Expelled

[zander]

So many good points, but I have been too slammed at work to respond to.

Through college and grad school, I came to understand what science really is. My genetics professor explained it to me the best. Science is the search for the best possible explanation of what we can observe over time. It is not infalliable, in fact, it is great because we can advance with it. That being said, there is a great amount of misunderstanding with the use of scientific terms such as theory, law, hypothesis, etc. Physics and chemistry get to have lots of "laws". Not so much in biology. The closest we can come to that is the Theory of Evolution. This simply states that over time there can be differences in the frequency of genes. If the gene frequency changes in a population over time, badda bing it has evolved by the biological definition. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution (monkey to man kinda thing) are just differences in the breadth of the period of time examined.

What about "missing links?" Well if I try to research my family history it appears as if my family spontaneously appeared in NW Ark in the 1840's. They had to come from somewhere and there might be records available to prove that, but as of yet, I have not found them. Records get lost and are hard to find. Fossils are hard to make and hard to find. Conditions have to be just right. Then the fossil has to survive, and not be eroded or destroyed before discovery, and oh yes, discovery, someone has to find it.

The study of molecular relationships is really neat stuff. Molecular phylogeny I believe it is termed, this is where the most exciting work is being done right now. Remember that science is the search for the best possible explanation for things that are observed. If it changes that is great, it just means we have advanced our understanding. And I would love to tell you that scientists get along very well and that is why they present such a unified front when it comes to evolution. But anyone who has spent time in academia would call me out as a liar. They disagree bitterly. These guys have egos. The fact that they can generally all agree on something does make it noteworthy.

There have been some really good points made. Just remember not every evolutionist is an athesist. And Miocene trout had big snagglely teeth that would make you want to want to give up your waders.

[Phil Lilley]

Sorry Trav- had to delete that one. Make points without the #$&*.

[hoglaw]

And to say that - This is not totally true either - I know MANY Evolutionists who absolutely think they have one definitive answer... God does not exist.

JS

This is a belief. It is not provable or disprovable. It is probably true that there is a greater proportion of atheists in "science" fields than in the general population. I don't know why this is. I have a idea, but since it's not readily testable or disprovable through empirical evidence, it's not a theory. See the distinction?

And in response to the person who said "stop teaching science as religion" or something to that effect, what do you mean? Should we not teach science at all since kids are highly impressionable? Disclaimers that alternate theories including ID exist have been held unconstitutional. I think all kids are taught the scientific method and the meaning of theories. The problem is that it's too difficult a concept for a young mind. I suppose I have to agree with you that when kids are presented with the theory as evolution as the only explanation for the origin of life, they may mistakenly believe that it's being taught as absolute truth. But what's the answer? Stop educating children about scientific advances and theories? It's a bit like objecting to sex-ed that's anything other than "don't do it." If parents have that big of a beef about teaching children facts and observations, they should home school them or put them in private schools.

[Trav]

My apologies Phil.

Sometimes an expletive seems to fit soooo well. Not that I am excusing it.

[Daddy Carp]

Al & Trav, someday you may find the answer, to that which you seek, and the beliefs that you have. Just keep searching and Pray On It. D.C. lol

[Trav]

DC,

Haha

I dont know about Pray. BUT, I sure do love to Prey on those fishes!

[jscheetz]

So Hoglaw - you seem to be saying that evolution as a theory is OK - but because as you said

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is a fundamentally religous theory. It begins with an end conclusion:

you seem to discount it completely due to it being "religous". However doesn't evolution begin with an end? We are here - how did we get here. It is indeed trying to "fit pegs in holes" as you stated. This is why this argument is so difficult, because everyone comes to the table with an agenda - usually either pro God or pro no God. Makes it hard to sort out the facts. And as far as evolution as a theory - it has holes in it just like many scientific theories do. A theory is NOT an absolute knock out punch - it is the building of evidence and provable data - - - but with still the option that it could be wrong due to new information coming to light. So I see no reason why ID is thrown under the bus from a building of the theory standpoint - other than some just don't like the "religion" aspect of it - which is not being very scientific.

I see you are pretty well versed in the "provable" and the "empirical" ways of life. Question - when you get in your car today - do you know absolutely by previously proven empirical evidence that you will not get in a wreck on the way to work? No. There are new situations that can come up - but you go on the best evidence you have. Heck, some may even say you have "faith" that you will not. There are a lot of theories in the scientific world - to say one is not viable to be explored and further developed due to is religious leanings is simply not very good science. Unless of course science is not the main objective.

JS

[Al Agnew]

Some of you guys just aren't getting it. The "theory" of evolution is much more than what a non-scientist thinks of as a theory. It is just one step below a proven fact, or a "law". We KNOW, absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, from ALL fossil evidence (not picking on you, Phil, but NO scientist who has ever examined the various dinosaur/human tracks considers them valid), that life has evolved over time. Darwin's "theory" is actually the theory of natural selection--that mutations occur, randomly and at random intervals, in individual animals in given populations (a fact), and those (few) mutations that prove beneficial to the survival of the genes of that animal get passed on. The mutations are random, but natural selection is anything BUT random. ONLY those mutations that help the critter to survive and pass on its genes get selected. That's the "theory" part of it. There may be, for all we know, other mechanisms that drive evolution, but we haven't found them, and natural selection seems to work--it fits the evidence and it is predictive. So we start out with observed phenomena (the diversity of life, the fossil record) and we come up with a theory of how it happened. In examining everything from new fossils to DNA, we find that it all (so far) fits that theory. If anything DIDN'T fit it, the theory would falter. But contrary to what some of you and the creationists want to believe, while there are gaps in our knowledge and in the fossil record, there are no "holes" in the theory of natural selection, if you take the word "holes" to mean "problems" or contradictions.

ID, on the other hand, STARTS with a premise, that "evolution" CANNOT adequately explain the diversity of life, and that there is/was some entity who had to have designed it. But there is nothing in that premise to TEST. If an entity is powerful enough to "design" life, that entity could use anything and everything to "design" it in any way he/she/it wished, including evolution. So ANYTHING, any evidence, any fossil, any test result, can neither support nor contradict that premise. The only "theory" that ID has is that life is too complex and works too well to have come about randomly. But it DID NOT come about randomly, it came about through natural selection, which is anything BUT random.

As an aside, Phil, your note that in the movie Richard Dawkins is filmed talking about aliens being the intelligent designer is a good example of how misleading the film was. What the interviewer asked Dawkins was whether he could see ANY possibility of an intelligent designer. I don't know his exact words, but they were something to the effect that he supposed that it was a remote possibility that some alien civilization could have seeded life on earth. The film spun that to make it seem like he BELIEVED that aliens were the intelligent designer, when it reality he not only doesn't believe there WAS an intelligent designer, but that natural selection makes an intelligent designer unnecessary as well as supremely unlikely. Why unlikely? There are many reasons, but one of the best is that, in reality, evolution is not neat, it's messy and full of "mistakes". Things like eyes and wings evolved multiple times in multiple ways. You would think that a good designer would have made such features in the one "best" way to begin with, instead of having to invent the wheel over and over. You can see exactly HOW it came about that features evolved differently in different critters, and it is because of the different paths evolution was forced to take once it started in a given direction.

Bottom line--the "Big Bang" is a theory that has been developed to fit the observed phenomena of an expanding universe. It isn't faith. It isn't belief. It's a scientific theory, continually examined for validity. It isn't something to be believed in, except in so far as the evidence supports it. Natural selection is a theory developed to fit the observed phenomenon of evolution over time. It isn't something to be believed in, either, except in so far as the evidence supports it. ID is a belief, not a theory, because it was NOT developed to fit observed phenomena but to make them mesh with religious belief, and not only can there be no evidence specifically supporting it until God comes down from the heavens and says "I did it", and then shows us how, but there also can be no evidence specifically opposing it. For that reason, there is always the possibility that it could be true, but there is nothing scientific about it.

[jscheetz]

But contrary to what some of you and the creationists want to believe, while there are gaps in our knowledge and in the fossil record, there are no "holes" in the theory of natural selection, if you take the word "holes" to mean "problems" or contradictions.

Boy Al, gotta disagree here. While you acknowledge gaps in the fossil record, but then say that's not a problem - I find that is THE problem. I am sure you will disagree - but to me, and many, the real lack of transitional fossils is a definite stumbling block. I will grant you that there is no question that we certainly haven't uncovered all the fossils out there and it is not really a priority for many in poor nations, so we may discover something new. But, I have read report after report from evolutionists claiming there are these transitions between species and after reading a 5 page dissertation on someones findings on a breakthrough fossil - you find that the author himself can't say for certain if that "extra bone" is from a leg or a fin! And the title of the page says - "Early fish to tetrapod transitional fossil". The various cases that I have read are really, really, stretching the whole transitional concept and are taking many "leaps of faith". Of course the punctuated equilibrium concept used to gloss over the lack of TFs is usually thrown out there, but that seems to have more holes in it than my last waders.

If there was absolute evidence of transitional fossils, evolutionists would be shouting it from the rooftops. - Hearken back to Nebraska man anyone? It was all over - all God fearing men were lunatics - Darwin vindicated - This tooth found in Nebraska was purported to be the "missing link" and we would finally see the connection. Except it turned out it was the tooth from a cousin of the pig. Bummer.... but back to that early tetrapod.......... I just haven't seen the fossil record "prove" the move from single cell organisim to me. I think those gaps are a problem.

And as an aside - since you are an incredible realistic and astute artist Al, I am sure you have studied the concept of Irreducible complexity. And isn't it amazing? Whether you believe we all happened via Chuck's path or by divine intervention - it is simply something that everyone should dig into - because this world is amazing and seeing it scientifically, how things work together and how everything from a simple forest eco system to the human eye works up close is pretty mind blowing.

Anyway, good chatting with you all.

JS

[Trav]

Let me know when your ready for my point of view AL!

I got yer back!