Evolution

[GomJabbar]

The information content of an encyclopedia is hardly different than the information content of the same sized book filled with gibberish. If you doubt that, then consider the information content of an encyplopedia written in an undechipherable code. Does the information content of the book magically change when someone hands you the decryption mechanism?

I take exception with the above. To me, information has to have meaning. That doesn't mean that I have to understand the meaning. Gibberish doesn't become information just because it's placed in a book. However a book (or memory storage medium) can have information written in code, or encrypted - even perhaps where the originator cannot retrieve it for himself. The information is still there, it just takes the proper method, knowledge or understanding to retrieve it.

Regarding Dr. Gitt; while I find some of Dr. Gitt's ideas interesting, I too find flaws in his reasoning - in particular the basis for some of his definitions.

[egibbs]

Look at it this way...

Think of the period in the end of one sentence in that encylopedia. Think of how many millions of molecules, composed of billions of atoms, composed of trillions of particles (real and virtual) make up that period.

Now write down the relative locations, momentum, and movement vectors of each particle. Include the information about the fields they are subject to, the external forces acting on them (including, by the way, the interaction with the electrical and gravitational fields of EVERY OTHER particle in the universe). Now you have somethig approaching the INFORMATION content of that single period.

Now multiply that by the number of periods in the book, then all the other blotches of ink, then all the threads of fiber in the paper, etc. The information content of the book, quite aside from the knowledge (meaning) that is encoded in the words, is truly enormous. There really is no way to describe how much information that is - we lack the concepts.

Compare that to the meaning in the words, and it becomes obvious that the meaning (if any) provides a vanishingly small contribution to the total information content.

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

While I see your point (it does make sense on the physical level), to me it is irrelevant. We are describing two different types of information. One - physical if you will, and the other abstract. It is the abstact that describes the physical. I believe it is a matter of semantics and word definitions, and does not really aid in reaching an understanding on the subject at hand.

Taking liberties, I regard DNA and RNA as a sort of organic software if you will. With this DNA and RNA code it is possible to program a living cell to become or perform certain tasks. This DNA and RNA has the essential information needed for matter to be living as we know it. That's not to say there couldn't be living things based on other structures (perhaps that we don't know about). It also seems reasonable that an intellegence created this code, just as it takes an intellegence to create software with ones and zeros to perform useful tasks. It is the order of the ones and zeros in the software that makes it do useful things, just as it is the order of the nucleotides in DNA and RNA that makes it useful to the living being. If the order is wrong it becomes useless or harmful.

Notice the reference here in Wikipedia to DNA computing.

[egibbs]

While I see your point (it does make sense on the physical level), to me it is irrelevant. We are describing two different types of information. One - physical if you will, and the other abstract.

As I said - knowledge is different from information. Knowledge has some value based on what we impute to it - it is true or false, useful or useless, meaningful or meaningless. Those definitions are based on social values, and can change over time as social needs change.

Information is what it is - it has a physical meaning and can be quantified, manipulated with equations, etc.

Dr. Gitt's "error" is in confusing the two - you cannot apply the physical rules of information theory to knowledge - it's like trying to use gravitational theory to calculate the emotional attraction between two lovers.

I suspect Dr. Gitt knows that. I also suspect he thinks his audience doesn't.

Ed Gibbs

[a31pguy]

I suspect Dr. Gitt knows that. I also suspect he thinks his audience doesn't.

I suspect your right.

[BigWarpGuy]

Evolution is a theory since it ican be observed in a lab - IIRC. I have yet to hear of anyone watching something evolve into something else in a controlled enviroment.

[Kyocera]

Wow, you guys are scary, to fantasize that DNA was written by some computer geek? You mean I could be typing on the very thing that created life as we know it? Now that is interesting.

[GomJabbar]

Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
From: Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

Main Entry: in·for·ma·tion
Function: noun
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed
3 : the act of informing against a person
4 : a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury

Note the Primary definitions of INFORMATION. It is in this context that I use the word. The obscure obfuscating definition for theorists has no use for this discussion IMO.

[BillMorrow]

Evolution is a theory since it ican be observed in a lab - IIRC. I have yet to hear of anyone watching something evolve into something else in a controlled enviroment.

fruit flys..?

[egibbs]

Beat me to it Bill - Drosophila are a good example of evolution in action.

Generally, evolution is hard to see in a controlled environment because it takes many generations for changes to become apparent. But with short lived, higly reproductive organisms such as bacteria, fruit flies, etc. it certainly has been seen in the lab.

There are also many, many, examples of evolution occuring around us. Or perhaps we believe that God somehow re-wrote the Tuberculosis genome to confer multi-drug resistance, just because he's a funny guy?

Witness also the case of a young girl in Asia who got the H5N1 Avian flu and was treated with Tamiflu. When she began treatment she had only one strain of H5N1 in her body. Shen now has three distinct strains of H5N1 - the original one, with no drug resistance, a partially drug resistant strain, and a completely drug resistant strain. Or maybe God is just playing practical jokes again.

GomJabbar - you are correct that information can be defined in many different ways. But if you want to apply the formal rules and equations of Information Theory, they only work with definition d: a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed.

My point is that ID proponents and creationists try to use Information Theory to try to show that evolution is impossible, starting from the argument that information can neither be created or destroyed. But that rule ONLY applies to the very specific type of information specified by the Information Theory definition. The other types of information are created and destroyed all the time. They are playing on the confusion caused by the looseness of the definition of information in common usage.

That is why I advocate separate definitions. When I talk of information, I am talking of that to which Information Theory applies. When I talk of knowledge, I am talking about the vast body of other "stuff" to which Information Theory cannot be applied. The "knowledge" contained in DNA is in the latter category - you cannot apply Information Theory to it, and it can be created or destroyed at will.

Ed Gibbs

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

Frankly, just on this thread have I read about Information Theory. Haven't been in academia (where these kinds of things are discussed) for some time. I just read what I can on a variety of subjects.

I am not sure Information Theory is useful for much else than Quantum Mechanics and such. Dr. Gitt's trying to mesh Evolution with Information Theory does not work for me. The conclusions he reaches cannot be explained by Information Theory IMO. That said, I did find some of his statements interesting and probably correct.

[BillMorrow]

with due respect to all, i present the following:

These debates grow tiresome. I generally don't have anything against faith, but I am increasingly concerned that religious Americans are shunning science, especially in the areas of biotech.

Now that manufacturing is no longer a primary breadwinning occupation in the US (and what manufacturing is left is increasingly automated), we need to make sure that R&D stays here.

To me, it looks like a combination of homegrown anti-scientific principles and offshoring will weaken the US in the long run.

The future, and the next Cold War, will belong to India and China as they compete for energy resources and technology. India has the edge in technology... China has the edge in energy. They are more or less friendly now, but when things start to heat up it will be interesting.

extremely well said..
this subject has been discussed in the press and it worries me that the executive branch of the government can so effectively squash good research on religious grounds..

Evolution IS a theory - no argument. People choose to believe or disbelieve it based on evidence and experiment, but it can never be perfect - it can always be further refined.

In fact, Godel's incompleteness theorem (not theory) proves (in a logical sense) that ANY system based on Axioms and rules is inherently flawed - you can always construct a "true" fact that cannot be proven within system. So what?

The world is not in fact round, it oblate and slightly lumpy. That description is itself flawed and can be further refined, as can any refinement.

Gravity is also a theory - Newton's theory of Gravity is in fact false, but only if you look very closely. Einstein's theory of gravity is better than Newton's, but is also flawed if you look closely enough. Whatever replaces it will also be flawed.

gravity is a demonstrable FACT..
not a theory.. well, ok, the mechanics might be a theory but when i walk outside i do not fly off into space..

ID is Creationism which is religion. People choose to belive or disbelieve it based on faith. It is perfect and will always be so because God says it is. How do we know that? God tells us. Shut up and pray.

Personally, I find revealed truth and perfection un-appetizing. I'll take science with it's messiness and unproven theories any day.

Ed Gibbs

another EXCELLENT comment..

my thoughts are that intelligent design is merely a vehicle used to sidestep the constitutional prohibition of a government supported "state religion"..

believe as you wish, but please do not hold a gun to my head and force me to believe as you do..

example: Roe vs. Wade.. not my business to tell a woman what she MUST do with her body..

I fear that the USA is on a fundamentalist slide into the 12th century rather than the 21st century..

consider: the Christian Republic of the United States..
sounds like: the Islamic Republic of Iran..
scary..!

ones religion or lack thereof MUST be optional..
and to continue to be optional, teaching intelligent design, which is a thinly disguised version of creationism, in a public school should not be allowed..

i fear that one day religious police will tally who attends church and those who do not might get a knock on their door, late at night..

ok, now, bow toward mecca, eat fish on friday and tithe 10% of your wealth to your church..!

In my view the whole discussion here is quite useless and will only drag along forever without any results.

As a bright mind once said:

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced enough, will always be seen as magic.

Any scientific theory, sufficinetly advanced, will always be seen as nonsense.

.
[deleted for brevity]
...

beeblebrox, your wise words prove that this discussion IS interesting and should be allowed to run its course to its preordained entropic end..

DaveO:
according to Dr. Gitt, the way i read his logic, since information can only be created by god and since most anyone with a thought in their head and the means to express themselves can create information, then we all are god..



in my personal reality i feel that the soul or sprit of all those who have gone before has accumulated into the great spirit and that that great spirit is what we here take to be god..
by that theory, god has only accululated since man first had a soul and thus was not there to design the whole thing..

ok, bow down in any direction, eat anything on friday and tithe nothing to anyone except the IRS..

p.s. i like to start "something" from time to time to draw out those who think..
and this "something" seems to have done just fine.. so far..

[mrdarcy]

I am sorry but I couldn't understand why we are having this argument. Evolution has been proved right and it will remain right unless proved otherwise (which hasn't been done yet).

[GomJabbar]

I am sorry but I couldn't understand why we are having this argument. Evolution has been proved right and it will remain right unless proved otherwise (which hasn't been done yet).

Since when? Yes, most are in agreement that living things evolve and change over time. But macroevolution definitely has not been 'proved'. That is to say that I hasn't been 'proved' for instance that mammals have evolved from fish or from some single cell organism eons ago. Too many missing links. Also, in the fossil record there have been sudden occurences of unique species at certain periods of time. Evolution by itself does not explain how all these species suddenly occurred. A sentence I read in the above link says it well (paraphrasing): Most don't doubt that Evolution occurred, what we are really debating is how it happened. Is Natural Selection the only process involved here?

[egibbs]

I think (reading Bill's mind) that one of the spurs for this discussion is the court case currently going on in Pennsylvania over teaching ID in schools alongside evolution. Also, as Bill said, there have been a number of articles in the press lately about the worldwide rise in fundamentalism. New Scientist ( http://www.newscientist.com/home.ns ) had an entire issue recently headlined "The End of the Enlightenment."

Personally, I guess people can believe anything they want (at least for a little while longer, until, as Bill said, the knock on the door comes late at night). I get upset though when some people use bad science and selective facts to try to provide a pseudo-scientific basis for their beliefs that doesn't exist, and then demand that the world accept their obviously flawed creation on a par with theories that have a firm footing in real science.

Maybe we SHOULD teach ID in school alongside evolution. Let's teach both, then set up an experiment using fruit flies - there is a good assortment in section 5.2 of http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. Divide the little kiddie-poos into two groups, and ask each group to form a hypothesis about what will happen - one goup has to use evolutionary theory to form their hypothesis, and the other has to use ID. Then run the experiment, and compare the results to the predictions.

Not only would that teach the difference between a good and a bad theory, it would also teach a lot about the scientific method and critical thinking. Plus I bet it would get the fundies really mad.

Oh - wait a sec. Someone's knockling on the door....

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

with due respect to all, i present the following:

my thoughts are that intelligent design is merely a vehicle used to sidestep the constitutional prohibition of a government supported "state religion"..

believe as you wish, but please do not hold a gun to my head and force me to believe as you do..

example: Roe vs. Wade.. not my business to tell a woman what she MUST do with her body..

I fear that the USA is on a fundamentalist slide into the 12th century rather than the 21st century..

consider: the Christian Republic of the United States..
sounds like: the Islamic Republic of Iran..
scary..!

ones religion or lack thereof MUST be optional..
and to continue to be optional, teaching intelligent design, which is a thinly disguised version of creationism, in a public school should not be allowed..

i fear that one day religious police will tally who attends church and those who do not might get a knock on their door, late at night..

ok, now, bow toward mecca, eat fish on friday and tithe 10% of your wealth to your church..!

I agree that your worries have legitimacy. Yet, you say: "believe as you wish, but please do not hold a gun to my head and force me to believe as you do.." I see the 'Evolutionists' doing this already. They strongly object if a disclaimer is put in a textbook stating that 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact'. Many of them also refuse to take part in public discussions on the subject. Clamming up is usually a sign that your arguement is weak.

p.s. i like to start "something" from time to time to draw out those who think..
and this "something" seems to have done just fine.. so far..

Opened Pandora's Box, just like I thought.

[GomJabbar]

Maybe we SHOULD teach ID in school alongside evolution. Let's teach both, then set up an experiment using fruit flies - there is a good assortment in section 5.2 of http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. Divide the little kiddie-poos into two groups, and ask each group to form a hypothesis about what will happen - one goup has to use evolutionary theory to form their hypothesis, and the other has to use ID. Then run the experiment, and compare the results to the predictions.

Not only would that teach the difference between a good and a bad theory, it would also each a lot about the scientific method and critical thinking. Plus I bet it would get the fundies really mad.

No problem with that (for me).

[dsvochak]

"when i walk outside i do not fly off into space..." is a fact, a truth known by actual experience or observation that is repeatable.

"Theories" are, according to the Random House Dictionary, "...a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena". The National Center for Science Education says a "Theory" is a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts.

The fact that human beings, rocks, dogs etc., do not normally "fly off into space", along with many other facts (e.g. ripe apples falling from trees), led Newton to attempt to generate a theory, a coherent group of propositions to explain the factual phenomenena. Newton came up with the theory of gravitation, which, on a macro level works really well.

Later advances (Einstein, quantum mechanics, etc) established that, on a micro level, Newton's theory does not sufficiently explain the factual phenomena. Which is, in part, why it's still a "theory of gravity" and not a "law of gravity".

One of the results of Einstein's theories, as they effected understanding of Newton's theory of gravity, is that scientists very rarely today speak of "laws". Being cognizant that later discoveries may require "laws" to be amended, a "theory" is about as close to fundamental truth as anything can be.

Which grossly sums up the scientific method as I recall it: fact, hypothesis, testing, (ad nauseum testing), revision of hypothesis, testing, testing, eventually theory. (which, as edgibbs pointed out, is probably flawed as it's unlikely to explain all the facts).

But the scientific method stops there. As far as I know, neither Newton nor anyone else has never proposed an "Intelligent Design theory of Gravity".

Darwin proposed an explanation, or theory, "on the origin of species". I don't recall Darwin proposing, as part of his explanation, either the existence or non-existence of a "god" or "intelligent designer" or any term you choose. Whether "god" exists isn't relevant to the theory. All that's relevant to the theory is how well it explains observable facts.

In science, one begins with "when i walk outside i do not fly off into space...". I suppose the true and factual explanation could be "because god watches out for all creatures great and small", but that explanation isn't very helpful if what you're trying to do is send Armstrong and Aldrin to the moon. Pragmatically, force=mass x acceleration works whether it's a random chance development or whether "god thought it up."

Intelligent Design is an ontological argument. It has as much validity as an alternative to evolution as it has as an alternative to Newton's theory of gravity. Even if true, in the absolute sense that "god did it", ID doesn't increase scientific "information" or understanding. How do we "test" for the existence of the "intelligent designer"? Whether "god" exists or not, on a macro level Newton's theory pretty much works.

If we're going to teach Intelligent Design, put it where it belongs: in a religion or philosophy class.

[egibbs]

Ditto for all that. Well said.

The only addition I have is that a valid theory must be FALSIFIABLE. This is the critical part thet too many people forget. That is, it must make testable predictions, which if found to be untrue, render the theory false.

ID fails this test, because no matter what it predicts (and as far as I know, it makes no testable predictions), if the result does not agree with the prediction, you can always say "God works in mysterious ways."

Ed Gibbs

[DaveO]

I dont have time at the moment to respond in more detail, but a few points keep burning my eye,

This is more philosophy mixed with arbitrary facts in a soup of conjecture.

Actually thats the description I would label for evolution theory!

Faith is faith, don't try try to bring reason into it.

Isn't a creationists faith allowed to be a reasonable faith based in sober rational logic and reason?

Which is more than I can say of some evolutionists faith. I think evolutionists need to start questioning the "party line" and not be afraid to face some of their so called evidences with an "open mind"

"
If we're going to teach Intelligent Design, put it where it belongs: in a religion or philosophy class.

Which is exactly where evolution class should be., considering some of the fairy tale scenarios Ive read about


As the info in one of the previous links suggests, It's a giant leap to suggest pre-existing genetic variations in fruit flys and a virus to be used as an argument for "macro-evolution" (goo to you via the zoo)
and to be honest it takes more faith to take that position than the alternative.

There are many in the ID movement who are not creationist and therefore have left the origin of life debate open to the same faith aspects as evolutionists, that it was started somewhere but here.
Creationists have the bible as the final word, which takes less faith if you ask me.

[GomJabbar]

Darwin proposed an explanation, or theory, "on the origin of species". I don't recall Darwin proposing, as part of his explanation, either the existence or non-existence of a "god" or "intelligent designer" or any term you choose. Whether "god" exists isn't relevant to the theory. All that's relevant to the theory is how well it explains observable facts.

"Whether "god" exists isn't relevant to the theory." Perhaps not to Darwin.

You guys are too hung up on the Scientific Method. Yes the Scientific Method is a beautiful thing. Very useful for testing ideas (theories) and achieving knowledge. But sometimes it falls short. Because the scientists don't have a way to 'test' if an intelligence had a hand in the origin of species, it can't be a part of the theory (in the view of many).

Even if true, in the absolute sense that "god did it", ID doesn't increase scientific "information" or understanding. How do we "test" for the existence of the "intelligent designer"?

By realizing that the complexity of living things cannot be explained through random events or Natural Selection alone. When we see a house, we know that an intelligence was behind the construction of the house. No one would believe that the the pieces came together through any random or chance event. A house is a simple thing compared to a living entity. We can build a house. Have been doing it for centuries. We cannot put together a living being by mixing chemicals together. Perhaps one day someone will be able to do this, but it will take complex machinery (intelligently designed) to put the pieces together. Even then it would only be a relatively incomplex living thing; likely a single cell entity.

Admittedly, I was talking about creation above. But extrapolating, if it took an intelligence to create life, it is not far-fetched to think that this intelligence influenced the species that developed. This intelligence likely designed evolution as a part of this process. Other times perhaps evolution in itself was insufficient, and the DNA was altered purposely to create a new species.

If we're going to teach Intelligent Design, put it where it belongs: in a religion or philosophy class.

I do not promote teaching religion or a religion in science class. As has been mentioned, there are many faiths; christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, etc. I would not want a faith that I did not follow to be taught in science class. However, by allowing the disclaimer in science textbooks stating that 'evolution is a theory and not a fact' is not teaching Intelligent Design. It is just leaving open that the possibility exists. Since Evolution is a 'theory' and not a 'law', this needs to be made clear. Many are taught that Evolution is a scientific fact - not a scientific theory. This is where I have the problem.

EDIT: Dog gone it I did it again. Misspelled intelligence in every instance. Put an 'e' where there should have been an 'i'. I caught it while rereading my post. It has been corrected.

[Kyocera]

"NOVA" last night, had a peice on this very issue although I suspect it was a year or two old. Scientists taking a mixture of proteins, going to a far off place where there are some ancient hot springs, and mixed the water and protein mixture and are studying wether an organism will grow. The primordial soup contention. Have to admit I fell asleep, but maybe someone else caught the results.

Myself wrote:

This is more philosophy mixed with arbitrary facts in a soup of conjecture.

In response to DaveO, you got me thinking maybe I used the wrong words in my opinion of Dr. Gitts, after checking their webster definitions, they are right on the money, except soup, but in light of the NOVA special maybe it was appropriate. Definately not a personal attack, but there is nothing solid, kind of thero romantic.
ex. thero romantic, a theory offered in an emotive format.

[daeojkim]

Just to break the ice if anyone has not seen or heard of FSM yet.

http://www.venganza.org/

They have some cool wallpapers too.

[Kyocera]

I was not sure if the discussion would stray to far into quantum physics, string theories, and the flying spaghetti monster. But in the course of rational discussion the FSM theory cannot be dismissed. I believe a senator asked Harriet Myers during her supreme court confirmation hearings, what she thought of the flying spaghetti monster theory being taught in public schools. She has yet to comment. On anything. At all..


Dude, that is hilarious! Pirates Rule!!

[a31pguy]

Just to break the ice if anyone has not seen or heard of FSM yet.

http://www.venganza.org/

They have some cool wallpapers too.

Oh so funny! I'm pissing myself I'm laughing so hard! All hail the FSM!

Finally I can come out of the closet (i mean kitchen) and tell the world my undying love for my personal savior (with all the tomato sauce and parmesian cheese that goes with it!).

All I hope is that one day too you all may know the love of FSM (and an appropriate appetizer).


BTW - I too have noticed the strange and odd relationship between the number of pirates and global warming. Kinda of inversely proportional thingy.

Cheers!

[egibbs]

Ok, since we are devolving into humor...

The following is neither scientific, fair, or unbiased.

There was a very funny article yesterday in the New York Record (find it here http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/ ) tiled Behe's 15th-century science.

It describes an actual scene from the ID trial now going on in PA, where Dr. Behe (one of the co-authors of Of Pandas and People), is testifying.

Dr. Behe explains how the standard definition of a theory, as published by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, is too narrow and constrained to fully contain such a wondrous work as Creationism -Oops- Intelligent Design.

So in order to be able to properly label ID as a theory, Dr. Behe single handedly "revised and expanded" the accepted definition of a theory (I am not making this up folks!). He then admitted, reluctantly under questioning, that under his new and improved definition, Astrology would be considered a valid scientific theory.

The author has some fun with that, describing Jacqueline Bigar, a syndicated astrology columnist, as a noted scientist.

But I'm wondering why stop with teaching Astrology alonside Astronomy as equivalent and equally valid theories of the sky.

Certainly Alchemy is now a reputable and entirely valid scientific theory, worthy of being taught alongside Chemistry so that students can choose which they are more comfortable with. In physics, we can teach children that all matter is made up of either atoms, or of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, according to their personal belief system.

Who wouldn't feel better knowing that the suspension bridge you are driving across was designed by an engineer who chose to study Feng Shui rather than metallurgy and structural dynamics?

Wouldn't it be great if Surgeons could choose to believe either that infections are caused by bacteira, or by evil spirits? Whether he washes his hands before surgery, or shouts at the incision to scare away the evil spirits becomes a matter of personal belief, which we have no business criticizing.

I'm sure there must be many, many more newly acceptable and revered scientific theories, now that Dr. Behe has shown us how closed minded we were being with our silly definition requiring theries to make testable predictions, and to be discarded if the predictions fail. Anyone else want to suggest some?

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

Certainly Alchemy is now a reputable and entirely valid scientific theory, worthy of being taught alongside Chemistry so that students can choose which they are more comfortable with. In physics, we can teach children that all matter is made up of either atoms, or of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, according to their personal belief system.

Who wouldn't feel better knowing that the suspension bridge you are driving across was designed by an engineer who chose to study Feng Shui rather than metallurgy and structural dynamics?

Wouldn't it be great if Surgeons could choose to believe either that infections are caused by bacteira, or by evil spirits? Whether he washes his hands before surgery, or shouts at the incision to scare away the evil spirits becomes a matter of personal belief, which we have no business criticizing.

Getting a little factitious here aren't we? Of course the things listed above have been proven wrong. (Macro) evolution has not been 'proven', as it is still a theory.

[egibbs]

As I said, devolving into humor.

But once you dispense with the requirement that a theory be testable and falsifiable as Dr. Behe is suggesting, the door is wide open. And as silly as my examples are, there are firm believers in many of those "sciences" who maintain their right to act according to their beliefs, often to the detriment of others.

Witness the occasional sad cases of people who withold critically needed medical care from their children, believing instead that prayer will cure them.

Ed Gibbs

[dsvochak]

"Of course the things listed above [alchemy, etc] have been proven wrong (Macro) evolution has not been 'proven', as it is still a theory"

Limiting to, for purposes of discussion, alchemy (in part because Newton spent some time looking for the philosopher's stone), the question becomes how has the "theory of alchemy" been proven wrong?

I'll admit that, to date, I haven't seen or heard of a report where someone was able to turn lead into gold. I'll further admit that pretty much everyone who ever took basic chemistry agrees it can't be done. But so what?

Gold has an atomic weight of about 197. Lead is about 207. All we've got to do is figure out a way to get rid of the extra 20 protons/neutrons/electrons or whatever other "trons" differentiate lead from gold. I think it likely people stopped researching alchemy long ago, long before we split the atom and had particle accelerators etc. Who knows what would happen if someone put millions of dollars and today's technology into alchemy? And if you still can't turn lead into gold, how does that disprove the theory? Maybe we just need more money or technology and we can do it.

Which raises the bigger question: How does one "prove" a theory?

In an earlier post, it was suggested that we "test" for the existence of the "intelligent designer" "By realizing that the complexity of living things cannot be explained through random events or Natural Selection alone."

Unfortunately, "realizing that the complexity...." isn't a test for the existence of god. It's faith in god.

The FSM page suggests that global warming is inversely related to the number of pirates. Really, its probably more than a suggestion, it's a "fact", as the term "fact" is commonly used. Data undoubtedly exists which conclusively establishes that, as the number of pirates declined, the world got warmer.

How do you prove or disprove this theory? Can we at least agree that the pirate theory omits certain relevant data? Can we agree that if we were able to bring back Blackbeard and his cohorts, the earth wouldn't cool down? I'll assume we agree that the pirate theory of global warming is likely not correct. But we can't be sure can we?

"I would not want a faith that I did not follow to be taught in science class".

I'll go further. I do not want a faith that I follow to be taught in science class.

If, in order to be PC, the Cobb County Board of Education ordered that a disclaimer be placed on bibles used in a religion class along the lines of "This book contains material on intelligent design. Intelligent design is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." there would be hell to pay.

But intelligent design is being presented as a "theory" and since intelligent design "..is a 'theory' and not a 'law', this needs to be made clear."

If you disagree with the previous sentence, we have come to the crux of the problem.

If one believes in god, FSM, or some other higher power, I think that, by definition, one believes in some form of "intelligent design". It does not, however, mean that one believes the biblical story of creation or the current "theory of intelligent design".

Einstein has been famously misquoted as having said "God does not play dice with the world". What he meant was, while quantum mechanics was a step forward, it wasn't the final explanation and as more was learned, men would find out how a non-dice throwing god had made the world.

The beauty of the scientific method is it's very strict limitations. Questions like: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and "Is there a god?" are beyond the purview of science and the scientific method.

Maybe Einstein is right and there is some sort of Unified Field Theory that we have yet to discover. That's a scientific question.

Why are we here? That's a philosophical or religious, question.

[GomJabbar]

In an earlier post, it was suggested that we "test" for the existence of the "intelligent designer" "By realizing that the complexity of living things cannot be explained through random events or Natural Selection alone."

Unfortunately, "realizing that the complexity...." isn't a test for the existence of god. It's faith in god.

I will concede the above. I realized what I was writing here wouldn't satisfy those that want a 'test' for the existence of an 'intellegent designer'. But what I wrote applies to reason. Most of those reading this thread probably have their ideas set in stone. Nothing that can be said will make any difference. But for those fence-sitters out there, applying to their reason might make a difference. Perhaps they have not really considered all the arguements on both sides.

"I would not want a faith that I did not follow to be taught in science class".

I'll go further. I do not want a faith that I follow to be taught in science class.

Yes you are right, and really that was the point I was trying to make. One person's faith will not be the same as the next's.

If, in order to be PC, the Cobb County Board of Education ordered that a disclaimer be placed on bibles used in a religion class along the lines of "This book contains material on intelligent design. Intelligent design is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered." there would be hell to pay.

But intelligent design is being presented as a "theory" and since intelligent design "..is a 'theory' and not a 'law', this needs to be made clear."

If you disagree with the previous sentence, we have come to the crux of the problem.

AFAIK Intelligent Design is not being taught as a theory or otherwise in any public school science class.

I am not advocating teaching Intelligent Design in science class at all. However I believe the placing of a statement that: 'Evolution is only a theory, not a fact' in science textbooks is entirely appropriate because Evolution itself has become a religion amongst many of it's adherents. If the teacher asks his/her students what they think about the theory of evolution, the students should be allowed to speak their mind. However, the teacher himself/herself should not teach "Intelligent Design".

Why are we here? That's a philosophical or religious, question.

Yes, that is true. However the real question that we are debating here is not "Why are we here", but rather "How did we get here (or come to be)".