Evolution: Natural selection vs. Godly guidance

Theories are not proved, though they are expected to have considerable supportive evidence. Since they are not proved, the question of "standard of proof" does not arise. "Natural selection" is a term of art, and its meaning is defined by the theory. So there isn't a need to prove that it exists. What is needed, and provided, is empirical support for the theory. Here's the difference. Evidence of natural selection is sought and found by biologists.I suppose that if Darwin had called it "Godly guidance" instead of "natural selection", perhaps we would be using the term "Godly guidance" today. But if that had happened, scientists would be pointing out that "Godly guidance" is merely a technical term used for entirely natural events. That would be irrelevant to the science, if it does not alter the evidence collected and does not improve the quality of predictions made. So Ockham's principle says that the additional belief should be left out of the science. If you wish to privately believe that "natural selection" is actually the name used for a supernatural intervention, then nobody is stopping you from holding that private belief. But I suggest you keep it private if you don't want people to laugh at you.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

[qs]it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons[/qs]or[quote]it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons[/quote]will produce or

quote:

---

it would surely help if I could reply by posting quotatons

---

Incidently, the "qs" stands for "quote shaded".Edited by nwr, : (posted prematurely by mistake - edited to complete).

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Science is very much in the business of coining terms that can be used to give systematic descriptions of the world. However, science is not at all involved in speculating about a metaphysical basis for what they are describing.The appropriateness of the terms that science uses should be judged how well the scientific accounts work on a self-contained basis, without reference to any assumed metaphysical basis. However, when expressing that opinion, he was going outside the realm of science. Of course, there is nothing wrong with scientists having opinions about matters that are outside of science. But we do need to recognize that such opinions are not themselves part of science and are not shared by all scientists.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

I have never read that book, nor have I ever felt any pressure to read it. If writing that book counts as evangelizing, then it seems to be a very weak version of evangelizing.I have never had an atheist ring my door bell so that he could talk to me about atheism. However, I have had door bell rings from Baptists, Mormons, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventists, JWs, and probably several others.

Dawkins could be said to be evangelizing for atheism, depending how broadly one applies the term "evangelizing".Note that I was not the person who said otherwise in earlier posts.There's a term "new atheists" (or, sometimes, "gnu atheists") that is currently being tossed around, with Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, perhaps also Ophelia Benson and Victor Stenger being listed as among them. Using the term "evangelizing" very broadly, I would guess it could be applied to them. But their speaking up for atheism seems rather mild, in comparison to what we see coming from Christian apologetics.

You have not shown that. Rather, you seem to have confused yourself by using a court analogy.Some individual scientists are expressing their opinion that design is nonsense. As far as I know, there is no burden of proof required for expressing an opinion. What science, as an institution, is saying is that intelligent design is not science, and they show that by demonstrating the ID does not meet the accepted requirements of science (such as being evidence based). No, science does not reject that in the sense that a court rejects assertions. Science rejects only the claims that such assertions about God's providence meet the requirements of being science.I served on a Jury last week. As jurors, we did our best to render on honest verdict based on the evidence presented in the trial. There was nothing scientific about it. That does not mean that the jury system is bad, nor that the verdict was wrong. It only means that the methods and standards used in courts for judging cases are quite different from the methods and standards that scientists use. You have that quite wrong. Scientists demonstrate that natural events are sufficient to account for the observed biological diversity.If you want to claim that natural events are all the result of occult supernatural events, you are welcome to make that claim. However, it would not be science. Making such a supernaturalist claim adds nothing whatsoever to our ability to make scientific predictions. So, from the scientists point of view, such supernaturalist claims are not part of science and are of no value to science.

Yes, there is a stark difference.Okay, I'll grant that Christian evangelists don't all threaten to kill. Many are satisfied with threatening eternal torment.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

1: This is not a question for science. And almost all scientists will agree on that. Science is concerned with evidence based questions, and this does not seem to be one of them.
2: It may well be a theological and philosophical question. That's a matter for theology and philosophy. But expect disagreement between different philosophies and theologies.We can ask a more explicit question: Is it true that a supernatural being created all.1: That is not a scientific truth, because it is not a scientific question.
2: Whether it is a theological or philosophical truth, presumably depends on the particular theology or philosophy. That's probably not even true (as an assertion about scientists).My own view would be that biological reproduction is the prime moving cause, and that natural selection and mutation shape the way that things evolve. Evolution does not say anything about the origin of life. It is a theory of biological diversity, not a theory of the origin of life. That's her way of saying that it is not a scientific question.Scientists are not afraid to say "we don't yet have an explanation for that." Many of the ID proponents deny evolution happened at all, and insist that each species was independently designed. They are arguing against strong evidence. More correctly, ID misuses probabilities.Edited by nwr, : typo

I'm neither a physicist nor a historian. However, it is my understanding that NoNukes has it about right.As I understand it, there was a growing realization that Maxwell's equation showed that light was electromagnetic waves. There was a lot of experimental research over a long period of time, in developing an understanding of electricity and magnetism, and their relations. Maxwell came up with some equations to express these relations, and was able to derive the wave equation from them. The wave equation that he derived gave a speed of propogation of electromagnetic waves that was very similar to the measured speed of light. And this led people to begin thinking that light was actually electromagnetic waves.As I understand it, Einstein was inspired by those ideas, and recognized that they were inconsistent with the lumeniferous aether wave explanation of light. This, in turn, caused problems for Newtonian mechanics. If light was aether waves, then the speed of light was relative to the aether drift. If light was electromagnetic waves, there was nothing for it to be relative to. Einsteins theories emerged from thinking about the consequent problems. His general relativity was to go beyond the limitations of special relativity.There was a lot of observational science behind Maxwell's electrodynamics. But much of it was in the form of knowledge that have been absorbed by a kind of osmosis (not the chemical kind of osmosis). In particular, it seems that Einstein was not responding to any specific observational evidence.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Behe has argued that some genetic structures could not have evolved. That an argument, not evidence. People have disagreed with his conclusions. But it isn't a disagreement over observed fact. Possibly. Carrol, Coyne et al. disagree with Behe on their understanding of what can result from the evolutionary processes that biology documents. In my opinion (as a non-biologist), the evidence supports them far better than it supports Behe. Nobody is trying to restrict your ability to reach your own conclusions.What has mainly been at issue, is the fact that ID is not science. That is to say, it is not following anything approximating a scientific investigation. We already had that trial in Dover, PA.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

ID has no theory to present.I suspect that you are confused between "theory" and "hypothesis". ID does have a hypothesis. That hypothesis is all over the internet, and in many other places, so I don't see that ID has been prevented from presenting an hypothesis. Behe presented an opinion and hypothesis. He has not provided a scientific theory that would back his hypothesis. Again, I am suspecting confusion between "theory" and "hypothesis." Einstein's theory of relativity actually was a theory, rather than a hypothesis. It is of the nature of theories, that they are not proved.My reading of history, is that Einstein's proposed theory met with substantial criticism and opposition. However, it worked very well, and such pragmatic considerations are what drive science. I don't know about PaulK, but my reply is that his "theory" is really an hypothesis.If ID wants to become scientific, then

• it needs to provide an actual tentative theory;
• its theory needs to be compatible with the empirical evidence;
• its theory needs to be at least as useful and effective as a guide to biological research as is ToE.