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

Hi ho, is this going to be another drive by, or are you going to stick around and respond? You have some responses waiting for you in other threads.In any case, here is my response to you here... It is not that all others are unscientific simply because theory A happens to be our current best model. How others use evidence for their construction will determine if alternative theories are "scientific" in the context of modern science. That's how people work on alternative theories. However, holding on to an alternative theory and talking about a theory which is NOT the best theory as if it must be viewed as equal or better, despite it not even coming close is unscientific.Thus there are two criteria that determine the "scientific soundness" of an alternate theory and the actions of those promoting it:1) Following scientific methodology in constructing and researching the theory
2) Explanation of theory to others, including how that explanation advances understanding of scientific methodology.ID fails on both counts. Even if wholly valid in methodology for research (which it isn't as Dembski himself asks for a return to "old" scientific methodology) it is still without question an incomplete theory. Thus it would be wholly unscientific to claim it is a working theory.Yet they not only do this, but are using it to spearhead political efforts to block the teaching of the lead scientific theory. They cry "teach the controversy" without actually addressing the biggest one there is: ID is not a complete theory and so is not an alternative, much less a viable alternative to evolution. Even if there were as many flaws with Evo as IDists claim, Evo is still the best current model we have for the evidence.Can you admit this?As it stands there is somewhat of a "lock-in" effect within science. As evidence is viewed the best model is often the one data is initially viewed through. However, and this is what breaks out the "lock-in" effect, as data defies being viewed through that paradigm, or another paradigm explains the data better, the initial better model, can changed.The beauty of this is that science has changed models all the time. This is an interesting aspect of ID theorists. At the same time they claim that ID is another revolutionary paradigm like happened in the past, they claim that science is too rigid and will prevent their theory from coming forward. That is a contradictory position which betrays the actual intent of ID theorists. It is not that they are concerned that it be accepted by science, it is that they want it recognized as a "revolutionary paradigm" capable of overthrowing evolution right now.Dembski's writings are so egocentric on this point, it borders on the megalomaniacal. 1) ID both accepts portions of the ToE and other times rejects the entirety of it. This deends on the writer. How does this fit with an idea that evo and ID can work somehow hand in hand? It appears ID has yet to make up its mind whether it is to fill gaps evolutionary theory has, or replace it entirely.2) Trying to argue a similarity between Newton-Einstein and ToE-ID is almost patently absurd. The former deals with different environments and showing how one is simply a set of another larger model. The latter is covering the exact same material and offers completely different conclusions.3) The theory with more holes is not necessarily discredited as a possibility, but it is discredited as an equal alternative as best scientific model. Right? This is the crux of the problem scientists have with ID. Current ID theorists have jumped from a logical possibility to an equal alternative everyone must be made aware of, and issues within the evolutionary model exploited as "problems" pointing to its demise rather than fields of ongoing research which might produce excellent results. Absolutely. What is not legitimate is to be creating lines of books and videos stating it is a legitimate theory somehow on par with the current best model science has, as well as pushing it into home-school curricula en masse, as well as public schools by legal fiat.You know the difference between Newton-Einstein and ToE-ID? Einstein didn't get his views forced on school systems by contacting his religious-aligned congressmen to draft legislation, nor convincing nonscience majors running school boards that they need to get more of it in the classroom.Big difference. ID is not moving in a very scientific manner.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually there were theories as to how they could move (and more than just shapes to show they might have been together), just not any singular stand out theories with solid evidence to back them up. Of course the position remains the same, which is that there was no reason to accept it and some reason to reject it.I knew a prof who was on the losing end of the Continental Drift fight. I thought it was quite enlightening to hear about science's flexibility and adherence to evidence from a guy that did reject a theory on grounds of lack of evidence which was later shown to be true when more evidence was uncovered. Obviously he did not just keep sticking with his original stance and picket the courts to keep it in play.This kind of stuff just keeps cropping up as evidence against ID theorists' conspiracy theories of how science works against them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is of course a case of the blind complimenting her blind guide for getting her closer to the goal which neither of them know whether they are actually closer to.And it goes to show how ID and Creo go hand in hand. They both want modern science to be treated as science as it was conducted long ago, and simply do not recognize that there is a difference. Really, then I guess you don't agree with Commike. See he's an ID theorist and they are OE and firmly reject the idea that anyone practicing science can come to the conclusion that YE and things like the flood have better support.How do you deal with this inconsistency of degrading Evos for holding the exact same theory that the ID theorists, who you give pats on the back? Can't you see that it is because they help you in two other subjects? First, any knocking of the ToE makes you think your Creo position is aided, and second you share the same idea of science and so support each other in sawing away at the legs of modern science.If its not that, then what is it? Really? What is the evidence for a barrier between variation leading to changes great enough we'd consider descendants another species? Without evidence for such a barrier, the ToE fits better. What is really sad to me is that you are an excellent writer and clearly not incapable intellectually of understanding what I have bee saying to you. The only rigor mortis I see is self-induced and involving the body of knowledge you have of the history/philosophy/methodology of science.I honestly wish you would take the blinders off and study a bit more about modern science so you can come to these debates prepared and not have to run the same circular arguments. And of course this is the other bad habit both creos and ID theorists share... hi, insert proselytization, leave.Why not stick around and actually join debate, which involves as much trying to understand the other side, as preaching your own?This message has been edited by holmes, 04-07-2005 04:13 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agreed with almost everything you said, but have an issue with this response to C's comment regarding non-best theories being non-scientific.I do believe it is a fallacy to say all theories which are not the best are not scientific. I'm sort of assuming you don't mean to actually say that. But whether you are or not, I'm going to address this as if you are.There are many theories in all sorts of fields, some are currently used as the best working model, but in some cases none have risen to the "best" and some of the "best" are quite tentative (using very little evidence). It would be odd to call all theories within these fields that are not "best" as somehow non-scientific.Further, in fields where there is a "best" theory, that does not make all other alternative theories non-scientific, nor their investigation non-scientific.A good example (and this was mentioned in this thread or another) was Continental Drift. That was only accepted by science as the best theory around the middle of last century. Until that time the best theory did not include plates shifting around carrying continents all over the globe. So were those working on Continental Drift theories and championing them against nonCD scientists being unscientific?I would find that a pretty big stretch of the term unscientific. And just to make it clear CD really was tentative and there were fights within the scientific community, kind of like the ongoing fights of causes for extinctions or models of dinosaur behavior.It seems to me the unscientific nature of a theory is not based at all on its tentativeness, nor its not being the currently accepted paradigm. Rather it is how the theory is constructed, and the methods employed to investigate its validity.It is within this framework that we can see how ID and Creo fall apart in comparison to things like CD. Unlike CD, which simply gave evidence, recognized its tentative nature and posited future evidence which could be obtained to prove its validity, ID and Creo specifically require nullification of evidentiary rules to get some submitted as evidence and go on to ask that we accept these theories in the face of never being able to obtain proof of validity.That said, it is unscientific of any person to champion and tentative theory as if it is equal to the best current theory and ask that it be taught along side the reigning theory. Alternative theories within a field are not supposed to be taught alongside the reigning theory to beginner students, unless it is truly equal in evidence. Tentative theories with less evidence supporting them are only appropriate for discussion by people advanced in the field so they know how to avoid the errors beginners make.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, and if you read my post you would see how I attacked that. I stated quite clearly that your agreement with his general statement of how theories are held and defended showed exactly why ID and Creo theorists are identical in either not understanding or willfully trying to undercut scientific methodology.His description, like those you made before, were not of modern science. It is deductive reasoning with lower limits of evidentiary requirements.Indeed for all of your talk of Kuhn, you seem to have not understood what he was saying. Hitting a reply button and typing something is not debating... even if what you write is quite eloquent. Debate requires that arguments accurately address each other's positions and arguments, which itself requires understanding the opponents position and arguments.You have been ducking actual debate by instead:1) Repeating your own position as if it did not need to be defended
2) Ignoring arguments made against your position
3) Restating that you cannot get a fair debate (evidence to the contrary), as if that was part of the debate in every thread.
4) Refusing to address the history and nature of modern scientific methodology, and what that might mean for the nature of your position and the debate itself.I find it very odd that you would feel offended by my saying you are not debating, when most of your posts repeat that evos avoid debate, and you have said so specifically to me on more than one occassion.Whenever you are ready to engage yourself in an actual debate, I stand ready.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Perhaps, but not with respect to me.I do not believe in evolution as a "fact", other than we can certainly see changes in life forms from generation to generation, and we have evidence that the nature of life was different at earlier times of earth's existence (regardless of OE or YE). Whether the immediate experience of the former fact is related to the latter fact is not itself a fact but the best theory we have going.And while you are right that would only be considered a "fact" in law, it is the ID and creo crowd which are pushing for that definition more than the evo crowd. I certainly admit some evos view the ToE as more factual and less tentative than they should, but right now ID theorists (and Creos) as a whole are clearly arguing for the legalistic, rather than scientific model of "fact" or "theory".Both camps are making a big mistake, evos as a minority within a larger group, ID and Creos as the leadership and so tenets of their field.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I also assume that Crash was trying to say this as well, but felt like I should put in my two cents in case he wasn't (and to let him know his words could be misread).Then again I do want to nitpick a bit and say it is not so much whether we accept such theories, but how we go about accepting them.The proponents of CD were pretty convinced of (i.e. they did accept) the validity of CD theory. Its just they did not go around saying it was proven to be equal or more valid than nonCD geology, and recognized that there was work to do. I suppose in a way they were showing faith in a theory, which is a bit unscientific, except that they acknowledged that nonCD had the floor until they could come up with better.If IDists and Creos were like the CD theorists then we wouldn't have them in our legislatures and judiciary, much less our educational establishments telling us not to believe in the ToE because just you wait, or that evo has really been overturned... which is a lie.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Guy, I don't know who you are talking to but it isn't me. I never got to lecture you on the errors of your answers since the thread was closed before I could respond.All I got to do was make the initial post stating what the issue was, and then restate that the issue needed to be addressed because you were arguing against something I had not said. Because I am pretty good at logic and science. At the very least you should be interested in educating yourself better on the topics and how to debate your point. Can I take this as an admission you probably did not have much respect for science before, and so did not have much understanding of the topic you claimed to have significant knowledge of (with respect to evidence in that field). ???? I remain ready to debate you, if when you wish to engage in actual dialogue.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, not failing to grasp the point, but rather to ignore the actual point in order tto simply preach about the effectiveness of Xian home schooling. I'd have had no problem with that, except it was entirely besides the point. I take this as an admission you will refuse to address actual points of arguments made to you and continually seek out bare sentences you have the ability to attack in an ad hominem fashion.I see you are now actually seeking getting banned too. Its too bad a person with evident ability to write, is so insistent on avoiding communication.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Right, I only wrote at least two posts praising you without any criticism at all within the first thread I encountered you, and seconded a POTM nomination for you (as well as defending that seconding).I am beginning to see a rule however. You claim to be set upon by evos, and then repeat that charge at all times and at all costs, including your own credibility when it can be pointed out that you have not only not been attacked, but at times have been praised.Perhaps you should learn to recognize and accept praise, as well as understand and accept criticism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

My charge was neither that Xians cannot give good schooling, nor that having Xian schooling would lead to deterioration of standards. No it wasn't. I was concerned that if curricula in fields could be changed based on beliefs, then the result would become a splintering of standards within education.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I was not implying, nor intending to imply that it was Xian or Creo belief in and of itelf that would cause a lowering of standards. There are plenty of other beliefs that someone could argue from that would be just as problematic for standards (if they used the rule you were arguing for). Whether they taught subjects at a "high standard" is irrelevant for my point. You are equivocating. I am stating that standards of curricula would be undercut, which means that there would no longer be accurate understandings of what knowledge of any particular field required in its background.For example, geographers and geologists generally expect instruction in round earth models, but if we are allowed to remove that standard because flat earthers do not believe the "theory" of a round earth, then we have broken a central standard. Indeed flat earthers could teach at extremely high standards, including within geography and geology which do not in and of themselves require "round earth" models. They just wouldn't teach, or teach as counterfactual the main model, one of the standards for those fields.There are more examples of course, but we could stick with that one for argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Instead of shouting you might just go back and look at what is being said. It is quite clear you were (though it doens't have to be intentional). You were clearly taking about standards in the sense of quality (otherwise high standards is meaningless), and I was talking about standards in the sense of set curricula (agreed upon as important by those within the field).If you do not get that employing the term "high standards" implicitly means you are not discussing the "standards" I am talking about, you need to take a breather and figure out that there are two definitions being used here. That fact should indicate exactly why I am worried. You said that the legal criteria for not being taught something is belief in something else, and that one's own theories should be taught as true (at least to ones self) and you should be accredited for that knowledge. To do otherwise is to introduce church vs state issues.The result of this is that (using your argument) those two flat earthers can form a homeschool and expect accreditation for teaching students flat-earth, instead of round earth theories.And more frightening to me than the example case given, are the holocaust disbelievers (which are more numerous than the flat earthers), and the many other belief systems which might emerge in the future and suddenly want accreditation.I don't believe we are best served by allowing individuals to decide what the standards of a field should be. This sentence makes no sense given the nature of the words being used. Let me illustrate by rewriting it using the actual meanings in play:"High quality instruction means curricular subject areas expected by members in that field of study, the onese accepted by All"It is slightly contradictory, unless you are going to refute your own position that Xian kids should be taken out of public schools. How can they do this if they teach anything other than that the ToE and OE timelines are the best models modern science has to offer? Those are currently the national standards. Those are the ones accepted by "all".Unless by all you do not mean those in established fields of biology or geology. In that case I would like to know what you mean by all, other than each community of residents (regardless of knowledge), and thus a splintering of standards would result.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I did. First you falsely accused all evos of having to resort to blaming nonevos as having evil intentions. Second you proceeded to prove once again you do not understand the methodology of modern science and instead posit a deductive system as modern science.This is getting tiresome. Why don't you read up on actual scientific methods and the history of them. Even some logic might help (meaning there are some logical techniques being employed in science you seem unaware of).Why do you assume that you are not mistaken, when you talk to people in that specific field, and they tell you that you are making a mistake? And that includes the field of ID theory which I have read quite a bit of.Have you read any of Dembski's books?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Essentially percy asked people to drop discussing lies and such so I'm going to drop it completely.I will just say that in addressing your post I was not trying to get into the debate you were having with PK, rather I was addressing the broad statement you made about evos which was untrue, and pointing out that yet again you managed to make statements about how science functions which are inaccurate.Thus I was showing that an old debate, which you have refused to take part in, was within a post on a different subject.I think I have said enough times on this site that I think ID theorists actually believe their theory is correct, and that methodology must change (that will be an improvement), and so are not patent liars. Nor do I believe they have evil intentions, even if I do not like the results of their position (that is I find them negative).Whether one article printed by some ID theorist contains a lie or not does not swing the debate of EvC or EvID one bit, at least not one significant bit. Therefore that part of this thread is not important to me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)