Quote from jem: What level of confidence do you have to say that human beings exist because of random chance. Would you say greater than 50 percent. Greater than 90% From the viewpoint of the scientist, whose measuring devices can only investigate natural causes, confidence in human evolution is near 100%. What level of confidence should the consensus be, before random chance is the only explantion given in a science class room. Calling evolution random chance suggests a lack of understand of the concept. Evolution is not random, in the sense that change depends upon the environment into which the organism is introduced. Like water in a river, that follows the riverbed, the organism follows the environment. You can say that the environment is random, but it isn't. The universe ages and entropy increases. Certain environments are caused by certain turbulence in a locale and those environments tend to remain relatively constant for very long periods of time. Within the framework of a localized environment, evolution operates in a less than random fashion, because the organisms that occupy that locale are being molded by the local environmental constraints. For example, in a dry area, the environment selects against mutations that would benefit an organism were it introduced into a wet environment. Evolution is not "random chance," in the same way that an electron's location is random chance when you are attempting to measure its velocity. That is, the statistical distribution of evolutionary change in an organism is not necessarily binomial, because the distribution is strongly affected by the local environment. That is to say, a dry area will not evolve sea creatures, and visa versa. Now same two questions go for darwinism. And then the same two questions go for Evolution. Pure Darwinism is just the environmental stress placed on the organism. That stress, by itself, does not alter the organism's genetic structure. Evolution requires both environmental stress and mutation. Mutation creates a change that will allow the organism to either benefit or suffer from the environmental stress. Confidence in mutation/natural selection is nearly 100%, because it has been observed in the laboratory to alter the DNA of biological organisms. Please give me your explanation for how the universe came to be. What is your level of confidence? All matter in the universe is expanding outward from the viewpoint of the observer, wherever that observer is located, and the expansion can be modeled mathematically by Hubble's Law. Background radiation samples suggest that the age of the universe is approximately 14 billion years. Cosmologists speculate that the expansion suggests that the universe expands outward from a single source, but they don't really know much more than that. However, the aggregate scientific measurements argue against a steady state universe that just appeared in one piece, in its present form. Should your belief be the only one taught in science classes? Science should be taught in science class. "Belief" is a personal value judgment. All people have beliefs and some people are scientists, therefore all scientists have beliefs. Those beliefs will filter into science class in exactly the same manner as an English teacher's beliefs will filter into an English class. Cross pollination is an inevitable part of life. The question is not who's belief should be taught, but whether or not the definition of science should be expanded to include "belief systems." Beliefs will show up whether the definition is changed or not -- but if you expand the definition of science to include beliefs by definition, then there really is no science at all, because the thing that distinguishes science from other human activities is that it is not based on any a priori position or system of values, other than the fundamental view that the universe and its behaviors can be measured and recorded, and that those measurements and recordings of behaviors can be repeated, because the behaviors do not generally change over time. A scientific conclusion is not the same as a philosophic or theistic conclusion. Example: The philosopher observes a leaf and believes that it is ordered. The scientist observes a leaf and measures its ability to convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into plant food. The philosopher attributes order to a designer. The scientist doesn't attributes the leaf's abilities to a designer. The scientist just measures the ability, records the results, and concludes as to whether or not the leaf is acting as a converter of energy into plant food. The philosopher "believes" that teaching the student about the underlying order of the universe, improves the student's ability to understand science. The scientist just teaches the student about the conversion mechanism and let's the student believe whatever the student wants to believe about the underlying order of the universe. That scientists are people and they tend to assert their beliefs is unavoidable. But, this does not, in my view, justify redefining science to PERMIT belief, anymore than the fact that a large minority of men get off on looking at pictures of very young children, justifies changing the law to make child pornography legal. If you apply the above thought process to evolution, you should see why there is a problem, assuming that you have an open mind. Evolution is merely the measurement and recording of the behavior of DNA under environmental stress over time. That some scientists may attribute this change to random chance, while other scientists may attribute the change to an almighty creator is merely a reflection of the scientists' respective personal beliefs, but those beliefs are not part of the scientific method, nor are they justification for expanding the definition of science to include personal belief systems. The problem that the scientific community has, is that there is a very large contingent of laypeople who do not wish to accept the fact that evolution occurs, because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, and in the alternative, they propose that a different story be told to science students, i.e., that evolution is a distortion of reality, and that, in fact, life on Earth is the product of the instantaneous transmutation of matter and energy into a fully formed biological organism of whatever characteristic was, at that moment in time, contemplated by the mind of an all powerful supernatural creator. This second view is not science and it has no scientific support. Those who now hold fast to the concept of "intelligent design" as a means of clinging to their personal beliefs simply don't understand that they are asserting what is impossible without the introduction of magic into the universe on a regular basis. The production of a bacterial flagellum over time, could in fact be the product of an all mighty creator, who could be systematically slinging gamma rays across the vastness of space time, at a small bacteria, without a flagellum, until after a very long time, the creature's DNA mutates and evolves a flagellum. But, from the scientists' viewpoint, all that is measured is the creature's slow and steady evolution from a bacteria without a flagellum to a bacteria with a flagellum. The above change could have occurred in 50,000 years, or in 5 minutes, but were a scientist measuring it, all he would see is the change, and he would declare evolution. HOWEVER, the more shortened that the time period of the evolution becomes, the more difficult it becomes to scientifically explain, because the power requirement begins to rise and as the time period of change closes in on 0, the power requirement rises to infinity. Imagine the poor little bacteria just sitting there while God slams 5 billion electron volts worth of gamma rays into it so as to specifically reorder the bacteria's DNA to have a flagellum. All of that power focused into one microscopically small location over a period of, shall we say, one nanosecond, and BOOOOOOOOOM... ...nuclear fusion and a star is born! LOL!!!!! There may be a designer, and everything in the universe may be designed. But no scientist will ever measure anything other than evolution, or nuclear meltdown. The curious thing about all of this is, that evolution helps the believer in God, maintain that belief in the face of science, by providing a mechanism by which God can effect biological change without resort to magic. The only way to stop that bacteria from being blown to kingdom come is for God to use evolutionary processes to implement his design. Otherwise, the change will require the introduction of magic, and magic is reserved in this universe for devotees of Harry Potter and J.R.R. Tolkien (and I am one of those devotees). So, time to grow up and stop worrying about who did it, because that question is not in play within the scientific community. All science cares about is the measurement and record of the process, and what science measures in all of its myriad experiments is biological evolution, because that's all that science can measure. God, is outside the scope of science, and neither is a threat to the other, unless you want to believe that magic is reality. And, that, regrettably, is what the advocate of intelligent design demand -- whether they realize it or not.
"...So, time to grow up and stop worrying about who did it" kent, the "grown up" speaks to the non "grown ups" LOL....... Oh man, it never ends... it never ends...
Actually, I wasn't referring to you personally. In fact, I wasn't even thinking about you within the scope of the essay. It was simply a rhetorical phrase intended to hopefully get people to think about how viewing intelligent design as realistic, is equivalent to wanting to maintain a belief in mystical powers. But, if you think I was declaring you personally to be a child, and that injures you in some way, then I apologize.
"It was simply a rhetorical phrase intended to hopefully get people to think about how viewing intelligent design as realistic, is equivalent to wanting to maintain a belief in mystical powers." The position you are taking is an authoritative one, hence the reference to "grow up." Even your suggestion that people think or view something as "realistic" suggests that they are not, and that is not possibly not known to you, unless you know the Reality of life. The concept of ID that I have put forth doesn't require belief in mystical powers at all. It simply suggests that design is at work, not unplanned chance evolution.
Nowhere in any post that I have read, have you EVER put forth any precise concept of ID. You just say that design is self evident and that evolution is unfalsifiable. So, while you may say that your concept doesn't require belief in mystical powers, no one has a clue as to whether or not this is true, because you have never told anyone exactly what, how, when and where this design occurred. You choose to simply concentrate on the "who." So, once again, I will ask you to tell us all exactly what it is that you believe, rather than merely proclaim the self evidence of your position. Because, while design may be self evident, your description of exactly what, how, where and when design transpires is not obvious at all.
Zzz, you have used precisely the same rhetoric and phraseology yourself in this thread. You know, im going to reiterate something i said earlier in this thread, while i was refering to a specific arguement of Z's at the time, im now going to be more general. Your arguements are CRAP, you have no ACTUAL opinion, everything you say is pure SOPHISTRY, ABSTRACTION, EXTRUSION and ILLUSION. It seems, you are NOT in fact a REAL person at all, possibly a posting algorithm of some sort, i dare not question the creator, the knower of all stuff, less i be humiliated by the omniscience of ZZzz. To any real people out attempting to participate in this thread, happy new year!! ATQZ.
What would be the opposite theory of Darwinism? Oh, and exactly what I believe is not the issue, the issue is what to teach kids in public schools. I don't suggest teaching my beliefs, I suggest teaching design theory, as long as non-design theory is taught. Design theory may not be obvious to all, but it is obvious to most "earthlings."
Nowhere in any post that I have read, have you EVER put forth any precise concept of ID. You just say that design is self evident and that evolution is unfalsifiable. So, while you may say that your concept doesn't require belief in mystical powers, no one has a clue as to whether or not this is true, because you have never told anyone exactly what, how, when and where this design occurred. You choose to simply concentrate on the "who." So, once again, I will ask you to tell us all exactly what it is that you propose to teach biology students, rather than merely proclaim the self evidence of your position. Because, while design may be self evident, your description of exactly what, how, where and when design transpires is not obvious at all.
You asked me 20 or so odd questions earlier in this, I answered them, gave you my opinion. However, I did not suggesting the teaching my beliefs in school. Various forms of design theory have been around for a long time, they have not been proved false, in addition I made my own argument for design based on the life cycle, aging, and the nature of life to seek to sustain itself. I suggest that if we must teach an unfalsifiable Darwinian theory, then teach the opposite, i.e. an unfalsifiable design theory. Design theory doesn't require God, or mysticism, or instantaneous creation, etc. It requires only the equal possibility, if not logical probability, that life is by design. No one will be forced to accept such a theory, but I believe the full range of possibilities should be taught to students....if we are going to teach Darwinism. No one knows if there even was a big bang, and if there was a big bang what was preceded the so called big bang, yet it is taught in schools as one possible theory of origin of the universe. So in the spirit of fairness, if Darwinism must be taught, and if it is logically possible that Darwin's theories are a bunch of hooey, then teach alternate, if not opposite theories of design.