The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.

To me, it almost sound like you're using part of the post to return this "cheap shot" with one of your own.But moving on to the topic, I don't think you could argue that any piece of empirical evidence supports evolution or any theory. Evolution is simply an interpretation of empiricical evidence, and ID is another. Pure empiricical evidence is inherently neutral by itself. What matters is interpretation, and intrepretation was a key component of Darwin's theory of evolution.

quote:

---

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
     Response to ACLU ID FAQ: Part 4
Furthermore, much of the research on intelligent design involves interpreting previous findings from the fields of biology, cosmology, physics, geology, and chemistry, and seeing how it fits under an intelligent design hypothesis. The reader should be reminded that when Darwin published Origin of Species back in 1859, Darwin himself had done very little research directly related to evolutionary biology. Rather, he reinterpreted the knowledge of biologists at that time under a different paradigm--the paradigm of evolution.

---

Now this quote later goes on to show us how ID scientists are reinterpretting existing empirical evidence under the ID paradigm, but the idea here is moreso that scientific theories are paradigms to interpret empirical evidence, rather than actual scientific facts. There was a time where the paradigm of Newtoninan mechanics was assumed to be ultimate explanation for the motion of all objects (which seemed reasonable at the time), but the discovery of the quantum world forced a new paradigm to emerge to explain this world (and to date there has not been a good paradigm which unites the two worlds). The idea here is that even solid theories like Newtonian mechanics can have discrepencies and problems, and that paradigms are not as scientifically sound as actual empirical evidence.

The comment about her making a cheap shot didn't really contribute much. Allow me to provide you with an alternative wording which gets the same point across in a much friendlier way:

Before I go into specifics, let me say that your post presents a very narrow view which seems to make a good case for censorship and limiting free academic thought. How could it be possible to make progress in science then? We once believed in a geocentric solar system, and before evolution was invented, another theory predated evolution that was superior to evolution until evolution gained more recognition. How could these old theories (especially the geocentric solar system) become outdated under your view? How could the heliocentric view, which was at one time inferior, overtake the geliocentric view if it was considered unscientific? It has to make an impossible quantum leap from unscientific (because it's inferior) to scientifically superior. Especially critical is how Origin of Species could be considered unscientific because it was at one time part of an inferior theory. You're running an inherent contradiction here. If a theory is a worse form of science, then that means the scientific method has been used with less success to support this theory. However, the premise is that the scientific method was used, so even if the science may not have been as good, it's still science. You can't equate bad science with being unscientific.Also, no scientific theory is perfect. Newtonian mechanics can't explain the quantum world, and vice-versa. Likewise, there may be holes in evolution that ID can explain, and holes in ID that evolution can explain. Until you can find a scientific theory which has no holes, alternative theories must be considered, and empirical evidence needs to be reexamined.This message has been edited by commike37, 04-05-2005 11:22 PM

1. You're still missing the point of a quantum leap that is required to change theories. If we continues under the viewpoint that theory A is the best and all others are unscientific, we create a lock-in effect. Whenever new evidence comes to light, naturally we will tend to consider it through the dominant paradigm. [qs]FAQ: Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?
Essentially, Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[/i] explains, scientists operate under a paradigm, which is an overarching theory that provides a framework for interpreting data, performing experiments, and doing further research. Paradigms are typically unquestioned, and reign over thinking in science much like the established law reigns over a system of courts. [/qs] Since all other theories are unscientific, people will much rather adapt new evidence to the current paradigm rather than consider a new one. For example, the QWERTY keyboard isn't the most efficient one, but it's so ingrained into our society that it is locked in even though it's not the more efficient keyboard. This lock-in effect happens in science as well. Therefore, if you consider all other theories unscientific, this will naturally give them a greater barrier to overcome, and the "lock-in" effect will substantially hinder scientific progress. This "lock-in" create de facto censorship and limitation of free academic thought. As a result, we need to be more open to other scientific paradigms to better promote progress in science. The key to this is differentiating between empirical evidence and paradigms which explain the evidence, and treating them separately.2. There's still a distinction between "bad" science and being unscientific. You're running an eithor/or logical fallacy here, saying that either it has be the best theory or its unscientific. The whole idea that "there may be holes in evolution that ID can explain, and holes in ID that evolution can explain" is that certain theories can have specific advantages to them. Just because one theory has more holes doesn't mean that the entire theory as a whole should be discredited. Also, paradigms for explaining the world with empirical evidence are not as factual as the empirical evidence itself, so it certainly is legitimate to reexamine paradigms even without new evidence.

First off, I would like to point out that your running very close to a naturallistic fallacy with this argument.1. The whole idea of the lock-in effect is that it gives certain theories or certain methods a higher priority just because they've been around longer. Going back to my example, the QWERTY keyboard is still used despite being inferior. So the decision is in this case is not based on merit. Likewise, if some scientists have spent lifetimes researching evolution, and if so many resources have been devoted to it, then people tend to try to interpret everything according to evolution, rather than being open-minded. Here's an example of this happening. Some things just don't seem to make sense under evolution, but people go ahead and try to explain them with evolution anyway, because evolution is the dominant paradigm. You also kind of admit this in your post, too. If Newtonian mechanisc couldn't explain Mercury's orbit, then why did it take as long as decades to replace Newtonian mechanics as you said. I know it isn't going to happen overnight, but shouldn't people have been more open-minded to alternatives to Newtonian mechanics, and wouldn't that have led us to the truth faster?2. You are defintitely running the either-or fallacy. You're saying that it's either the best theory or it's not science. That's an either-or situation. I then brought the idea of specialization (ID can explain some things evolution can't, evolution can explain some things ID can't, so certain theories have certain advantages), but you have not attempted to refute that argument in either of your posts. Also, the answer isn't always clear-cut. I remember that when I was learning in science about why the dinosaurs went extinct, they weren't exactly sure, so they gave several theories. Now some theories were more plausible than others, but there was no conclusive answer. Would it make sense to say that the theory which seemed like the best was science and that all the others were unscientific. Furthermore, you have to realize that interpretting empirical evidence is somewhat subjective, and people can certainly disagree on the interpretation. Because of all of this, you really can't say that one theory is science and all of the others are unscientific.3. Your scenario makes it impossible for new paradigms to get fair consideration. If alternative paradigms are going to be considered unscientific, then how is it possible for them to be considered in an open-minded fashion on a fair playing field?This message has been edited by commike37, 04-07-2005 04:55 PM

For those of you who have been wondering where I've been, I lost my Internet connection for a while, so that explains that.Crashfrog, did anyone teach you to never use the words always or never (all right, almost never use the words always or never). Because your statement is just one huge, untrue generalization. It first defies sound reason to believe that Dembski, Meyer, and all of these other scientists have made zero progress throughout their life time just because you said so. Furthermore, some high level people are taking interest in ID. This also goes to discredit an idea you proposed earlier, that if a theory isn't the best theory, then it's unscientific. Even though these people are scepictal of ID, they sure did take a large amount of interest into this "unscientific" theory. ID scientists also do their own research, too. If they have their own conferences, then at least one person probably thought of doing some of their own research, but if you still don't believe me, I'll provide an example of additional research they have done on the bacterial flagellum. Much farther down is reads: Now we could go into more detail about this study in specific, but the point isn't to nitpick this study. It's to show that IDers actually do perform research. They take their results and show how they fit the ID paradigm. But technically they don't need to do any research, as long as they can get existing research to conform to the ID paradigm.{Shortened display form of URL in first quote box, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-16-2005 03:35 PM

This is a blatant use of the ad hominem logical fallacy. You don't mention a single think about their actual research or accomplishments, you just say, "They're not credible because they're associated with ID." How can you possibly give ID a fair shot if you're going to use this kind of reasoning? There's a glaring contradiction with these two statemnts.
And by the way, I would like to remind you that I have a life outside of this forum. So if I have to take some time for other aspects of my life (or if I lose my Internet connection), I don't want to be characterized as a hit and run poster. How am I suppose to refute this logical flaw if I don't even see the logic as to why it's flawed?

Do I call into question the credibility of a scientific conference on evolution just because it was by evolution scientists? No. The only warrant I've seen from you and Holmes on the credibility and success of this conference is that it was by ID scientists. However, the people at this conference have more credibility than you because they are actual scientists. For example, one of the people who was on the International Scientific Advisory Committee for this conference, Adrian Bejan, has a Ph.D. from MIT, is listed by ISI highycited.com as Highly Cited, and has a quite impressive set of credentials (source: http://hcr3.isiknowledge.com/author.cgi?&link1=Browse&lin...). Unless you can bring in another scientist or other credible source showing why this is an uncredible conference, then the only warrant you have against its credibility is that it is related to ID. And I'm not going to anwer that kind of credibility challenge.

Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria is the most note-worthy piece of research coming out of the conference, but otherwise, information is scarce, as there doesn't appear to be a website for this conference. Referring to those eight Baylor biologists, though, I would like to see their specific objections to the conference, if possible. Anyone can say that ID is pseudo-science, but I hope that these scientists could provide a good, scientific line of reasoning as to why this conference is merely pseudo-science.