Nova's judgment day: Intelligent design on trial

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Or it could be a SMGT* playing with it's toys.

(*SuperMassiveGodThing)

Blasphemy!....God is not black!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[philh 0]

"So what tests have been conducted concerning the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, singularities, evolution over billions of years, life from none life, ect.?
"

You are lumping a lot of stuff together which are not at similar stages of scientific agreement.

The big bang is well established from a number of sources including theoretical implication of relativity, Hubbles observation of the exapansion of the universe, the microwave background radiation discovered by Penzias annd Wilson and measurement by COBE.

Evolution is very well verified by discoveries from paleontology, genetics, bio geography and comparative anantomy.

Black holes have already been covered by other posters.

Dark matter and dark energy have been inferred to exist from astronomical observations. We dont know much about them yet but that is the forefront of scientific research. It is not on par with more well verified things in science such as the big bang and evolution. To put them on an equal footing shows a lack of understanding. For example some scientists have proposed dark matter be replaced with MOND. Who is right and who is wrong remains to be seen. Thats why we do science. These issue are decided by the evidence , unlike religion.

Singularities are theorietical possibilities only, no one is saying there is good evidence they exist , so lumping that in is a straw man.

Lastly life from non life. I think everyone agreess on this , the alternative is that life existed forever in the past, are you seriously suggesting that?

The scientific method we currently have, verifying claims with evidence in peer reviewed journals may not be perfect but its the best form on enquiry we have. Have a better suggestion?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The scientific method we currently have, verifying claims with evidence in peer reviewed journals may not be perfect but its the best form on enquiry we have. Have a better suggestion?

How about just read the Holy Bible and stop worrying about all that other stuff? Did you ever think of that?

[beowulf 1]

That's too funny!

[Coreece 190]

Its about time.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[altrisk 0]

Quotes

Many people today think that the argument about the origin of life is between the scientific view of evolution and the religious view of creation - it isn't!

Darwin said before his book was published ...

1. 'You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical. It will very likely be of no other service than collocating some facts; though I myself think I see my way approximately on the origin of the species. But, alas, how frequent, how almost universal it is in an author to persuade himself of the truth of his own dogmas.'

Charles Darwin, 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in 'John Lofton's Journal', The Washington Times, 8 February 1984.



SO, IS EVOLUTION SCIENTIFIC?

2. 'In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.'

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.



IS IT A FACT? OR A FAITH?

3. 'The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.'

L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, p. xi.

4. 'One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith, has not yet been written.'

Hubert P. Yockey (Army Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA), 'A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory'. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 67, 1977, p. 396.



CAN EVOLUTION BE OBSERVED?

5. 'Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.'

David B. Kitts, Ph.D. (zoology) (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA). 'Palaeontology and evolutionary theory'. Evolution, vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.



CAN EVOLUTION BE TESTED?

6. 'It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.'

Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Collin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.

7. 'Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus "outside of empirical science" but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.'

Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Biology, Stanford University) and L. Charles Birch (Professor of Biology, University of Sydney), 'Evolutionary history and population biology'. Nature, vol. 214, 22 April 1967, p.352.

8. 'These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for "proofs" of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory.'

Theodosius Dobzhansky (late Emeritus Professor of Zoology and Biology, Rockefeller University), 'On methods of evolutionary biology and anthropology, Part 1, biology'. American Scientist, vol. 45(5), December 1957, p.388.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

"What basis? The one you misunderstood? I didn't mention a science class, or any type of class for that matter. "

No I havent misunderstood at all . I was very clear that I objected to ID being taught in science classes. I also said I think it does have a role to be taught in other classes eg religious studies. If you follow the debate on this issue its about Id being taught as science in a science class. So of course that is the issue we should address.

I agree most concepts of ID don't belong in the science class, but what caused or created the Big Bang? As Kallend once said/re-quoted; 'In an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen.' Can some form of ID happen? Could it have put into place the conditions for the Big Bang? (Was there in actual fact, a 'Big Bang' as we understand it today?) As far as I'm aware, nobody fully understands the cause of the Big Bang. . . until it's cause can be fully understood the possibility of ID being responsible remain valid, as per ID being responsible for the initiation of our evolution.

It isn't a subject so easily dismissed as it's so ingrained into humanity. Just as equally it can't be entirely ignored in a science class.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

I agree most concepts of ID don't belong in the science class, but what caused or created the Big Bang? As Kallend once said/re-quoted; 'In an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen.' Can some form of ID happen? Could it have put into place the conditions for the Big Bang? (Was there in actual fact, a 'Big Bang' as we understand it today?) As far as I'm aware, nobody fully understands the cause of the Big Bang. . . until it's cause can be fully understood the possibility of ID being responsible remain valid, as per ID being responsible for the initiation of our evolution.

It isn't a subject so easily dismissed as it's so ingrained into humanity. Just as equally it can't be entirely ignored in a science class.

I think we shouldn't rule out the idea that some time in the future, George W. Bush invents a time machine, goes back in time and jizzes into the primordial ooze. Until the cause can be fully understood the possibility of Bush jism being responsible remain valid.

[vortexring 0]

I'm about to go for my dinner - cheers for that.

Still, in an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen. . .

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[philh 0]

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I notice all of your quotes are before the genomics revolution.
What's interesting is that since the 1950's-1970's (the period of your quotes). Evolutionary theory has been put to brand new tests which had the potential to either falsify or confirm the theory. There are many such test and if you want to read about them I would reccomend this book :
Relics of Eden by Daniel j Fairbanks

http://www.amazon.com/Relics-Eden-Powerful-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1591025648

But Ill give you one examle as a taster. If you take a look at the GULO gene it codes for a protein that enables the organism to manufacutre vitmanin c. When the human genome was sequenced we can see a non functional copy of this gene. The GULO gene is disabled i.e it does not make a protien and so we called it a psuedo gene. This is why so many people on long sea voyagers died of scurvy before the English learnt to treat it by feeding their sailors lime (hence the phrase limeys). Evolutionary theory predicts the distribution of pseduo genes between species. Here one cannot use the defense of common designer because these genes dont code for proteins. Why would a god design both humans and chimps to have a non functional GULO gene? When put to the test the distribution of pseduo genes is exactly what evolutionary theory implies.

Evolutionary theory does make many testable predictions and every time it has been put to the test it has passed in flying colours. Furthemore it has been observed in the lab , read here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html


Perhaps the ovwehlming testable evidence for evolution was why Karl Popper publicly retracted his comments abouty it being unfalsifiable.

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."

All you have to do is read the wikipedia article on Popper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Your material is embarassingly out of date. I suggest reading some real science literature rather than creastionst propaganda.

[JackC 0]

As Harlan Ellison once said "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity". Bush Jism theory could well explain half of that.

[philh 0]

"As far as I'm aware, nobody fully understands the cause of the Big Bang. . . until it's cause can be fully understood the possibility of ID being responsible remain valid,"

Firstly the big bang has nothign to do with evolution at all. Evolution is about how species change , not about the origin of the universe.

Secondly one can posutalte any cause for the big bang one likes, inluding no cause, god ,a quantum vacuum fluctuation, time travel ..whatever. Only causes with evidence for them count as science. There is no evidence for god, hence such a consideation is not science.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Have you watched the program this thread is about? It is on Nova website and broken into 12 segments of app. 10 minutes each. Very easy to watch, very interesting, and very informative.
Your entire post is discredited in that program.

If you don't have the patience for that, then google "Peppered Moth Evolution".
You can also study the extremely fast adaptation of the wild horse in the American west. Evolution at work.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Firstly the big bang has nothign to do with evolution at all.

connect the dots, la la la la, connect the dots, la la la la, connect the dots, la la la la.....lol

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

I agree most concepts of ID don't belong in the science class, but what caused or created the Big Bang? As Kallend once said/re-quoted; 'In an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen.' Can some form of ID happen? Could it have put into place the conditions for the Big Bang? (Was there in actual fact, a 'Big Bang' as we understand it today?) As far as I'm aware, nobody fully understands the cause of the Big Bang. . . until it's cause can be fully understood the possibility of ID being responsible remain valid, as per ID being responsible for the initiation of our evolution.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. The ID nonsense that people are trying to get introduced into biology classes is directly to do with evolution.

Quote

It isn't a subject so easily dismissed as it's so ingrained into humanity. Just as equally it can't be entirely ignored in a science class.

I thought you weren't talking about science classes. Since you are, what do you suggest? At the start of each year should the teacher declare "By the way kids, some people think that some kind of god might have created the whole universe. Now on to what we do know..."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

At the start of each year should the teacher declare "By the way kids, some people think that some kind of god might have created the whole universe. Now on to what we do know..."

That may not be a bad idea. In each classroom where evolution is taught, hang a poster labled "Proposed Alternative Explanations". On the poster are depictions of a wizard, the FSM, fairies, turtles stacked on top of each other, and a dog taking a dump that transforms into a planet.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

On the poster are depictions of a wizard, the FSM, fairies, turtles stacked on top of each other, and a dog taking a dump that transforms into a planet.

That would be a very long poster - the turtles go all the way down

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[maadmax 0]

I thought you weren't talking about science classes. Since you are, what do you suggest? At the start of each year should the teacher declare "By the way kids, some people think that some kind of god/chance occurrence might have created the whole universe. Now on to what we do know..."

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree most concepts of ID don't belong in the science class, but what caused or created the Big Bang? As Kallend once said/re-quoted; 'In an infinite universe, anything that can happen will happen.' Can some form of ID happen? Could it have put into place the conditions for the Big Bang? (Was there in actual fact, a 'Big Bang' as we understand it today?) As far as I'm aware, nobody fully understands the cause of the Big Bang. . . until it's cause can be fully understood the possibility of ID being responsible remain valid, as per ID being responsible for the initiation of our evolution.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. The ID nonsense that people are trying to get introduced into biology classes is directly to do with evolution.

Quote

It isn't a subject so easily dismissed as it's so ingrained into humanity. Just as equally it can't be entirely ignored in a science class.

I thought you weren't talking about science classes. Since you are, what do you suggest? At the start of each year should the teacher declare "By the way kids, some people think that some kind of god might have created the whole universe. Now on to what we do know..."

Sounds reasonable.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

Quote

As Harlan Ellison once said "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity". Bush Jism theory could well explain half of that.

But. Are there countless churches built in the name of Bush Jism?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

But. Are there countless churches built in the name of Bush Jism?

Of course not, he hasn't done the deed yet. Honestly, try to keep up...

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

As Harlan Ellison once said "The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity". Bush Jism theory could well explain half of that.

But. Are there countless churches built in the name of Bush Jism?

Not sure about that but it has planted a seed

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,400]

> As Kallend once said/re-quoted; 'In an infinite universe, anything
>that can happen will happen.' Can some form of ID happen?

Of course. It is literally happening today. We have created self-replicating RNA in labs and are close to creating a completely artificial cell. No one claims "God did it" when discussing those experiments. (Well, no one with half a brain, that is.)

>Was there in actual fact, a 'Big Bang' as we understand it today?

We have a pretty good handle on the universe back to the first few millionths of a second. By that time, it had cooled sufficiently that we started to see physics as we know it today. Earlier than that and it gets more speculative.

>Just as equally it can't be entirely ignored in a science class.

I don't get this. I mean, there's not much question that Shakespeare was a great writer - but that doesn't mean he should be covered in science class.

[vortexring 0]

I didn't say it should be covered by a science class; I said it can't be entirely ignored by a science class. I suppose people have made an assumption from that statement.

Will science one day be able to prove unequivocally that there isn't a God/Creator/Intelligent Designer or even an after-life? Perhaps. I reckon a fair few feel that as we haven't any evidence there is only one logical conclusion. I, despite not being of a religious nature, find this unacceptable. I cannot accept that through direct consequences of the Big Bang, we evolved into what we are today. And then die. And that's pretty much that. Am I a fool in this regard? It sometimes seems that way through others replies. Either way, nobody can prove either side to be correct. Yet?

So, further to that, are all the people who believe in some form of God/Creator/Intelligent Designer wrong? People may believe so, but they cannot prove this to be so.

Is it feasible all the countless societies through mankinds history who believed in a God/Afterlife got it wrong, and indeed, there isn't any form of afterlife or God, etc? If you reckon the answers yes, please feel free to provide evidence.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'