Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

I think this is another "what does the word mean" item. Note the second part. That is what a scientific assumption is. It equates to a hypothesis. It gives the scientist something to work with. It is not a final solution.Edited by bluescat48, : typo

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

I really do not know what weaknesses the Discovery Institute teaches. I have never read the stuff on their website. About all I know about them is what I have heard on this forum over the past month or so. I know they promote ID and argue something about irreducible complexity. Beyond that I could tell you very little about their arguments. As for other creationist websites, I have only read a little off their websites. I have actually learned more about the creationist websites from talk origins then from the websites themselves. I would not go that far. You are an evolutionist and I am a creationist so there has to be an argument, doesn’t there? It just may not be in this thread.My position is that children should be taught the truth. My understanding was that this thread is dealing with a particular issue. That issue is that a certain group of people are proposing that “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution be placed into textbooks in Texas. I do not know what those “weaknesses” are. If I did then I could give my opinion on whether they are “weaknesses” and whether they should be taught in school. As I said, I do not really know what they are proposing. If certain words make people feel better then I am all for using those words. Good. The list could have been a strawman. It appears we have no idea what the real list will include.As for there being no weaknesses related to dating, I do not agree. Although, that is a debate for another thread, and one that eventually I will attempt to discuss. We do not already know that there are no such “weaknesses” as the proponents want to put forward. How can we know that without looking at what they are proposing? That confuses me. It has not been harder than I thought because I have never looked for these “weaknesses” beyond going to the one link that I was provided, and a quick Google search that brought up the Gabler list. As I said before, it is not me that has to show it. Sooner or later, I would assume that someone is going to present something to the education board or whoever they present these things to. At that time we will know what they are proposing. Unless you know of a way to get access to that information now, I am sure we will have to wait. Is the comment true? Do evolutionists have difficulty tolerating any criticism of the “Theory of Evolution.” I think to some extent it is true. This is especially true if that criticism is coming from creationists. I would imagine that it is also difficult to accept criticism from other scientists, if that criticism could appear to support any creationist view. I disagree. I am not saying there are not people on both sides of this controversy that are lying. I am also not saying that there are not people on both sides of this controversy that are self deluded. However, that is not why the controversy exists. That is only a symptom of the controversy. It would be like saying you are sick because you have a running nose, and a fever.The controversy exists because there is a dispute as to whether God was involved at any time in any of the natural processes that we are witnessing today. If God was involved, then your conclusions (scientists) about the past are wrong. It is that clear and simple. If God was not involved, then your conclusions about the past may be right (but based upon the history of science they are probably still wrong). Not completely wrong, but steadily moving in that direction of becoming more right.If God was involved though, your conclusions will never be right. That does not mean you cannot understand the present. It only means that your interpretation of the past will always be wrong.I say that you (science) are wrong. Does that make me a liar? Not in my opinion. You say that I am wrong. Does that make you a liar? Not in your opinion. Do you think that I am deluded? Probably. Do I think that you are deluded? Most certainly. That is the controversy. It is irreconcilable. There can never be an agreement.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Weaknesses? Don't you mean the god of abraham? Here, permit me to reitterate what you said.

quote:

---

My position is that children should be taught the truth. My understanding was that this thread is dealing with a particular issue. That issue is that a certain group of people are proposing that the god of abraham be placed into textbooks in Texas.

---

Let's try to be honest, shall we? Please stop playing dumb. It's getting quite old.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

I am not sure what you are wanting to see. Granny was acting like there was no alterntive interpretations of the fossil record. There are thousands of links with this type of wording. That in itself should tell us that there are different interpretations of the same evidence by different scientists. That is the point that I am trying to make.Maybe when I get some time I will try to go through some of them.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Save your time. It won't help the creationist argument a bit.I had three seminars in grad school on "Problems in Evolution" (a few decades ago) and not a bit of any of those classes would cause a creationist to smile.And besides, studying evolution in that detail is not something creationists want to do anyway.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Bluescat,I really am not understanding your post. I would think the first defintion would apply to a scientific theory. Here is a definition I found: [quote] [b]Assumptions to formulate a theory[b]This is a view shared by Isaac Asimov. In Understanding Physics, Asimov spoke of theories as "arguments" where one deduces a "scheme" or model. Arguments or theories always begin with some premises”"arbitrary elements" as Hawking calls them (see above)”which are here described as "assumptions". An assumption according to Asimov is:

quote:

---

something accepted without proof, and it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality. ... On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible.

---

[/quote]Theory - Wikipedia

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Not understanding? You are basically saying the same thing with the definition you quoted. In simple terms the assumption is the beginning not the end.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Well good, we're in agreement that then.Disputes within evolutionary biology are about the minutiae of evolution, about exactly what happened when and how it happened. This does not constitute a weakness in the theory as a whole, indeed, it is a sign of the healthy function of science. I had the impression that you were a teacher, I don't recall exactly where from, but feel free to put me right, it doesn't really matter. He means, er, you know... evolution. As per the usual definition of evolution in biology. Not just macroevolution but the whole process.The point he is trying to make is that evolution is the answer to so many questions in biology that it is essential to the modern life sciences.Why does a bower bird make its bower? Evolution.
Why do peacocks have such exaggeratedly large tails? Evolution.
Why do we never see fossil dolphins in the same strata as trilobites? Evolution.To leave evolution out of curricula, as you have suggested in this thread, is to leave far too many questions unanswered. Evolution is central to biology. The practical work that biologists do on the ground is almost invariably informed by evolution. Biology without evolution would be a joke. The Dobzhansky quote is oft used because it is true.

---

Mutate and Survive

Many years ago I was at a lecture by the late Lewis Thomas, MD. He was asked a question at the end of the talk to which he answered (paraphrased):
"I do not know enough about the area to be entitled to an opinion."Good advice. How can one presume to discuss an issue which they know little to nothing about? That is not quite the case. I am being fair and following guidelines here and only going by the material that one side or the other has brought to the table in this forum. I do have an idea of what the "real" list would include. As others have told you, we've seen all this before.Your list is a good representation of the kind of thing some want introduced into school. It is almost totally junk and dishonest. That is what this is all about -- it is not at all about improving the teaching of science nor is it about avoiding criticisms. It is about destroying the teaching and practice of science because some individuals have crazy interpretations of religious texts and their faith is so weak they can't tolerate their own, particular and, to most theologians and Christians, peculiar, interpretations being contradicted. You may not know what is being put forward. Many here do. We don't know everything but we at least wait till we know something about the subject before sallying forth with our opinions hanging out.Keep digging, your sources will supply more similar junk. With few exceptions (they are human too) evolutionists would be interested in discussing real criticisms. What has everyone's back up is having to keep dealing with ignorant nonsense and lies. That is what is being reacted to; not honest criticism, but dishonest obfuscating and utter dishonesty when willful ignorance isn't the source. So far, when the light of enough knowledge is shone on something there is no God found in the shadows. Strong faith and the acceptance of a truely powerful God doesn't have a problem with this.Weak faith sees God as a tinker who keeps fixing up His creation because it doesn't unfold as He had envisioned.Down the path you point to is a God-of-the-Gaps who gradually shrinks as the light of knowledge banishes shadows or a God as Loki the mischievous liar of Norse mythology.If you actually understood the range of theology of your own religion you would know that some of the strongest opponents of the fundamentalist mind set are theologians who see what poor theology the fundamentalists have as well as poor to non-existant knowledge of science.The belief in a variety of gods is, obviously, not precluded by science since many practitioners of science are as fully religious as you are. What is precluded by an understanding of the real world is some obsessive, warped understanding and interpretation of some religious texts. That is the controversy. Not between believers and unbelievers but between those with an understanding of the natural world combined with an ability to accept (or not) a God truly powerful and transendent and those on the other side who have the vision of god as a tribal leader with magic tricks up his sleeve.One one side are believers is a minority and extreme interpretation of texts and no understanding of and with no wish to understand the real world.On the other side are those who separate God (whether they believe in Him or not) from the mundane details of the world. Those who believe in and see God as powerful enough to create a universe knowing it would unfold in ways desirable to Him are on this side.On this side are believers and unbelievers who understand that if God exists the only true record of his handiwork is what He wrote directly into his creation. Here is where the real argument about interpretations lies. To the more sophisticated (and majority) believers when the interpretation of text in an imperfect language contradicts this writing then the interpretation is wrong. This was Galileo's view and has been the view of the majority of Christians for what is now growing into centuries.You're looking in the wrong place for the important controversies.

Perhaps you don't understand it because I never said that. Which I didn't. Because interpretation is part of how science works. Obviously. That is by no means a weakness. That is a fact of life. There are alternative interpretations of individual fossils, there are alternative interpretations of exactly how different species are related to one another. There are alternative interpretations of exactly how evolution progresses. What there is not is an alternative interpretation of the fossil record as a whole that does not involve evolution.Just for the record, here is a potted version of the scientific method, from the Wiki page of that name.1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)You keep saying that you do not believe in evolution. I challenged you to provide an alternative explanation for the lack of anachronistic fossils. I'm still waiting. What fossils? There may be debate over the specific interpretation of specific fossils, but there is no controversy within the scientific community, as I have already demonstrated to you. "Less than 0.15 percent of relevant [US] scientists" do not constitute a significant controversy.Now let's look at assumptions. Science on the whole makes only one assumption; that our evidence is real and that we can accurately observe it, i.e. we assume that reality is really real. Beyond that simple and obvious truism, there should be no assumptions in science beyond the very early steps of having an idea and formulating a hypothesis. By the time a scientific paper is published it should be entirely free of assumptions, being instead composed of conclusions based upon evidence.The theory of evolution is not dependent on any particular assumption, beyond the one outlined above, which is an inescapable part of everyday life. If you disagree, feel free to point out the assumptions on which the ToE depends. Such as? Strewth. Let me try to explain this again. You are the one who believes that evolution depends on assumptions. I am asking you to show me these "assumptions". I don't think you are going to be able to, because I don't think they exist. The clue to this is the fact that I placed the word assumptions in quotation marks.Now I'm going to ask you again, as clearly as I can;
What assumptions does the theory of evolution depend on?
What non-evolutionary alternative interpretations can you provide?

---

Mutate and Survive

I also quote it a bit more fully on my site at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#DOBZHANSKY and link to the article, Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution transcribed from The American Biology Teacher, March 1973 (35:125-129) at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml:

quote:

---

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole.

---

From computer science, we have that there's data and there's information. Data are just the numbers and text that's stored away in files; information is what we get when we process that information. Data has no meaning until it has been processed into information.In science, we have lots of data accumulated from observations and measurements of natural phenomena. Theories are conceptual models that attempt to make sense out of all that data. In biology, the theory of evolution is what helps us to make sense out of all that data.It's the difference between knowing and understanding. You can know individual facts, but you cannot know what those facts mean until you understand them and how they all fit together. Science without theories only collects data without understanding anything; it is only with theories that we can start to make sense out of the facts.On my same quotes page at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html#SCOTT I relate a story told by Dr. Eugenie Scott at a presentation I saw about 12 years ago:

quote:

---

She revealed that many colleges, especially those in the "Bible Belt", do not teach evolution to their biology students, so many degreed biologists out there have had no training in evolution. Then she related her own experiences teaching the lower-division physical anthropology course, in which she definitely did cover evolution. Every semester, a few biology seniors would enroll in her class looking for an easy A. In every such case, at some point in the semester, she would see the "ah-ha!" light suddenly come on in those students' heads as they said to themselves, "So [B][I]that's[/B][/I] why ..." Dr. Scott offered this as living confirmation of Dobzhansky's famous quote, that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

---

Pity the poor biology graduates who never learned evolution and so do not understand their chosen field.The final section of Dobzhansky's article, from which the quote was taken, reads:

quote:

---

Strength and Acceptance of the Theory

​

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.

​

This is not to imply that we know everything that can and should be known about biology and about evolution. Any competent biologist is aware of a multitude of problems yet unresolved and of questions yet unanswered. After all, biologic research shows no sign of approaching completion; quite the opposite is true. Disagreements and clashes of opinion are rife among biologists, as they should be in a living and growing science. Antievolutionists mistake, or pretend to mistake, these disagreements as indications of dubiousness of the entire doctrine of evolution. Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

​

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

​

It is remarkable that more than a century ago Darwin was able to discern so much about evolution without having available to him the key facts discovered since. The development of genetics after 1900 especially of molecular genetics, in the last two decades has provided information essential to the understanding of evolutionary mechanisms. But much is in doubt and much remains to be learned. This is heartening and inspiring for any scientist worth his salt. Imagine that everything is completely known and that science has nothing more to discover: what a nightmare!

​

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

​

One of the great thinkers of our age, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wrote the following: "Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems much henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of though must follow this is what evolution is." Of course, some scientists, as well as some philosophers and theologians, disagree with some parts of Teilhard’s teachings; the acceptance of his worldview falls short of universal. But there is no doubt at all that Teilhard was a truly and deeply religious man and that Christianity was the cornerstone of his worldview. Moreover, in his worldview science and faith were not segregated in watertight compartments, as they are with so many people. They were harmoniously fitting parts of his worldview. Teilhard was a creationist, but one who understood that the Creation is realized in this world by means of evolution.

---

You want to know what Dobzhansky was saying? Read the article.Edited by dwise1, :

NYTimes June 7In reference to the "weaknesses argument":

quote:

---

It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.

---

I've only just barely participated in this thread, so I'm going to transition into moderator mode.This thread is discussing the creationist "teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution" position. Effective discussion is not possible without a list of evolution's strengths and weaknesses. Presumably evolution's strengths are what is already being taught in science class, and so creationists have to be clear about the weaknesses they would like added to the curriculum. A request to include weaknesses cannot be just a general label under which teachers who are so inclined can express their personal doubts about evolution. The weaknesses proposed for inclusion in science class must be clear and as scientifically well grounded as the strengths.So if the list of scientific weaknesses is not Mel Gabler's list, and if Discovery Institute does not have a list, and if no participant is willing to propose a list, then there's really nothing to discuss.Moderators usually try to be soft-shoe when first intruding upon a thread, and I'm trying to do so now, but just so there's no surprise let me add now that if discussion doesn't find some evolutionary weaknesses to focus on so that discussion can become more fact based then, as someone once said, I'll be back.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This page from Strengthsandweaknesses.org presents what they claim are In as much as this thread began with an NY Times article specifically referring to that organization, I thought its list would be a good starting place since Wumpini seems disinclined to propose his own list or present anyone else's.I fear that an attempt to deal with each of them would take hundreds of pages. I'd suggest Wumpini could select those which he (?) thinks are most compelling.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I have found another list that I am willing to discuss. I believe that this list more accurately defines some of the specific inclusions that are being proposed for the textbooks.One problem that I have is that since I am the only creationist being opposed by numerous others it is easy for me to be overwhelmed on this thread. I have not researched the “weaknesses” on this list so I am not adequately prepared to give a defense from the creationist or ID viewpoint. I am willing to discuss each of them, and attempt to do research as I go along. I believe there could be some benefit from the dialogue. However, it appears from the comments of others that if I am not able to defend something personally then I should not post it. I really do not know what is appropriate on these types of forums. Maybe you can give me some advice as to what I should do.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce