Evolution and ID and Creationism - a discussion

That's right ladies and gentlemen, it's time for a new thread on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design/Creationism.

Since this is a new thread, that means everything that was said in the previous thread(s) are irrelevant. Thus, no saying "we've already covered that".

However, the ground rules are still the same. Since this is a evolution is science and ID/Creationism claim to be, you have to play by the ground rules of science.

What does that mean?

That means that beliefs mean nothing as beliefs imply that there is no supporting evidence. That means "the Bible says"; is not an argument because the Bible is not a scientific text.

Additionally it means that peer reviewed journal articles are the best source available. However, given that they're not easily accessible, or understandable to most people, other sources are allowed, but will be subject to scrutiny.

As E_S decided in the last thread, using a source means extracting pertinent information, citing just that part, giving a quick summary, and showing how it supports your argument.

Thus, do not:
-try to start quote wars
-posts a series of links and say "read this"

Exceptions to this would include linking to a specific part of a website that is relatively short and covers the specific topic currently being addressed (eg, transitional fossils are being discussed and a link to a list of such fossils is presented).

General Senate standards still apply to use of logic. If you don't know them, review logical fallacies. There were a lot of those used in the last thread and we're more than happy to call you on them.

Senate standards also apply to supporting your arguments.

An additional note: Since this thread will inevitably grow quite long quite fast, and not everyone has the same number of posts per page (ppp), if you're going to refer to an earlier post, don't say "On page 5...", but instead give the date of that quote as well as the poster.

---

So with all that said, let's get down to discussion. One of the underlying claims of ID/Creationism is that they are science.

What defines science?

Is that definition fair, or too limiting and why?

Does ID/Creationism meet these requirements?

Does evolution meet them?

With those being the current questions up for discussion, someone throw the first stone.

EDITS (1&2): apparently the boards don't like Word's quotation marks...

 

Alright, I'm all for stone throwing...

My definition of science would be a process aimed at understanding the workings of the world around us. The way this process is carried out, as described by the scientific method, involves making observations, creating hypotheses that describe the phenomena observed and potential causes, and then trying to verify the hypothesis through additional observations to see if the hypothesis continues to be valid, or by creating experiments to test the hypothesis. A key element of science would be the willingness to adjust the hypothesis to come up with a new one that explains phenomena better while keeping Occim's Razor in mind, and thus, not adding unneccessary and unfounded complexities. An example where this didn't happen, imo, would be how prior to the heliocentric orbits being introduced, the motion of the planets was described by the planets making circles within circles, and it became very complex because there was a refusal to change the idea that orbits had to be circular.

To me, ID as I have heard it explained does not fall into the scope of science as I see it, because of two main things. The first is the lack of observable evidence. The second is that it tries to work with a specific view, that god did it, and so tries to find evidence to support its claim, rather than find an explanation that is valid for all evidence present.

Evolution, on the other hand, has undergone many changes as more has been learned, and isn't a fixed statement, but rather just one that has been fine tuned over time as biology has been studied better.

Overall, I view evolution as science because it is the result of trying to explain differences in species, and changes in species over time, whereas ID seems to just be picking selected facts in an attempt to support the idea of a creator.

(unrelated, there a reason why all the quotes don't show up correctly for me in the first post here?)

 

What is science? Hmm...

Well, to my science is trying to understand everything around us. To come up with explanations for how things happen. Although there is any number of ways that we can figure stuff out, there is a general process that works well, and that is what we call the scientific method.

That method seems like it is something like this: First we observe something. Maybe it is just out of the blue there is something new. Maybe a theory predicts something to 98% accuracy and we want to figure out that other 2%. Or just anything. Either we understand why/how it is and it is added to whatever evidence for whatever theories/laws, or we don't understand it in which case we will endeavor to understand it.

We then try to come up with an explanation based on the evidence, and we then test it as best we can. I will say that just because we can't test something does not necessarily make it outside the realm of science. Maybe in the future we can figure out a way to test it, or maybe we just don't have enough samples or resources to test it, or it requires more understand just to even test it, but if something clearly is real it is in the realm of science even if there isn't anything we can do with it.

But we test it and try to understand it. Once we have a better understanding of it we can classify it, accept a theory on it, and move on. However if sufficient evidence comes up to challenge the old theory then it should be studied and considered (people preaching an alternate theory is not enough).

To me, science tries to not be biased (in reality individuals are, but it is not anywhere as bad as many conspiracy theories make it out to be). Yes it will assume things are true, but either only for the sake of an experiment or because it is strongly supported by other experimentation. Also, science should assume that something are NOT true if there is no evidence for it (again, unless demanded for the sake of an experiment, such as to test if spontaneous generation is true, lets assume it is true and see if our results match what is expected).

However one thing that is key to staying unbiased and honest is to never absolutely believe a theory. It is possible to accept a theory as true to the extent that there is so little evidence against it and the experiment is far enough removed from this assumption that there is no reason to question it in any realistic situation. Or practically there is no difference in how we act between accepting something very strongly and accepting something absolutely. However belief is a state of mind and if sufficient evidence comes up to challenge a theory a scientist should be open minded enough to change it (and on the flip side, if there is not enough evidence for something a scientist should not change their mind until there is).

Also, just because one theory is wrong does not mean that all others are right. IF evolution was shown to be wrong, that does not necessarily mean that a literal 7 day creationism is true.

Is that too strict for science? Not really. It works, it gets results and there is not much more to say.

Does ID meet the scientific criteria? I don't really think so. It does not explain how the ID'er did it; there is no evidence (presented yet?) of the ID'er, and the reason most people believe it is not because of the evidence for ID but because of faith in God which are not the same things (this if for the religious kinds of ID) or because they choose to reject other theories and all the evidence that goes with them (the secular versions).

Evolution/Big Bang/"whatever other specific theory that ID or creationism covers" on the other hand, clearly is science to me. It explains why and how things happen and it is backed up by enough evidence that to me makes it scientific. They have all been tested as best they can. I can't see how they are not.

 

But don't all ideas that are working on becoming theories (ie, hypothesies) have to "try to find evidence to support it claim"?

I would suspect that evolution does the same as well. However, the thing that seperates ID/Creationism from evolution in my mind is that evolution also looks for evidence contrary to its position.

Meanwhile, Intelligent Design fails at this as demonstrated by Dr. Behe's admittance that he never atually tested the systems he claimed to be irreducibly complex or bothered to read the journal articles that detailed the development of such systems.

You can't get a good view of how well your hypothesis holds up if you're picking and choosing what you want to view.

Another requirement of science that I think needs to be added to your definition, Lowbacca, is that the explanations not involve miracles or the supernatural. Biblical creationism fails outright right there, whereas Intelligent Design, well, it's not so clear since it's feasable that a "designer" could be a naturalistic entity (although I rarely if ever hear that argument used when discussing the possibilities for "who" the designer could be).

I typed my original post in Word which uses smart quotes around text (eg, angled ones instead of straight), which the boards don't recognize and translate into a string of random characters. I went back and edited the original post and replaced them with straight ones.

 

If I were being snide, I might say that science involves following evidence to a conclusion whereas things what dress in the garbs of science like Intelligent Design or Creationism tend to form a conclusion then look for evidence which backs it up.

Only, of course, if I was being snide.

E_S

 

I would say that any hypothesis isn't trying to find evidence to support its claim, but more acturately does what you said after taht, basicly that we look for evidence that will either support or disprove it. We're basicly looking for more information, period, irregardless of if it proves the theory. In science, we learn just as much from ruling a theory out as we do from getting more support for a theory.

The other definition, that it not involve the supernatural, seems a bit unneccessary to me. It should be scientifically explained, yes, but I'd be a tad worried about creating a definition that could cut things out that we should be working on explaining but don't yet. Wouldn't something like say, gravity, or electricity, have an appearance of the supernatural if we went back a few hundred years? I'd not want to rule something out of science because it could be dismissed as supernatural or something. Granted, on the other hand, the catch-all answer of "it was magic" or "god did it" does need to be avoided. I'll have to think about how I'd go about wording that best.

 

It would seem to me that in order to find evidence "that will either support or disprove [a hypothesis]" one doe need to look for evidence to support it.

While I don't think it's what you meant to say, I do also take issue with "looking for more information, period". That suggests that the information need not actually be related to the hypothesis. Again, I think you meant to imply that it should be, but didn't put that in (probably because it should be obvious), but it is worthwhile to point it out because it reminds us that the hypothesis is what gives the investigation focus.

This again is where ID/Creationsim fail as a science because their efforts are not spent on investigation related to the hypothesis. Instead, it is spent trying to tear down theories they don't like.

As far as needing to include the supernatural, let me clarify this statement by saying that supernatural means that it's not able to be tested. Thus, if it's unexplicable as gravity or electricity once seemed, that doesn't disqualify it as natural because, even though it seems supernatural, we can test on it. Does that alleviate your objections?

 

Yes, I did mean more information about the hypothesis, period. I meant that in science, there isn't a bias of trying to find evidence that will prove something, or trying to find evidence that will disprove something, but evidence that will do either. That we don't cherry pick evidence to get to whichever one of those we should think will happen.


As for ruling out something that is untestable, I would count things like string theory that are being developed as part of science, but (and my memory may be off on this) there's no way for us to test that theory at all, even though the proponents of string theory are trying to come up with some way to test it.
In thinking on it more, I think I would say that it has to be the simplest and most naturalistic hypothesis that works. In other words, if there are two competeing theories, but only one works, we take the one that works. But if there are two competing theories and they both work equally well, we take the one that works most with forces that we already understand. That sound better?

 

I would have to say that things like string theory are borderline. It's derived directly from natural laws, but as of yet, we haven't found a way to test it. However, as we explore it and its implications further, its entirely possible that it we will find a way to test it.

Meanwhile, creationism and ID start with a hypothesis that's not derived from natural laws. I think that's where they cross the line.

 

Science is fundamentally a method, not a collection of facts or deductive statements. In any science, there are at least three necessary criteria: the ability to be falsified, the ability to generate predictive hypotheses, and the ability to generate explanatory hypotheses (i.e., Popperian). Further, a science must be open to self-examination, correction, and replacement (i.e., Kuhnian).

Evolution itself is not a particular science, but an umbrella term describing a collection of phenomena in biochemistry, molecular biology, population genetics, molecular phylogenetics, etc., etc. Evolution as a paradigm meets all of the above criteria, when examined from the perspective of any of its constituent elements. To wit, it explains the phenomena of morphological (phenotypic) variation, and the underlying genetic (genotypic) variation. It predicts that whenever environmental factors affect population (e.g., in scarcity of resources), allelic shifts will occur, producing shifts in the population's morphology, which can aggregate and produce biological speciation (the inability to mate with other phylogenetically-similar populations. Further, it can be falsified through quite simple experimentation with model organisms by using the Hardy-Weinberg equation as the null hypothesis (i.e., evolution is not occurring if there is no statistically significant shift in the underlying frequency of allele types). It is open to self-examination, correction and replacement precisely because it is falsifiable; however, it has remained remarkably resilient in light of century and a half of testing and ideological conflict. Fundamentally, it is good science.

Intelligent design does not meet these criteria, unless one takes a *very* loose definition of "explanatory hypothesis"; its critical failure is its inability to generate falsifiable data and its inability to generate predictive hypotheses. In point of fact, it defies experimentation, the hallmark of scientific inquiry - there is no "design variable" that can be manipulated.

So, in sum, per the Popperian and Kuhnian conceptions of science and scientific inquiry, evolution as an umbrella term and research paradigm passes muster as science, while intelligent design does not. In light of the historical conflict between Kuhn and Popper, this accord is significant - it is common ground between two powerful antagonists.

 

Yeah, string theory I'd place as borderline, but I still think it is within science

I think, it comes down to it more that like you said in the last part of that, ID start with an original hypothesis that is outside of natural laws rather than being driven to it. Evolution explains things without invoking something outside the realm of science.

 

You guys are talking about the scientific method.

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> formulation of scientific law
or -> modify hypothesis with new data -> new experiment
or -> rejection of hypothesis

It can be argued that since intelligent design stops at the hypothesis stage with no real hope of experimentation, it's not science.

My probelem with that is we're not capable of testing it doesn't mean it can't be tested. In the middle ages, if someone hypothesised an energy source of immense power by utilizing the power of the atom would not have been able to test it. But that doesn't make nuclear reactors non-scientific.

 

i think the traditional concept of science has been pretty well laid out in the past few posts: make observations, form theory, test theory, make corrections as needed, repeat.

naturalistic origins (Big Bang cosmolgy, evolutionary biology, anthropology, etc... *see bottom of post*) and creationistic origins can both fit this definition in a general way, though both do make presuppostions that affect their theories. the issue so many have with creationism is the mention/use of God... but if we claim this world was created and didn't just appear out of nowhere, how can we not mention/involve its Creator?? i do agree that just saying "God did it" to an atheist is about the dumbest argument one can make, and most intelligent creationists attempt to use natural laws as much as possible. but the fact is we do claim that some miracles are involved... but after the miracle is over natural laws do apply and that is where creationists must find their evidence. humans may have been made by God from the dust of the earth, but our existence since then should (mostly, barring other miracles) be explainable through observable/provable natural laws and theories.

creationists have made many origins realted theories over the years, and rejected many of them as they are found to not work and/or new evidence is found that indicates a different view, such as the Canopy Flood theory being rejected for the Catastrophic Plate Tectonics theory.

creationists seek positive evidence, and find it in areas such as global population growth based on the Flood and the current magnetic field strength of the planets.

creationists have plenty of published articles in scientific journals (though rarely ones where they openly advocate creationism) as seen here (yes it's AiG, but you can find the journals and check for yourself if you really don't believe them).


also, it is important to distinguish between origins science (how we got here) and operational science (what's going on around us). in operational science, creationists generally agree with naturalists on many things, or at least as much as either group agrees among themselves. we agree with the biological understanding of how human bodies work, even if we disagree on how they came to work that way. creationists also contribute to operational science and technology, including helping to develop the MRI machine . orgins science is inherently more speculative than operational science (none of us were there either 6000 or 6 billion years ago), and there is much both sides of the origins debate still need to figure out even if everything they've claimed so far is true.

just because someone accepts the existence of a God who can, and has, interefered with our natural world doesn't make that person an unintelligent or unscientific. and just cause a scientist (of whatever religous/philisophical persuasion) says 'X is true' doesn't mean it is... from what i've seen the only thing science has proven for certain is that previous scientists weren't always right about everything and there's always more knowledge to be found. also, i'd like to say i'm glad we've got a thread which divorces the general origins debate from the teaching of origins debate, which are definately two seperate issues.


*since creationism merges the origins of everything into at most a few events over the span of 2000 years, all the aspects of naturalistic origins must be considered together, not just certain parts. i've seen all sorts of issues arise when we just say evolution and then talk about the Big Bang, since naturalists consider those two seperate issues, while for creationists living things and the start of everything were seperated by less than 7 days.*

 

Which is exactly the issue I raised. However, here we have a theory that works, evolution, and a theory that does not have any evidence that I have seen that indicates ID over evolution. I think its almost coming down to the situation, where here we have an arguement that works using methods that we understand, the real solution is, in fact, a method that we do not have evidence for, have some evidence against, and involves magical forces. To me, it seems to be failing at Occim's Razor, right off the bat.
Though, also, with it being so out of reach, even if one were to give more weight to ID, because its beyond the reach of science, it wouldn't be taught in sciene classes.

 

This invokes the supernatural and thus, by defintion, can't be tested.

The proof of my previous statement is in this point. The concept that humans were made of dust cannot be tested since it is a supernatural event. Additionally, even if observable/provable natural laws can sufficiently explain everything from there on, it still lends no credence to the original statement. Thus, as previously stated, creationism disqualifies itself as science.

Fixed. Now please quit abusing the word "theory".

However, you haven't demonstrated that they also seek contrary evidence, which is a requirement. Evolution does this in many ways. It routinely searches for any fossils that are misplaced chronologically (ex, the proverbial "rabbit in the pre-cambrian").

I'm noting that you have claimed there is positive evidence and to note to everyone in this thread that the current topic of discussion is not to analyize specific pieces of evidence, which will most likely follow this topic. Instead please focus on the large picture before we move on to the nitty gritty.

I just reviewed some of those articles and do not find that it in any way supports your argument. No one has claimed that creationists don't publish journal articles at all, only that they haven't published any that support their creationism hypothesis. It's possible to be a creationist and still do good science. But good science that's not related to your hypothesis doesn't help your hypothesis by assosciation. That's not how the game works. Until there are journal articles published specifically addressing the actual hypothesis of creation, then I think it's safe to continue asserting that creationists have refused to publish their (non-existant) research to the actual topic.

This "distinction" is completely arbitrary and does not bear any acknowledgement. Nor does it support your position.

Again, contributing legitimatly to a real branch of science does not make all hypothesies valid by extention. Thus, this point is irrelevant.

Again, this is a false distinction. "Origins science" is in no way different than any other sort. Science must still be supported with evidence. Good science, no matter how you want to divide it must still be supported with evidence and subject to fals

 

But the theory of evolution is incomplete.

Basically what evolution claims is environmental pressures force random mutations in the genome. And the favourable mutations are selected where unfavourable ones are eliminated.

But for random mutation to cause carbon atoms to form DNA, then onto single cellular organisms and then onto complex organism like us all within the span of 3.8 billion years is said to be equivalent to a tornado hitting a junk yard and leaving a fully functioning 747 in its wake (That's from "The lost world" by Michael Crichton).

 

If we want to distinguish between origins and now, then I'm not sure how one would explain away that fossil records show that the species on earth have changed over time.
Or are we getting into an issue where we have to give "Last Thursdayism", the idea that the entire universe was made last thursday with all memories of time prior to then intact, part of education too, because we don't know?


The issue is, when it comes to evolution, we have a theory that works without a 'creator' involved in the prossess.

 

The issue is, when it comes to evolution, we have a theory that works without a 'creator' involved in the prossess.

It doesn't work without a creator if it can't start without a creator.


(edit with more text coming soon, I hope)

Edit: Okay not tonight. Maybe tomorrow.

 

Can it be proven that it needs a creator? No. Not with scientific arguments, only vague philosophical ones, such as the watchmaker one. However, this is a science discussion, and such philosophical claims have no place here.

 

well, thats purely philosophical. and the existance of a creator doesn't require his involvement. i mean, if i said that rocks fall because god pushes them down, that would be foolish, as we have gravity already.
second, well, if a creator was neccessary for things to begin, then where'd the creator come from? clearly the creator needed something to start it as well.

 

There goes the old "It's philosophy." tactic. What I meant was that even if things could up-mutate (my wording), you first have to have life (as in some form of creature) to "up-mutate" from.

|-"But evolution isn't about how life began (where life came from), it's about what happened to life after it started to get to where everything is now."-|

Yes, but you still have to account for how life first came about.



(I'm really tired, so exuse me if the grammer and such in this message wasn't all that great. )

And as for the |-"Text"-| thing. That's just something I thought I'd use to represent replies that aren't actual quotes, but work to sum up the typical responce to the prior statement.

 

That's abiogenesis, which is separate from evolution. (Seems like stuff like this gets covered and re-covered. Reminds me of the Sisyphus myth.)

I'd tackle T-65XJ's false analogy with the plane and whatnot, but someone else could answer with more finesse than I.

 

First. It's not my analogy. I even said where it came from.

Second. I believe in evolution. I just think our current version of what happens is incomplete.

Third. I don't know if God is the missing link. And I'm not afraid to include that as a possibility.

Lastly. I don't believe intelligent design should be taught in a science classroom. It should be given one mention at best as a theory some people believe in. And let them teach it in Theology or religion class.

 

Some people also believe that a key element of evolution is genetic material coming from outer space. Do we need to mention that as well?

what is it in current evolution theory that you feel is incomplete such that we would need to introduce the concept of god to make it work?

 

Most scientist accept that our understanding of evolution is incomplete. We do have "missing links" so to speak and thats why scientists continue to test evaluate and study the evidence in front of them so as to get a better and clearer picture.

Thats good,


I personally don't believe in god but I do accept the possibility of "intelligent design" seeding life on this planet e.g. an alien life form manupulates or brings life here to grow and watches from afar as some sort of large cosmic experiment or some godlife mythical figure bringing life to the planet

This is however untestable and as such is not something I would consider to be scientific. They're good for a natter with your mates in the pub or as an indepth philosophical debate but until we are in a position to test and gather evidence on this it can never be described or used in science because it has no basis there.