quote:
I LOVE science; it's just that evolution is supported by popular opinion among scientists but not by actual first-hand research.
Um, can you please support your rather outrageous claim that Evolutionary Biologists don't do any first-hand research?
How do you think they figured out that nylon-digesting bacteria had evolved; by sitting on their thumbs?
quote:
First off, I am constantly asked to read peer-reviewed publications, but what's the point if they are going to speculate a theory based on THEIR interpretation of the evidence beforehand?
So, you are admitting that you DON'T read these peer-reviewed journals, yet you think you know what they contain.
Despite the fact that you don't read the primary literature, you somehow can reject everything in them?
Hmm, how can you say you "love" science when you don't read scientific literature at all?
Regarding the defunct ideas of Aryan race superiority, blood-letting, and that Muslims were evil, none of these are scientific concepts. In fact, it was science that showed that the ideas of race superiority and blood-letting were false!
quote:
I am not bias AGAINST peer-reviewed work, (I believe there are many great scientific advancements being made as well as good observations). The problem is that when the majority of the population among ANY group of people decides to follow a specific belief (theory/doctrine/etc. depending on the context) I make it a firm point to try and understand what they believe, why it is what they believe, and if there is any logic against it or in favor of it.
So, why don't you read peer-reviewed scientific literature??
That is exactly what you would need to read if you wanted to know what scientists think.
quote:
Thus, since I would never take the word of ANY scientist over first-hand observation of scientific processes (and I advise others to do the same)
The peer-reviewed literature is exactly where you will find the first-hand observations of all scientists.
quote:
I conclude that the theory is often based on the interpretations of the evidence rather than the actual evidence.
This statement shows your confusion regarding the scientific process.
Evidence is
always interpreted in every scientific endeavor of any kind. Always.
Theories are the explanatory framework which then interprets the evidence in order to explain it.
The best theories are those which explain the facts (evidence) in the simplest and most complete way, and which survive repeated tests. For instance, we have never found flowering plants below a certain geologic layer, therefore the theory is that flowering plants evolved later than non-flowering plants. Every time we again find no flowering plants below a certain geologic layer, the theory has survived another test. Eventually, the theory becomes stronger and stronger the more tests it survives.
Similarly, the ToE has survived probably millions of individual tests, the most important one being the realization that the phenotypic lineages developed pre-genetics match remarkably well with the genetic lineages constructed in recent decades.
quote:
I was merely pointing out that it is not imperative to believe in evolution in order to maintain a credible science career, recieve and accredited education in a science field, or provide for the world of science a compilation of legitimate research.
Well, no, not technically, but only one of your examples, out of four, ever had any real scientific career, and that one didn't use the supernatural or use any Creationist concepts at all in his work.
You may not have to accept the ToE to contribute to science, but you certainly cannot use any Creationist concepts to contribute to science, either.
quote:
Like I said earlier, most people I know, in my family and string of friendships, who hold a degree in a field of western science also believe in ID and have disregarded ToE.
How many of those people have degrees in Biology or are practicing scientists in any of the life science fields?
How many of these people believe what they do for religious reasons?
Funny, most people I know who hold degrees in western science think ID is silly and they fully accept the ToE. True, most of the people I know with western science degrees are actually
scientists.
quote:
Well, I would not argue against speciation (obviously, if the observation of new species emerging from similar species has been documented in the last century in some cases, it would not go to prove that this speciation has been going on for millions of years.)
Really? Why not?
Please be specific.
quote:
It is entirely possible for speciation to have occured in some observable cases and yet the concept of young-earth-creation still be possible.
Mmmmm, no, not really, not if you look at all the evidence for an old earth.
quote:
Like I've said, the theory of evolution and natural selection--as Darwin put it--was not based on evidence but on his interpretation of the evidence.
Again, you are confused.
All evidence is always interpreted in all science.
His theory of natural selection fit the facts (evidence) the best.
quote:
Likewise, could you be so inclined to prove to me that the theory of evolution is based on evidence RATHER than yours (and most other scientists') interpretation of the evidence?
The following are pieces of evidence/facts. They do not change:
Individuals are born with genetic differences from their parents.
Not all individuals survive to reproduce.
The environment favors some individuals' reproductive success over others.
Those the genes of those individuals which reproduce more successfully tend to proliferate within a population.
For natural selection to be true, all of these facts must be true. If all of these facts are true, then it leads to certain effects that we call natural selection.
I refer you now to the specific examples of macroevolution at this page:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
If you want to open another thread to dig in to these specifics, please do so.
Anyway, without interpretation within a theoretical framework, facts just float around and don't
explain anything.
Theories
explain and interpret why the evidence appears as it does.
quote:
We're talking about the most prevalent two theories of origins of the earth, life, and species: The theory of evolution (Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) and the theory of creationism (The Bible's first several chapters).
Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism DOES NOT deal with the origin of life.
Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism DOES NOT deal with the origin of the Earth.
There is no
scientific "theory of Creationism", since it is, as you say, based upon the assumption that a certain interpretation of certain parts of a religious book are literally true. It is therefore revelatory in nature, rather than being based upon evidence, and also is not falsifiable.
Not being scientific disqualifies it from science classrooms, no?
quote:
Also, the supreme court and people on it are part of government and are not scientists. Thus they are no more fit to make an assumption on creationism than they are to put a label on, for instance, the credibility of Galileo, Dr. Libby, or Judas Iscariot.
However, they are quite qualified to take testimony from experts in the field of the philosophy of science who explained to them what science is and what it isn't, and then make a reasoned descision regarding if Creation science actually met any of those requirements.
It didn't take the supreme court to make that true, but it was nice to have them come to that conclusion to help keep religion out of public school science classrooms.
By the way, are you going to provide a scientific theory of Creation? I've never seen one although I've been told one exists many times.
quote:
For one, Evolution and common ancestry are from the interpretation of evidence and not based on real observable evidence.
Um, this makes no sense.
First you say that they interpret evidence.
Then you say that this interpretation of evidence is NOT, in fact, based upon evidence.
So, what non-evidence are they incorrectly interpreting??
quote:
Moreover, at least half of the population--based on a 2002 poll from MSNBC--believe in creation (Intelligent design) and that means that half the people who pay taxes so that evolution can be taught to their children do not even belive evolution is true.
Earlier in this post, didn't you say that the truth isn't based upon popular opinion?
If you believe this in the case of scientists, why do you then use the argument now?
About half of th US population believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the WTC bombing. Should we teach that in school just because people believed it?
quote:
People who pay the money should have a right to control what their money is going to support--to an extent--and parents who pay local taxes for their school system to teach evolution should have the right (and do have the right) to request that their student be exempt from any instruction of origins that is inconsistent with their morals (a notary public will notarize a form and sent to the school requiring the classroom to recognize the parent's wish for the student to not be forced to study creation--provided the parent is a tax-payer and the student is in a school that is tax-supported and thus the parent may bring up a lawsuit against the school if the student is quizzed or tested or given any assignments pertaining to evolutionism).
Again, if parents are so afraid of exposing their child to science, then so be it, but their fear {and really fragile faith, apparently) has nothing to do with the validity of a given scientific theory.
quote:
If evolutionists want their theory IMPOSED upon children, they should withdraw from tax-support and open private schools where they can teach evolution all they want.
Evolution is science. Only a small, vocal group of radical religious people oppose it on religious, not scientific, grounds.
If you have some SPECIFIC scientific grounds to oppose it on, please do so now. Otherwise, you are just spouting one giant Argument from Incredulity; "I don't believe it, therefore it isn't true."
That's not good enough. You have to SHOW me, with science, HOW I am wrong.
quote:
First off, nylon-digesting bacteria are still bacteria--evolution FROM a bacteria to a more complex-than-bacteria organism has never been observed and therefore only proves a mutation has occurred (not necessarily a mutation that will lead to production of a new genus).
What is the barrier to many small changes accumulating to result in large changes, given time?
quote:
Also, whales being born with hind legs is a HINDRANCE-related mutation and is not beneficial to the animal, just like turtles being born with two heads. That is not evidence for evolution (it's the OPPOSITE of beneficial advancements through mutations).
The point is
why would the whale be born with legs in the first place if it wasn't descended from creatures that had legs?
™ Version 4.2
