Kansas Classroom...

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Thank you Slingblade - that brightened up the morning for me!

YBW

 

[blutoski]

Here is where I start running into problems with ID. Every time I ask a proponent of ID what the theory or hypothesis is I get something different. That is in contrast to scientific theories which a very clear on what they state. If "ID simply says our world could not have randomly come from nothing without the help of a God, fairy, hobbit, or magic" is a paraphrasing of the theory or hypothesis then it fails to be scientific. As soon as you try to bring magic or magical beings into the explanation you are no longer doing science. Science is only interested in natural explanations for things.

Unfortunately, ID is a very specific thing - it's the lay proponents who are confused. This shouldn't be a critique of the theory. (It does, however, frustrate attempts to debate lay proponents)

As a counterexample, there's another thread where skeptics are arguing the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. My impression is that lay skeptics do not understand thermodynamics very well. It is not a flaw in the science.

Something that can never be proven, I'm thinking God/Magic/Hobbit, can't possibly exist. Something that can't possibly exist couldn't possibly have influenced the beginning of life. Right?

Granted, but ID claims to be a science that has proven the existence of a creator. Consequently, this above statement is a non sequitir to its proponents.

 

[thaiboxerken]

ID is garbage. Mentioning ID as a valid scientific theory is a LIE. The "holes" and "doubts" of evolution as presented in the Kansas curriculum are lies and, at the very least, appeals to ignorance. The cartoon is accurate in portraying Kansas schools as opting to teach magic instead of science, albeit a bit exaggerated.

 

[JamesDillon]

Johnny,

I'm sorry that my first post to you in this thread was somewhat flippant. I thought at the time that you were just an ignorant troll looking to cause trouble; I see now that, although I still think you're quite wrong, you're also sincerely interested in having a discussion and have done a fair amount of homework. So let's continue that discussion.

We are looking at this two different ways. ID, from the little bit I know about it, says God must have facilitated conditions for the world to be formed and life to evolve. Its not challenging evolution or the big bang, just saying that there was an underlying factor and that millions of random events and blind chance couldnt allow for it to be done. Then evidence is presented about the rate of the universe expanding, amount of gases in universe, statisitical improbability, etc.

As has been noted by other responses to this post, you seem to be confusing the theories of abiogenesis and evolution here. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life; it simply purports to explain the development of life from single-celled organisms up through contemporary multicellular organisms, with our own species as one small branch of the tree. I do believe that I.D. theorists do criticize abiogenesis as well on the grounds you mention, but it's important to keep the theories distinct.

Now, evolution has evidence like adaptation seen in viruses every year, bacteria strains adapting (this is how evolution can be remotely brought up in class without talking about Darwinism. Whoever tried to make me look like a fool earlier, nice attempt), and of course fossil evidence. They even have found another "missing link" which was previously the best argument against evolution.

The evidence of DNA is actually much more compelling at this point than the fossil record. Richard Dawkins, whose book The Selfish GeneI highly recommend to you if you're interested in pursuing these issues in more depth than can be acquired in an Internet discussion forum, has written somewhere (unfortunately I can't remember which of his books it's in; it might be The Ancestor's Tale) that the evidence of biological evolution would be overwhelming, even if there were no fossils at all. Darwin, for example, relied primarily on his observations of modern-day organisms in formulating his initial theory, and, as I noted, DNA evidence is currently revealing the web of interrelations between the species in much greater detail than biologists in any previous age could ever have dreamed possible.

So, evolution has all this evidence, but there is little to none for the actual creation of life. There was a handful of experiments where adenine and Thymine (IIRC) where produced in a lab, but thats hardly evidence. Thats like finding flour and an egg near each other and calling it a loaf of bread.

Again, let's keep the theories of evolution and abiogenesis distinct. Regardless of where the first life came from, the theory of evolution is concerned only with its development into increasingly complex forms since it first arrived on the scene.

As to your point that not much is currently known about the origin of life, that's true. I understand that researchers are making progress in this area, but I don't know enough about it to give an informed discussion. I would note, however, that the generation of organic molecules by running an electric current through a test tube containing the mixture of gases believed to have existed on the early Earth is hardly nothing; moreover, it's not entirely surprising that we haven't unlocked every step of a process believed to have lasted for millions of years in just a couple of centuries of scientific inquiry.

Some interesting scientific research has been performed into estimating the minimal gene set required for a living cell...
Even if we take the lower estimate of 256 (which isn't too far below the lower end of the experimental data), then it's clear that we have a problem that's far too big to produce by chance. Genes can be made up of 100s of pairs of nucleotides, so I am not impressed by some adenine being made. How about making a living organism from nothing before claiming you have empiracle evidence that me, you, Randi, and every living cell in in this world came from essentially nothing.

My understanding of the current theory is that single cells were not the first forms of quasi-life, and in fact represent a fairly advanced state of evolutionary development. In the first chapter of The Selfish Gene, Dawkins speculates that the earliest predecessors to modern life were self-replicating organic molecules floating in the primordial oceans of the young Earth. Other researchers, for example Graham Cairns-Smith, have offered other hypotheses. At the moment, as I noted above, no one really knows for sure what process led to the evolution of the earliest single-celled organisms. You're right that a single cell is far to complex to have arisen spontaneously, by chance. But science does not suggest that it did.

In summation, ID simply says our world could not have randomly come from nothing without the help of a God, fairy, hobbit, or magic. It does not dispute evolution at all. until science actually has empiricle evidence that life can arise from nothing, let only absorb fully broken down inorganic molecules as energy, teaching ID or any other theory has no more evidence on the start of life than evolution.

Once again, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life, only its subsequent development. And I.D. does challenge certain predictions and conclusions of evolutionary theory, for example with its hypothesis of irreducible complexity. But you didnt' raise any of those issues in your post.

Because God/Magic/Hobbit can never be proven, the burden of proof is on you to show that a living organism can arise from non-living material. Good luck.

There are a number of reasons why this is wrong. First, the idea that the existence of God can never be proven seems inconsistent with your position that Intelligent Design has proven that biological entities could only have been created by God. Second, the burden of proof hardly shifts simply because you've come up with an unfalsifiable theory.

But those are minor points. The main problem with your conclusion is that you're committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance, or popularly in this particular incarnation as the God of the gaps. Basically, you seem to be arguing that because science cannot at present offer a naturalistic explanation for every question that we can conceive of regarding the emergence and evolution of organic life forms, therefore there must be no natural explanation, thus a supernatural explanation (God) becomes necessary. This is a non sequitur. It does not follow from the fact that science can't explain a phenomenon in naturalistic terms now that there is no naturalistic explanation to be found. In addition to being logically invalid, the God of the gaps argument suffers from the fact that, as knowledge progresses, the gaps get smaller, leaving less room for God to hide.

For centuries, and in fact to the present day, one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God was the argument from design, which essentially said that the world is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore it must have been created by an intelligent being. Sound familiar? William Paley made this argument in the early seventeenth century, offering his famous watchmaker analogy. The problem with the argument from design is that it is an argument from ignorance in disguise-- it relies on the fact that, at least until Darwin came along, no one could imagine how something as complex as a life form could possibly have come about by anything other than intelligent design. Pre-Darwinian philosophers, such as David Hume and Thomas Paine, had noted serious problems in the traditional Christian account, but they stopped short of atheism because the apparent evidence of intelligent design seemed so compelling. It was only when Darwin came along to explain the origin of the abundant diversity of biological species that the argument from design was finally revealed as a particularly alluring species of the God of the gaps argument.

So, in short, you're right that science has not yet answered all the questions we have about the origin of biological organisms. And you're right in what I think was your implied criticism, that because science assumes that a naturalistic explanation exists for every question, it may be incapable of recognizing the work of a supernatural agent even when staring it in the face. If there really are supernatural artifacts out there, science will have a very hard time learning to distinguish between situations in which we simply haven't found the appropriate naturalistic explanation yet, and situations in which it really is just magic. However, given the incredible progress that we've made in a relatively short couple of centuries of dedicated empirical research into the origins and nature of biological diversity, and the progress that continues to be made, I don't think that a case can be made in this instance that it's time for science to throw its hands up and declare that it must have been hobbits.

 

[Johnny C.]

Son, everyone's pointed out how obtuse you were being. I just want to point out that your reading comprehension stinks lousy.

If I forced Christians to learn English, then they would, by necessity, be speaking English. At least, around me.

Exactly how

"I force Christians to learn English"

means

"Christians aren't allowed to speak English"

is well and truly beyond me. Congratulations.

Thats why I aksed what you were getting at. Its easy to cherry pick and point at fallacies, as if this is english 101, but one could infer you were saying forcing of education does not violate the establishment clause and you used a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ example of teaching english, and my point was we are not discussion teaching language. This is not a debate about immigrants in southern america getting an education in english, so you have a false analogy and makes your argument invalid. Do you like fallacies being pointed out to you?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you like fallacies being pointed out to you?

Most skeptics here appreciate it, actually. It prods us to rethink our position or logic.

 

[JamesDillon]

Thats why I aksed what you were getting at. Its easy to cherry pick and point at fallacies, as if this is english 101, but one could infer you were saying forcing of education does not violate the establishment clause and you used a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ example of teaching english, and my point was we are not discussion teaching language. This is not a debate about immigrants in southern america getting an education in english, so you have a false analogy and makes your argument invalid. Do you like fallacies being pointed out to you?

Slingblade's point was perfectly valid. You made the sweeping statement that

Forcing one religion to learn something is against the establishment cause.

You did not limit that statement to the teaching of science, and I don't really see what significant distinction could be drawn anyway. Slingblade used the English example because she is, I believe, an English teacher. Rather than accuse others of "fallacies," you might try revising and clarifying your own arguments to address criticism.

 

[slingblade]

Thats why I aksed what you were getting at. Its easy to cherry pick and point at fallacies, as if this is english 101, but one could infer you were saying forcing of education does not violate the establishment clause and you used a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ example of teaching english, and my point was we are not discussion teaching language.This is not a debate about immigrants in southern america getting an education in english, so you have a false analogy and makes your argument invalid. Do you like fallacies being pointed out to you?

Absolutely! I like to know when I make them, and I like to observe others making them. Both are learning experiences.

Now then. You said this:

Forcing one religion to learn something is against the establishment cause.

Bolded for emphasis.

My response should have shown you--if you were actually reading for comprehension, and not just skimming for "gotchas!"--that your phrasing was far too general and ambiguous to make your point effectively.

Define "something" more specifically, and you may have an argument. But as it stands, it is not an argument, and can be easily countered, which I did.

You should stick with short, unambiguous, less generalized postings so as to avoid this.

You should also watch your tone, as you are bordering dangerously on being insulting, which is also a fallacy. I bet you can't name which one. Go ahead; try.

 

[Johnny C.]

Once again, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life, only its subsequent development. And I.D. does challenge certain predictions and conclusions of evolutionary theory, for example with its hypothesis of irreducible complexity. But you didnt' raise any of those issues in your post.

I did not know that.

There are a number of reasons why this is wrong. First, the idea that the existence of God can never be proven seems inconsistent with your position that Intelligent Design has proven that biological entities could only have been created by God. Second, the burden of proof hardly shifts simply because you've come up with an unfalsifiable theory.

I was saying that God or some supernatural being cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or sensed in any sort of way and his existance cannot be tested. For this reason, no, it cannot ever be proven wrong, but if life can be created from something non-living, it does add much more weight to life bign created without the assistance of God.


Very interesting post James. I learned much, but i dont have anything else to contribute. I think we can agree that what everything boils down to is that as sciene advances, more explanations arise for process that were once thought to complex to be done without the aid of a supernatural being. And while science, in time, may be able to answer almost all questions about the beginning of life and the universe, many will still hold on to the basic and general idea that there was still an underlying force facilitating the environment for the developement and advancement of life. While there will never be evidence for the existence of God, there can also never be indisputable evidence of his absence, reguardless if sciene can prove natural and biological processes can happen without him.

 

[slingblade]

I was saying that God or some supernatural being cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or sensed in any sort of way and his existance cannot be tested. For this reason, no, it cannot ever be proven wrong...

Carl Sagan:

Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle -- an electron, say -- in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Johnny C.]

3 Billion people couldnt care less what it meant to Carl. Reguardless of what it means to that man or any skeptic, they still think God is there.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I thought it was funny until you get to the end. Taking 10 seconds to say "God may have created Earth" is hardly hijacking science class, especially chemistry which is what is shown on the chalkboard.

Hey, good idea. Let's also take a few minutes out of history class and talk about that second gunman on the Grassy Knoll while we're at it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

3 Billion people couldnt care less what it meant to Carl. Reguardless of what it means to that man or any skeptic, they still think God is there.

Just because a belief is popular doesn't mean that it's any more valid. You really don't understand logical fallacy, do you?

 

[ceo_esq]

[quoting Carl Sagan]

Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much.

Er... such as that one?

 

[aerosolben]

3 Billion people couldnt care less what it meant to Carl. Reguardless of what it means to that man or any skeptic, they still think God is there.

The lack of falsifiability is what makes it inappropriate for science class. Science is about evidence - it requires empirical observations in order to posit theories about the nature of the universe, which we then use to make predictions about future occurances.

If, as you say, there is no evidence for God, then there are no theories to be posited and no predicitions to be made - in other words, the concept of God is meaningless from a scientific persepctive. There is no distinguishable difference between a universe with God and one without, or one that operates under any other unfalsifiable theory.

 

[aerosolben]

Er... such as that one?

That statement is a logical rather than evidentiary proposition. It's a tautology. Science is about making predictions based on theoretical models. If your theory is not falsifiable, it cannot make predictions, which render it scientifically useless.

 

[Foster Zygote]

To all, I propose that the lack of a grand unification theory is proof of the hand of God. Obviously, since the scientific community has discovered everything that is possible to know, that which has not been revealed must be forever outside the realm of scientific inquiry and must be solely understandable as the will of a supernatural being. After all, I can't possibly imagine that anything like grand unification or a theory of biological origins will ever by accepted so we may as well leave the gaps in scientific knowledge open for every crackpot idea any activist wants to force on the education curriculum.

Steven

 

[fuelair]

If youre still learning evolution in high school you are quite a few years behind son.



Thats exactly what I am saying. You, nor anyone else in this thread, gives any empathy to these people. When you hear creationism being taught in school, how do you feel? Obviously, pissed off enough to argue about it over the internet. And thats just for one state. Imagine if 49 other states in the country taught it. I think giving them 5 minutes of class isnt generous enough.

I have no empathy for incompetants who expect to be sheltered in their ignorance (though I will happily allow the adults to self-medicate or kill themselves off by letting dog heal them or taking coffee enemas or whatever is popular for them now). There really is not time or reason to waste on crap like that however much it "hurts theah widdle feewins".

 

[TheChadd]

Again, briefly acknowledging an alternate belief or not making evolution a mandatory part of the curriculum is not changing science and replacing it with magic. Its on such a small scale it would be, using your analogy, one grammar error on a paper being overlooked.

No, because it's a system. The system used to validate evolution is the scientific method, if you decide to throw out evolution then you are putting into disrepute the entire system. You can teach theories which are somewhat plausible within scientific method, but to simply deny it in a science class IS ruining science.

 

[ceo_esq]

That statement is a logical rather than evidentiary proposition. It's a tautology. Science is about making predictions based on theoretical models. If your theory is not falsifiable, it cannot make predictions, which render it scientifically useless.

As written, that statement is hardly tautological; "scientifically useless" is a far narrower category than the unqualified assessment "not worth much". I would also suggest that some unfalsifiable propositions have nonetheless proved useful to science (as a human enterprise) even though they cannot be employed in the scientific method.