Three Questions for the Evos.

I would like to ask three simple questions:If you came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design/Creation had more evidence than evolution, would you-A.) Believe it?B.) Consider it a scientific theory?C.) Be OK with the idea of it being taught in public schools?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I would like to ask three simple questions:

​

If you came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design/Creation had more evidence than evolution, would you-

​

A.) Believe it?

​

B.) Consider it a scientific theory?

​

C.) Be OK with the idea of it being taught in public schools?

---

That's a mighty big IF, but I guess I would have to say A)yes, B)Maybe, C)Maybe... but only IF...Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

CS, your question is fundimentally flawed in so many ways, that it is impossible to answer the question honestly.1. ID/Creationism cannot ever be scientific. The basic flaw is that deities cannot be proven or more importantly disproven. Because they explain everything, they explain nothing. IF you dont believe that statement, try to find any evidence that could possibly NOT be explained by envoking some deity.2. Evidence exists independant of the theories that explain that evidence. No theory has more evidence than any other theory, the evidence exists. Which theory explains that evidence BETTER is the theory that holds sway. Which is why no theory is ever proven, a new theory may come along that explains the evidence better, or new evidence may surface that falsifies the current best explanation.3. In the 150 years since Darwin proposed his theory, the IDists and creationists have presented exactly zero scientific theories to explain the evidence. Why do you suppose that is? And why do you think they will do so in the next 150 years? Creationism/ID have spent 150 years saying evolution cannot..., instead of doing the science necessary to present their own theory.4. Without this theoretical framework, there is simply no way to evalute whether ID/Creationism have any validity in explaining the evidence. As such, there is no way to honestly answer the question, IMO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I would like to ask three simple questions:

​

If you came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design/Creation had more evidence than evolution, would you-

​

A.) Believe it?

​

B.) Consider it a scientific theory?

​

C.) Be OK with the idea of it being taught in public schools?

---

A) Yes
B) Yes
C) YesBut..... it does you no good.A) I'll change my mind about anything if you can provide something tangible. Why tangible? I want to see, hear, taste, smell, or touch the evidence. If I can't do so, what kind of evidence is it? Oh sure... there are the voices in my head......B)You'll have to convert creationism to SCIENCE before it can be a scientific theory, which means it will have to be testable. But that will send us all to Hell, 'cause we ain't supposed to question. Just ask doubting Thomas.C) If it has merit, teach it in school. But it has to have merit first, otherwise we might as well line up a bunch of people and have them shout their opinions to the kids in school.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

"CS, your question is fundimentally flawed in so many ways, that it is impossible to answer the question honestly."Actually, my questions are not flawed. In fact, you seem to answer them in your four points below."ID/Creationism cannot ever be scientific."In other words: "For question number 2, my answer is no"."Evidence exists independant of the theories that explain that evidence. No theory has more evidence than any other theory, the evidence exists. Which theory explains that evidence BETTER is the theory that holds sway."You're right, but this seems to be a minor nitpick."3. In the 150 years since Darwin proposed his theory, the IDists and creationists have presented exactly zero scientific theories to explain the evidence."Wait a second, I told you that this is if you were *theoretically* convinced that evidence was better explained under the Creation/ID viewpoint. My question was irrespective of your personal belief of the level of scientific support these models hold now."Without this theoretical framework, there is simply no way to evalute whether ID/Creationism have any validity in explaining the evidence. As such, there is no way to honestly answer the question, IMO."It seems your difficulty in answering the questions is due to your view that in no way ever could Creation/ID have scientific evidence. (However, this does answer questions 2 and 3, both being negative I assume). The reason you claim that you cannot answer the 1st question is that you believe deitys are a prerequisite of either Creation or ID, and thus it is impossible for either to have evidence. Therefore, you believe that irrespective of the scientific observations observed on earth, you would not believe Creation/ID will ever have a scrap of evidence? I guess that answers my question well enough.

​

[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 05-30-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
That's a mighty big IF, but I guess I would have to say A)yes, B)Maybe, C)Maybe... but only IF...

​

Moose

​

---

Haha, you seem a bit nervous there moose. I guess it is blasphemus to entertain thoughts of Creation/ID having more evidence.

I'm not sure what the point of this theoretical exercise is, but here goes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I would like to ask three simple questions:

​

If you came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design/Creation had more evidence than evolution, would you-

​

A.) Believe it?

​

B.) Consider it a scientific theory?

​

C.) Be OK with the idea of it being taught in public schools?

---

A. Sure. If I was convinced by the positive evidence (LOL) that supernatural creation was a fact, I'd have no choice but to "believe" it. Hell, I'd "believe" (don't you mean "accept"?) the moon was made of green cheese if there was compelling physical evidence for it.B. Duh-oh - wouldn't that axiomatically follow from A? If there was positive evidence for something - testable, replicatable, solid - then it would by definition be scientific.C. Again, this follows automatically from A. If it's science, it should be taught (think plate tectonics and special relativity).And your point in all of this is...?

Cobra, you may not believe this but when I first started to read M. Behe's book, Darwins Black Box, I thought that he might be onto something or have discovered something new. Not neccessarily proof of creation or a creator, but some biochemical concept which would either supplement or toss out NS and put in foundations for a new paradigm. So, onto your questions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I would like to ask three simple questions:

​

If you came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design/Creation had more evidence than evolution, would you-

​

A.) Believe it?

​

B.) Consider it a scientific theory?

​

C.) Be OK with the idea of it being taught in public schools?

---

The answers would be, in a slightly altered order
B) If Irreducuble Complexity, the biological framework on which ID pins the bulk of its hopes, had met the criteria for a scientific theory then yes,I would consider it to be one. Unfortunatley it does not, at least not by any of the standard (and some of them are quite old) basis for scientific theories that I am familiar with. In fact, Behe himself admitted in "Mere Creation" that ID could not be disproven , thereby eliminating it from the realm of science. This actually renders the question moot.A) While I would not use the term belief the term accept might fit here. And if there were evidence to support the theories again my answer would be yes I could and would accept it. The problem is that I have found no evidence to support the theories propogated by people from the Discovery Institute or from their associates. Current gaps in understanding of aspects of Natural Selection does not make up for an opposing theory, they have to come up with methods or models of their own which explain the overall picture better and, hopefully, fill in the gaps. I also found a number of flaws in the underlying logic of Irreducible Complexity which I have pointed out on this and other boards. Namely M. Behe ignored large bodies of data in a number of his examples, cilia and blood clotting are two of the most erroneous, which fit a model of descent with modification better. The only area where I think that he has a point, although it is not the one which he is trying to make, is the one which TB and I have discussed a small amount. Namely the current gaps in knowledge pertaining to major protein families. My opinion is that many of these problems are going to be found more in looking at protein structural features which are often shared between families (my favorite example being nucleotide folds) which may help to "bridge the gap" between these major families. I think that TB is in error w.r.t. the novelty issue but we do agree that it is an interesting problems.All of the above leads me to:
C) Teaching ID in public schools, as ID has not met the criteria required in questions A and B; namely it does not meet the criteria for being a scientific theory and it does not provide any evidence, despite their attempts for find it, for their "model", I think that teaching it in science would be an attempt to impose a religious belief onto people and therefor unconstitutional as well as being morally wrong.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

​

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-31-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-31-2002]

"I'm not sure what the point of this theoretical exercise is, but here goes:"Actually, the questions seem fairly obvious to me, but there have been a variety of answers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Haha, you seem a bit nervous there moose. I guess it is blasphemus to entertain thoughts of Creation/ID having more evidence.

---

As I see it, the only evidence for ID would be for the IDer (God I presume) or a representitive of the IDer to make a prominent appearance on earth. Then God would have to give an impressive showing of that he is was capable of doing and implimenting the IDing, and give an explanation of what the true story really is.Now, that explaination may or may not invalidate part or all of the mainstream scientific views. And even if the scientific views were invalidated, that might still not make ID a scientific alternative. Maybe a theological alternitive might replace the scientific alternative, but it still wouldn't be science.Summary: A very real supernatural explanation is still supernatural, and outside the realm of science. As such, it shouldn't be taught as science.It, however, sure would have a powerful impact on religious beliefs.So my answers are still yes, maybe, maybe.I still think, if God did indeed make an appearance, his message would be that the universe and earth were very old, and that biological evolution was a substantial part of the execution his designed plan.Insert plug for Finding Darwin's God topic.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

But if a sum of centromeres define a figure bound this side of absoutle space and time a la Newton .... and Brad is beyond the average grasp .... Creation and Evolution can work together contrary to the parents functor position affect. Catch the psychology. Scope the anthropology and Slant the socitiology without spin!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I would like to ask three simple questions:

​

If you came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design/Creation had more evidence than evolution, would you-

​

A.) Believe it?

---

Given sufficient evidence I would ACCEPT it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

B.) Consider it a scientific theory?

---

No, becuase it's not a scientific theory.Your evidence might be that God appears and says 'Look,
I made the whole lot, OK!' that doesn't make it a scientific
theory.To put it in another way ... it is not a scientific theory that
the sky is blue ... it is a matter of well documented, incontrovertable evidence.Evidence of an intelligent designer would not make ID as it stands
any more or less scientific than it already is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

C.) Be OK with the idea of it being taught in public schools?

---

No. Teach the evidence and let the pupils decide. That is
also my preference for evolution, quantum physics, mechanics,
etc.My preferred teaching style is to deliver evidence and data as
impartially as I can ... although you might not think so from
the way post here

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
No. Teach the evidence and let the pupils decide. That is
also my preference for evolution, quantum physics, mechanics,
etc.

​

My preferred teaching style is to deliver evidence and data as
impartially as I can ... although you might not think so from
the way post here

---

My problem with that is that I don't think public school children (ages 10-17 or so) have the wherewithal to determine what the most appropriate conclusions are. Prime example - you can tell a teenager that smoking causes cancer, etc., but they will still smoke.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
My problem with that is that I don't think public school children (ages 10-17 or so) have the wherewithal to determine what the most appropriate conclusions are. Prime example - you can tell a teenager that smoking causes cancer, etc., but they will still smoke.

---

I agree. You cannot expect middle and high school students to sift through mountains of raw data. The point of schooling, after all, is to get kids up to speed so that they CAN evaluate such things. So you give them as close to fact as we can manage, and that means giving them the theories most respected by those in the appropriate fields of science. In this case there is an overwhelming and nearly unanimous vote AGAINST creation. Sorry....------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

The only problem is that is sort of an argument from authority in itself. Here's an interesting article that's kinda related: http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1170