Yes, there is greater scientific knowledge today by high schoolers than by men of science 250 years ago. Would we not expect in 250 years there would be an even greater depth of understanding than today? Yet, each group produces "facts" according to their instrumentation and ability, and then strings together those facts to speculate about causes. That the current wave of science supports a conclusion of evolution doesn't make evolution a fact or the final explanation of the origin of man, unless all the facts are known and science is complete. The point is that with each new generation since the application of observation and reasoning to the cause of those observations, the conclusions have changed to greater or lesser degrees. The sun that man saw 1,000 years ago is the same fact of the sun today. The conclusion of 1,000 years ago that the sun moved around the earth was accepted fact, but not today. Now the conclusion is that the earth moves. Did the earth or the sun change positional relationships between then and now? No, of course not. The perspective and point of view of man changed as science deepened. The reality is that until science is complete and all possible knowns are established, the conclusions of science (not the facts of observation) are subject to change and revision. Accordingly, taking a dogmatic approach with any particular theory of science is itself illogical and irrational. Science is always an open book to new data, new points of view, new and deeper truths yet to be revealed. Those who argue in favor or random ignorant chance evolutionary theory as being THE correct and factual theory of the origin of man have no understanding of the history and nature of science.
Jefferson did not imagine how people would change over time. I doubt he would have imagined rap music or American Idol either. The point of using Jefferson as an example was to illustrate how opinions have changed over time, and as such opinions are not necesarily actual facts, despite what people think them to be. Actual fact is actual fact, theory is not an actual fact as new facts can potentially refute an accepted theory. Accepted theory is certainly not actualy fact necessarily, which is why we have designations between fact and theory. History has shown us repeatedly the follly of that type of dogmatic thinking which presents theory as fact.
All of this conversation about Jefferson is irrelevant and immaterial. I have given you a published scientific example of speciation above. There are only three possible conclusions to be drawn from it: 1. The published experiment is a fraud. 2. The published experiment proves evolution. 3. The published experiment proves intelligent design. The scientists who conducted the experiment, and the publisher of the Evolution periodical, believe that their experiment proves #2 above. If you believe #1 is the correct answer, and that the experiment is a fraud, then you must prove it. If you believe that #3 is the correct answer, and that the worms were modified by the invisible hand of God, rather than by the natural evolutionary process, then your conclusion is the product of religion, not science, because there is no evidence, within the confines of the experiment, to support your conclusion. If you argue that it is merely the scientists' guess that the change occured because of evolution, because it could be God, then you are making the same argument that has been made by every thiest since the beginning of time, i.e., that God is responsible for everything that happens in the universe. Essentially, that argument is the act of attributing intelligence to nature. But that is not science -- that is faith. You may say that the scientist is simply exhibiting his/her faith that he/she has reached the correct conclusion. But, that argument completely destroys your entire argument about what is or what is not a scientific fact, because you are thereby arguing that there are "no" scientific facts and that everything is an article of faith. So, what, in your opinion, does my cited experiment prove?
Your cited experiment proves nothing. It recorded change, that's it. There there is a speculative conclusion as to why things change. Typical theory stuff, but no fact or proof of ignorant chance at work. They theory could be wrong. Until they can prove that the theory could not possibly be wrong, it is not really a proof of a theory. ________________________________________ Only 3 possibilities? Wrong of course. 1. The published record is a fraud. 2. The published record included innocent mistakes, thus the conclusion is flawed but not an intention to deceive, thus not a fraud. 3. The published record doesn't prove evolution as there are other possible explanations. The record doesn't explain how and why, it simply records change & effect and speculates to causality. No proof of causality is provide. Proof would exclude any and all other possible causes order to to qualify as a proof of suggested causality. 4. The public record proves evolutionary theory. 5. The public record proves ID theory. 6. The published record doesn't disprove ID, as a creator may in fact by promoting the changes in species, or have designed the system to change over time in a fully random manner. If computers can be programmed to generate a list of random numbers, certainly God could program DNA to change or modify randomly over time. Or God could simply be pushing a button when God wanted to to promote a change. Simply labeling an unknown with a scientific term, doesn't suddenly make an unknown a known. We never, ever measure evolution. We measure changes in physical bodies and biological bodies. The changes are measurable and recordable, but this so called force of evolution has not been measured at all. It is a speculated cause of change. We simply cannot measure a force, as it is not possible to isolate these forces with our current instrumentation. What we measure are the effects of something unknown. We know something is going on, we see the effects, but we can't measure the force itself...only its impact on physical and biological bodies. So do we know if the force is by design or by random chance? We know neither, we simply have the fact of change, but no fact of how or why the change is being activated. Gravity is an unknown, what is known is the impact this unknown force termed gravity (we could call it he hand of God and the measurements of its impact would not change in the least) has on bodies at rest or in motion. That's why we can believe we know everything about the impact of a force, but yet know nothing about the force itself. These forces remain a mystery for the scientist, as they are not able to isolate these forces independent of the effects to truly understand the nature of the forces. Scientists have not been able to isolate the force of gravity in a field where physical bodies do not exist, so how can they say they know what gravity is? Exactly same with this theory of evolution. How does anyone know that this change that we observe is not being produced by the design of a Creator or some programming by design? Since we don't know, we cannot state for a fact that ID is not true. Admission of ignorance of something is hardly the same as a claim of knowledge. To state something is a true fact, we have to be able to falsify its opposite or contradictory value that would negate the status as fact. When it comes to the guesswork of causality, until such time that ID theory is proved false, it stands just as true as any other theory. Whether or not some scientific community takes one side or another with their opinions is immaterial to the actual facts of ID or evolutionary theory being a truth. _______________________________ "The scientists who conducted the experiment, and the publisher of the Evolution periodical, believe that their experiment proves #2 above. If you believe #1 is the correct answer, and that the experiment is a fraud, then you must prove it." Science is by nature skeptical, placing the burden of proof on the person making a claim. There is a claim, and a belief that the claim is true, but no proof of the claim being true that doesn't require belief to keep the claim true. Yes, these scientists are men of faith with their power of belief being exercised around their speculative conclusions. So they are true believers in evolutionary theory, that's nice. Doesn't make their belief true though.....
Your response speaks for itself. I would love to have you as a witness for any case where intelligent design was being promoted as a serious theory to be taught in a public school. Your comments above would end the controversy in the courtroom. I have never encountered anyone like you anywhere other than in a mental institution. Thanks for the chat.
Ad hominem and poison the well responses. I would love to be opposing counsel against someone like you who cannot argue logcially, but perpetually engages in logical fallacy to try and salvage a case.
This example and others like it are flawed because the inability to interbreed is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition of a difference of species. Organisms within a species can be made mutually infertile by defective mutation. The mere introduction of defects does not create a new taxonomic group. Multiplying the incidence of these traits to yield mutually infertile populations is not speciation. When two populations are isolated, a mutation within one will not necessarily occur in the other. These populations will diverge in many defects including those affecting fertility. Only mutation has been demonstrated, not evolution.
Mutation is a well-estabilished and recognized part of the evolutionary process. So is reproductive isolation. You defined a species as separated by its inability to interbreed with its predecessor. My example fits your criteria. You now state that mutually infertile populations is not speciation. What I see is two populations that were once capable of interbreeding, and which had the same genetic code, which are now unable to breed with each other, and have different genetic codes. If both of these creatures had been collected from a natural environment, a taxonomic study would have concluded that they were closely related but different species of worm. And, you would have stated that there is no evidence that the one of the worms evolved into the other. Here, the experiment confirms the phylogenic tree between the two worms, and now you state that this is merely mutation. All I am reading from you, is that you are conveniently renaming what has occured in the experiment as mutation, so as to avoid having to call it evolution. So, perhaps you will now give us your precise definition of speciation, and then show how the experiment does not meet your criteria. And, perhaps you would also give us a proposed experiment that "will" meet your criteria, so that, if I run across such an experiment, I can provide it.
Not at all. When you get your license to practice law, let me know, and I'll be happy to work with you to create a legal cause of action for declaratory relief that we can place before a real court, and we'll see whom gets whose ass handed to them.