the giza pyramids weren't built by the ancient egyptians

[Bainespal (Paul Lee)]

@gravel

I think it’s accurate to say that very, very few scientists doubt evolution, but some other methods besides small modifications are well discussed.

Even though I don’t know much about the evolutionary theories, I’ve heard of Gould and of the differing ideas of evolutionists. I’ve heard about Neo-Darwinian insistance upon a combination of natural selection and mutations, and I’ve heard of other evolutionists who believe that natural selection really had little or nothing to do with evolution. There’s room for those theories within the dogma of evolution.

But neither academic consensus nor public consensus causes something to be true. There may be some kinds of truth that can really be defined in some ways by consensus – government, for instance, because government is nothing more than people and is wholly made by people. But scientific truth is not like that at all (nor, I contend, are philosophical or religious truth). We did not create ourselves or the universe, and we don’t know how the universe works. Just because everyone agrees about something doesn’t make it true; it just makes it a widespread belief. As has been said in this thread, there are holes in every theory. There always will be as long as humans are fallible and limited, which will be forever. Therefore, there should always be room to disagree with scientists, even on such widely believed theories as evolution.

@gravel

But if you’re referring to, say, young earth theory, you’ll find a vanishing small amount of scientific support because objective evidence just really, really does not point that way. (But you will find plenty of evolutionary theorists willing to discuss that evidence, and why they think the evidence is inadequate to support, and contradictory to, young earth theory.)

I’m sure many evolutionary scientists are willing to discuss the young earth theory, but I doubt many of them are willing to consider it (or even intelligent design in general) as another possible model. I could be wrong about that, of course, I haven’t been in on any closed intellectual circles, but I know that creationism, young earth theory, and intelligent design have all been scorned and ridiculed by members of the scientific community at times. Also, I don’t believe that objective evidence really points one way or the other as much as scientists think it does. Most of the objective evidence was discovered by scientists who believe in evolution, since they are the vast majority. Naturally, they interpret the evidence according to the system that they already believe in. All sides find ways to explain away evidences that initially are difficult to correlate with their theories.

Anyways… sorry for bringing the discussion to this. I generally don’t like arguing. I posted on this thread initially because I had emotional reaction to the issue of intellectualism, and I hope I didn’t offend Mr. Gijsbers too much. However, if anyone does want to discuss evolution versus creationism/intelligent design, or anything else raised in this thread, I’m willing to do so. I have read a few creationist books, as well as some Christian apologetics.

[size=85]Edited to soften a couple things after better judgement, and to respond to this:[/size]

@Dannii

They do have one thing going for them… the metabolic cycle sure is complex! Now whether it’s irreducibly complex is a hard question to answer…

Thank you. That’s all I ask – that in the specific case of science, viewpoints like creationism be acknowledged as valid, that the people who hold such views do have some good reasons to believe what they believe, even if most people will always disagree. As always, the same goes for other fields as well.

[Eleas (Björn Paulsen)]

@Eleas

Ah… I was simply trying to say that the division should be between honest scientists who sincerely investigate and carefully frame their theories by no other criteria than what they think is objectively true and those people who want to get famous or start a flame war or defend preconceived notions, etc. I don’t know whether or not the scientific method is perfect when it comes to science, but I’m sure that it’s not adequate for everything.

It’s vital for carrying out science, or has been thus far. It is less useful when it comes to baking cakes, welding metal, et al.

@Bainespal

@Eleas

One example of this is Charles Darwin saying, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” He was prepared and indeed willing to face refutation.

From everything I’ve heard of Charles Darwin, he sounds like a truly honest scholar, not deserving of the demonizing that some dissenters have tainted him with, and I’ve never heard of anyone rejecting the fundamental idea of natural selection, even if some prefer to use different semantics. However, the theories that his work helped to start don’t deserve a special unquestionable status, either. I’ve read books by “fringe” scientists who are ready and eager to present specific evidence against the notion that any given complex organ really could not have been formed by those numerous, successive, slight modifications.

I understand. My point is that Darwin’s phrase makes a good example of how scientists ought to act. He didn’t say “this is the only way you could falsify my theory,” but pointed out one possible direction you could build on the research. This is also how it’s done at the University. Often, you can deliver an assignment that concludes, “the study I made [according to these premises] failed to prove the premises. This may be due to methodology [x and y], assuming I haven’t made an error somewhere,” and still get a passing grade, assuming you did a good job in other respects. The end result is that the paper will ideally have useful implications down the road. It may not be a breakthrough, but it’s not worthless.

@Bainespal

Yeah, you called me on that one… I was just repeating what everyone says in an argument now and then about people once believing the earth was flat. Maybe that’s a little ironic.

Meh, it happens. If it helps, I too believed it for the longest time.

@Bainespal

I’m sure many evolutionary scientists are willing to discuss the young earth theory, but I doubt many of them are willing to consider it (or even intelligent design in general) as another possible model. I could be wrong about that, of course, I haven’t been in on any closed intellectual circles, but I know that creationism, young earth theory, and intelligent design have all been scorned and ridiculed by members of the scientific community at times.

I’m not a scientist, but I have debated this subject on a number of times and am reasonably familiar with it. My chief problem with this is that if we want to define intelligent design as a scientific model, it must first satisfy the basic criteria of being a scientific model.

Intelligent Design, throughout all the permutations I’ve seen it presented, does not satisfy these requirements. Since it depends on labeling as “irreducibly complex” anything that cannot at that specific moment be back-tracked, it is not a falsifiable theory. It has no stated mechanism and can thus not produce defining characteristics in its output. It does not suggest any paradigm or problem solving method for further work. It is not parsimonious, nor testable.

I would bring up the Wedge document, but I’m loath to do so. That has to do with politics linking ID to Young Earth-Creationism, which I’d say is a separate issue.

[ezfreemann]

good god, i had no idea the convo i was gonna start with all that! lol i love this stuff.

but yes, i want to make something clear, i am well aware my initial posts were steeped in hearsay and lacked any documentation where i was grabbin all that. just saying, im well aware of your critiques to my initial post, it was done to stir-the-stew a bit and get ppl talking about a subject in which im interested.

so now that i have your attention. here is where i grabbed the info from the initial post. i wont say much about who this guy is, please look it up since i can tell you are just the sort of intelligent-minded people who would do such a thing before believing what this guy is saying.

its a 45-freaking-part video of an all day seminar, so take it a chunk at a time, have an open mind, and as always, ignore the you-tubers’ comments as they are as sharp as barnyard animals, imho.

anyway, just have an open mind, and please try to watch the whole thing before reserving judgement.

thanks all, i love you guys!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPgII_4ciFU&list=FLWIXopgAJX6I&index=1

btw, the spinx-geologist study? in the particular study i am referring to, yes 100% of the geologists asked answered as such.

and victor, no, its not daanikan, although his stuff does entertain me!

[ezfreemann]

fringe- and pseudo-science are deep wells from which to draw for your IF needs…

[tove]

@Eleas

@Eleas

It is less useful when it comes to baking cakes

My favorite cookbook, referred to my my flatmate and I simply as “the Book*”, is equal parts science and opinion. The opinions establish the goals, and the science is how they obtain them: “The perfect [whatever food item] is [list of qualities]. To make it, we tested [a bunch of variables]…” Of course, experiment-driven research is very different from trying to understand existing evidence.

*as in, “The Book says…”

[Dannii]

ezfreemann, next time you’re posting ideas that aren’t your own, you must reference where they come from, at the time you post, and not later. That’s plagiarism you’ve just committed.

Also, capital letters. Use them. Please.