bases are no different, they are just bound collections of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen. DNA is a chain of nucleotide bases that have, again, bonded in a stable manner, no lightning needed, no designer required, it happens as naturally as water (hydrogen bound to oxygen, though admittedly less abundantly and in a more complex way, but even water is scarce through out the universe). From there, chains of DNA are still more stable, and at some point we have life.

Maybe a supernatural being stepped in somewhere, and maybe not. The point is that science is the study of nature, and therefore requires naturalistic answers to the questions we pose. There are places for both Evolution and Intelligent Design, but they are separate places and can never be united until someone finds a way to examine the Designer in a naturalistic way.

Sorry for the ramble but I have family members that work in the field of Evolutionary Biology and it is, obviously, frustrating to have so many people misunderstand something that is essentially irrefutable. this is not intended to be an insult, it is just the state of affairs currently. The fact of the matter is that you'd have an easier time disproving the notion that an object has mass than you would trying to refute evolution. Mass (the entity that gives everything in the universe weight through interaction with gravitational fields) is, as of yet, undefined in a proven scientific theory, CERN's Large Hadron Collider should straighten things out, but that's another year away. Let's all cross our fingers and cheer on Mr. Higgs.

I.D. is like one guy saying to another that he uses a straight razor to shave his face and the second guy replying that he does too, then proceeding to take out a cardboard cutout of a straight razor, lather up with Cool-Whip, strop the cardboard on a scarf, and rub the cool whip off of his face, it's just not the same. To some, it looks about right, but upon closer inspection it is anything but.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Irreducibly complex: the idea that no part of a biological organ or organism can be taken away or reduced in complexity and still produce a working part or organism

This is fundamentally incorrect as it supposes a purpose for the given organ or organism. The human eye is often used as an example. The claim is that the human eye is no longer a functioning human eye if you remove a piece of it. And in making that statement they have named the function of the eye so that anything less is in fact no longer an eye. But in reality there are sundry forms of less (and more) complicated eyes in the natural world and just because we know what ours are capable of does not mean that they'd be useless if they were less complicated than they are currently. A photo receptor (light sensor) is better than complete blindness, fuzzy vision is better still, the human eye is yet one step up, and an eagles eyes are one better. Irreducible complexity is hand waving at best.

My understanding of irreducible complexity is somewhat diferent. You are focusing on one componenet, or organ, and if a change were made to it, it would no longer function. Simple light sensors work too, as you say.

But, the key argument I find of irreducible complexity is not focussed on ONE organ, but rather, how do you explain the fact that for a living creature to exist, it takes a number of very complex organs to do so?

i.e.- say a organism with a heart were to have evolved on it's own, but what good is a heart without lungs to oxiginate the blood that the heart pumps? And then you need a liver to filter and clean the blood that is circulating around. And a stomach that is capable of feuling all of this action. You need ALL of these components all at once for an organism to function. And this goes for "simple celled" organisms as well, as I mentioned- the nucleus needs the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, et al.

If life is created by chance, or rather by the simple natural combining of elements, this seems rather implaussible. OK, if even ONE organ (or endoplasmic reticulum if you want to keep it simple), were to be created in this manner it would be stupendous beyond belief, but the fact is that it takes alot more than one organ/component for an organism to function. So, by chance ALL of the neccessary components came into being at once?


I will add this as well- I myself have been on both sides of this debate. For most of my life I bought into the idea of evolution, etc. (isn't that what they taught me in school?) I was into the whole idea that given enough time anything is possible, and all that, and that creationists are just blindly marching in lock-step to the edicts of their religious leaders. I shook my head at how simple minded they seemed. Science! Don't these people understand science?

Well, now I'm on the other side. I'm an engineer, so I feel that I do have a solid understanding of science. But one thing that needs to be said about science is that it is not as "pure" as its proponents make it out to be. If you make an assumption you can then gather data to support that assumption instead of letting the data speak for itself. Garbage in, garbage out.

You find a 3 million year old skeleton. True science would look at it as itself. A skeleton that bears some resemblance to both humans and apes.

Assumption science however, makes the leap by saying "aha! A 3 million year old gorilla skeleton, this MUST be where WE came from!"

Just because a claim is made by someone in the scientific field, that does not make it scientific fact.


Anybody else out there switch sides at one point or another?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Anybody else out there switch sides at one point or another?

I did, when I was in high school I actually didn't participate in the evolution section of science class on the grounds that it was against my religion. So I was not aware that lightning mud was commonly taught. I owned two shirts that didn't have religious messages on them, and played bass in The Almighty God Loving Livestock (We got to open for Timothy James Meany once.)

As I'm sure you've noticed I've changed my opinions since then.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

My understanding of irreducible complexity is somewhat diferent. You are focusing on one componenet, or organ, and if a change were made to it, it would no longer function. Simple light sensors work too, as you say.

But, the key argument I find of irreducible complexity is not focussed on ONE organ, but rather, how do you explain the fact that for a living creature to exist, it takes a number of very complex organs to do so?

i.e.- say a organism with a heart were to have evolved on it's own, but what good is a heart without lungs to oxiginate the blood that the heart pumps? And then you need a liver to filter and clean the blood that is circulating around. And a stomach that is capable of feuling all of this action. You need ALL of these components all at once for an organism to function. And this goes for "simple celled" organisms as well, as I mentioned- the nucleus needs the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, et al.

If life is created by chance, or rather by the simple natural combining of elements, this seems rather implaussible. OK, if even ONE organ (or endoplasmic reticulum if you want to keep it simple), were to be created in this manner it would be stupendous beyond belief, but the fact is that it takes alot more than one organ/component for an organism to function. So, by chance ALL of the neccessary components came into being at once?


I will add this as well- I myself have been on both sides of this debate. For most of my life I bought into the idea of evolution, etc. (isn't that what they taught me in school?) I was into the whole idea that given enough time anything is possible, and all that, and that creationists are just blindly marching in lock-step to the edicts of their religious leaders. I shook my head at how simple minded they seemed. Science! Don't these people understand science?

Well, now I'm on the other side. I'm an engineer, so I feel that I do have a solid understanding of science. But one thing that needs to be said about science is that it is not as "pure" as its proponents make it out to be. If you make an assumption you can then gather data to support that assumption instead of letting the data speak for itself. Garbage in, garbage out.

You find a 3 million year old skeleton. True science would look at it as itself. A skeleton that bears some resemblance to both humans and apes.

Assumption science however, makes the leap by saying "aha! A 3 million year old gorilla skeleton, this MUST be where WE came from!"

Just because a claim is made by someone in the scientific field, that does not make it scientific fact.


Anybody else out there switch sides at one point or another?

excellent post, I like the way you think.
Personally, I don't think my belief in creation mutually excludes evolution, but perhaps for some it does. Personally I have a hard time with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient being who would create creatures which are unadaptable.
So...while I lean toward intelligent creation, I think a small level of adaptation is part of the design process rather than evidence against it. I do not believe, however that one species simply turns into another-although WE made those names...and a kit fox on San Clemente Island (where I used to go on detachment) is a different species than an identical kit fox on the mainland....simply because the latin name differentiates the location it is found..

John P.

black, italic = Seraphim. Blue non italic = Me


My understanding of irreducible complexity is somewhat diferent. You are focusing on one componenet, or organ, and if a change were made to it, it would no longer function. Simple light sensors work too, as you say.

But, the key argument I find of irreducible complexity is not focussed on ONE organ, but rather, how do you explain the fact that for a living creature to exist, it takes a number of very complex organs to do so?

Well, that is the the summary of all I.D. arguments, it seems that life is too complex. But the point is that it has been a slow march of ever increasing complexity, it did not happen all at once.

Irreducible complexity as defined by the I.D. theorists is as I mentioned above. They also give the flagellum as an example, in that no part can be removed (physically) without rendering it useless. This is again a misunderstanding of evolution, as it is clear that there are less complex flagellum, but none could function in their current state of complexity without all of their constituent parts. They are mixing facts with rhetoric, and not doing actual science.

i.e.- say a organism with a heart were to have evolved on it's own, but what good is a heart without lungs to oxiginate the blood that the heart pumps? And then you need a liver to filter and clean the blood that is circulating around. And a stomach that is capable of feuling all of this action. You need ALL of these components all at once for an organism to function.

100% correct, but this is not how life came about. It started with life forms that did not have hearts or organs, they acquired the elements that they needed from their environment through osmosis. Then a bit more complexity results in dedicated parts of a simple organism to do specific nutrient or elemental transfers with the environment thus increasing efficiency. And so on until you have rudimentary organs, and finally full organs in a highly complex symbiosis with all other organs.

And this goes for "simple celled" organisms as well, as I mentioned- the nucleus needs the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, et al.

True, and there is surely a lower form that it evolved from, but I am not personally and achaebacteriologist, so that exact scientific name and cited documentation is beyond my grasp. Will you humor me in doing some research? I'll try to as well.

If life is created by chance, or rather by the simple natural combining of elements, this seems rather implaussible. OK, if even ONE organ (or endoplasmic reticulum if you want to keep it simple), were to be created in this manner it would be stupendous beyond belief, but the fact is that it takes alot more than one organ/component for an organism to function. So, by chance ALL of the neccessary components came into being at once?

This is precisely not how Evolution attempts to explain life, you're mixing Creationism and Evolution. Evolution says that it happens naturally, but not necessarily by chance, "by chance" implies no direction and no influencing factors. Nature directs Evolution in the way that organisms must change in order to survive, and a naturally varying environment pushes the most adaptive members of a group to survive and pass on their genes. Evolution "by chance" would mean that we are all sitting around in a perfect vacuum with no alteration to our environment whatsoever and genes just start mutating. Which is entirely inaccurate.

I will add this as well- I myself have been on both sides of this debate. For most of my life I bought into the idea of evolution, etc. (isn't that what they taught me in school?)

It is not just an idea, it is a constantly tested and retested explanation that has yet to be disproved by any verifiable evidence, it is under question because I.D. theorists are poking at the (small and largely negligible) gaps and claiming the whole theory to be wrong.

I was into the whole idea that given enough time anything is possible, and all that, and that creationists are just blindly marching in lock-step to the edicts of their religious leaders. I shook my head at how simple minded they seemed. Science! Don't these people understand science?

This is great that you can admit to changing your mind, few people are capable of such a feat and even fewer will admit it, kudos sir.

Well, now I'm on the other side. I'm an engineer, so I feel that I do have a solid understanding of science. But one thing that needs to be said about science is that it is not as "pure" as its proponents make it out to be. If you make an assumption you can then gather data to support that assumption instead of letting the data speak for itself. Garbage in, garbage out.

Very true for both sides of the argument.

You find a 3 million year old skeleton. True science would look at it as itself. A skeleton that bears some resemblance to both humans and apes.

Assumption science however, makes the leap by saying "aha! A 3 million year old gorilla skeleton, this MUST be where WE came from!"

Just because a claim is made by someone in the scientific field, that does not make it scientific fact. (there is no such term as scientific fact, scientific theory is as good as it gets and can be disproved if valid evidence is discovered.)

And again, you are correct, but this is not an argument against evolution or even general science, it is an argument against bad science. Scientists do not go out and say "hey this looks like that, so this must be that" in the childish manner you are implying, they examine as many different samples as they can, usually in the thousands, then present their finding in a journal for other scientists to review. A theory is borne of many scientists doing many tests and making professional observations again and again and again. It is not a casual process whatsoever.

Anybody else out there switch sides at one point or another?

Yes, I was once enticed by the arguments the I.D.ers put forth, but that was prior to examining the evidence objectively and coming to the conclusion that their arguments are largely rhetorical and not scientific.

And being an engineer, you should know that the type of research that scientists do is extremely accurate. If you want to know how much tensile stress a new composite material will withstand, you apply an axial load and measure it's elongation, and keep adding loads until it breaks, record the results and do it a few more times for a good average, correct? What's the difference? It's the same scientific process of hypothesizing, testing, examining results and retesting.

Intelligent Design and Creationism on the other hand have no such testing, or analysis. They take a claim that Evolutionists have put forth, and try to disprove it. This is not science, at best it is doubt casting. They offer no way to test for when Design has occurred, or by what mechanism a supernatural force interacts with the natural world. It is rhetoric, not science, plain and simple.

The whole I.D. discusion is like if I handed you a set of digital calipers and said that they are accurate to +- .025 femto-meters when you have no way to test them because nothing that precise has ever existed. You would surely say "who calibrated them?" or "who manufactured them" and I could just say "The Designer" and you effectively have no way to refute me other than the fact that I can not offer tangible proof. The same applies to intelligent design, they offer no tangible scientific evidence, only conjecture.

Originally Posted by bjrn

I don't know what it's like in the US, but when I went to school in Sweden we had these classes about religion. We were taught about how the world began according to all the larger religions along with the Edda and the Kalevala (and probably some more I can't remember). I'm sure you've got something comparable that gives kids some basic understanding of various religions and what their impact has been and is.

Actually no we don't. Because of some incredibly stupid court decisions it is now illegal to teach any religion in public school. Thats a large part of the problem. Even the mention of God has been removed from schools and even suggesting that some people actually believe in a supreme being is grounds for termination.

Originally Posted by bjrn

If you want opposing viewpoints in a biology class, then I'm sure no one objects as long as scientific theories are discussed. You can have discussions about mutations, and self organising complex emergent systems and so on. But I wouldn't like to see intelligent design in a biology class, since it isn't a scientific theory.

I don't think there is much resistance against teaching people about intelligent design. I do think there rightfully is resistance against teaching it as if it were science, as opposed to a question of faith.

Evolution is a scientific theory. The word "theory" in this context is something different from the word "theory" as it is used in everyday language.

Why exactly is the Idea someone had that life began in a lightening strike more "scientific" than the idea that there is a supreme being who said let it be?