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

Well, me too, and not to turn this into a physics debate, but I see little point to studying H-J formalism if not to see the connection between the classical and quantum level of Hamiltonians. Yes, the equations of motion are different, but expressing things in terms of an energy operator is the thing that ties the two together. I've certainly not used H-J since passing comps many moons ago.I see where Poster #3 was going with his analogy, but I thought it was a poor choice of analogy.The whole basic problem with ID is twofold:1) As science, it's failed so far. Perhaps Dembski will address his mathematical misconceptions and errors. But I'm not holding my breath. He seems more interested in veering into the philosophical, which brings us to...2) As philosophy, even if we develop evidence that an intelligence was involved in designing the universe...what kind of intelligence ? You can't rule out a panentheistic intelligence of the kind implied by Buddhism or liberal Christian theology like process theology on ID grounds alone. If you want to argue for the "orthodox" conception of God you are right back to faith based arguments and outside of science again. So what have you accomplished ?

I agree, except that I would add that any choice of analogy would be poor, since all the analogies show that scientists quite willingly (and often quickly) change paradigms when a superior one is developed. I can't think of a case (except, perhaps, in cases where the scientists had to acknowledge a central authority whose displeasure could be disasterous) where the scientific community, as a whole, exhibited fierce resistance to a new "paradigm" that turned out to be correct. While it is true that changes in paradigm tend to occur very quickly -- it may even seem "all at once" for those not familiar with the particular field -- this change tends to occur rather quickly after the new theory is first introduced. That ID has been around for such a relatively long time and has not managed to win over any significant members of the relevant communities suggests that ID is a poor choice for a potential new paradigm.

I can think of several, but one recent one jumps to mind. Alfred Wegener's continental drift theory. In all fairness, the weight of evidence in favor of the theory was not substantial until the 1950's, so the mainstream geological community's objections were not based on irrationality.

I thought of that one, too, but I decided not to count it since, if I recall correctly, Wegener didn't actually have a theory -- he just noticed that the shapes of the continents were suggestive of a past super continent, but proposed no mechanism to explain how the continents could have separated (at least no correct one). Without a plausible mechanism, as you say, the rejection of Wegener's idea was not unreasonable.But maybe you're right -- it should count as a counter example. But in the spirit of this analogy, maybe the IDistas will come up with a theory that can be used to definitely identify intelligent design, and we can sit back and have our paradigms shift!

quote:

---

maybe the IDistas will come up with a theory that can be used to definitely identify intelligent design, and we can sit back and have our paradigms shift!

---

Point well taken.
I am already sitting back further than most of the rest here.
I dimly see one, I just dont want to do all the deconstruction nessesary to create this place for space.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-06-2005 11:47 AM

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)

Hey commike, good to have you back. "Through the dominant paradigm" is a bit vague, but it is the case that all scientific evidence should be viewed in relation to the prevailing hypothesis or theory, in order to see if the new evidence falsifies, confirms, or alters the prevailing theory.I find it hard to believe that you are claiming that dominant paradigms are essentially unchallenged, since you yourself started a thread ("Mendel wasn't entirely right") regarding a scientific finding that did just that, and suggested a hypothesis that would could count as a potential "quantum leap" in our understanding of inheritance, if it remains unrefuted. You've got it backwards. New found evidence is not adapted to prevailing theories; theories are adapted to new found evidence.You should also realize what you are implying here by claiming that scientists "adapt evidence" - you are essentially calling them frauds and liars, since they simply change the evidence that doesn't fit a prevailing theory. All other theories are NOT unscientific until they are refuted by evidence. Untested theories are simply untested theories.I'm going to make the not-too-bold assumption that you are referring to Intelligent Design as a 'paradigm' that is considered unscientific simply because it stands in the shadow of other prevailing theories (Big Bang, Evolution...). I'm also beginning to surmise that you are using the word 'paradigm' rather than 'theory', because you may just be now realizing that the Intelligent Design community doesn't have a falsifiable theory.If the Intelligent Design camp produces a falsifiable hypothesis or theory, it can be tested, even if just by considering existing evidence - then and only then can we truly determine the potential scientific merit of Intelligent Design.I fear the Intelligent Design camp will never allow this to happen, and thus Intelligent Design will remain forever untested - the stuff of philosophy.

I was afraid that I might have been repeating an oversimplified version of the story. Thanks for the clarification.Reminds me when I was in graduate school studying planetary science. Due to my philosophical biases, my preference was for a completely terrestrial explanation for the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. It was unfortunate for my preferences (but fortunate for the progress of science) that the Chicxulub impact site was discovered.

Just want to say I appreciate your points and that's pretty much what I was getting at in the remark I made that was quoted as the topic of this thread. The geological evidence, for instance, that is currently appropriated to old earth theory, is much better support for a worldwide Flood (I'm a YEC, not ID); and the biological evidence that is crammed into the ToE fits at least as well the view of variation limited to species, not evolution from species to species.The "lock-in" effect of evolutionist thinking sure is evident on this site, to the point of rigor mortis one might say.I have nothing else to say, no interest in participating in this discussion; I just wanted to make that statement of appreciation and agreement with your posts here.

If that's true, then why does the worldwide Flood theory convince so few Christian geologists?

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)

Sure. It's easy for you to just sit back and say the flood is responsible for everything on the planet because all you're doing is looking at names and pictures of rocks on websites.Why don't you attempt to explain to us exactly HOW (i.e., under what specific conditions, changing chemistry, changing source rocks, etc.) the flood would deposit shale vs. limestone vs. sandstone. You see all those rocks in the Grand Canyon - WHY?And then explain things like HOW you can have freshwater limestone being deposited during the flood - in the Grand Canyon's Temple Butte Limestone.In fact, the Temple Butte Limestone is composed of freshwater limestone (replete with freshwater fossils and plant roots casts) in the east AND marine dolomite (replete with marine fossils) in the west. Additionally, it also contains sandy dolomite, ripple-laminated mudstones, sandstone, and conglomerates. How is that possible?Why is the Temple Butte Limestone discontinuous - occurring in some places and not in others? What caused the depressions at the top of the Muav Limestone?Have you read any papers specific to each formation in the Grand Canyon?Here is a LINK that provides references for each formation in the Grand Canyon. Unless you have read at least one paper (not a website) detailing each formation, you don't know a thing about the geology at the Grand Canyon. And you most certainly cannot suggest, based on your exceedingly limited understanding of the actual rocks at the Grand Canyon, that the rest of the world's rocks must also have been deposited by a flood.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 04-07-2005 10:06 AM

Very nicely stated, but.....1) There are no theories, hypotheses, or even logic-based explanations.
2) There is no empirical evidence in support of IDists by IDists, or otherwise at this point in time.
3) There is just the naive, juvenile, immature desire for unmerited recognition in an arena where everyone else has to be able to logically explain and provide good evidence that their "crackpot" idea should even be considered.Like anyone else, these groups (YECs/IDists), could have found funding somewhere....but they have chosen not to. Hmmm, almost reminds me of some bible scripture to the effect of the answers being there if you look for them???? They aren't even attempting to look, they have chosen presumption instead.

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

I've argued this in many threads. Cheap shot yourself, buster.