Wow, I've never read a less informed defense of evolution by someone who appears so confident.
What does the "theory" of ID [Intelligent Design; I haven't read the whole Wikipedia entry, but it looks like a decent description, although quite biased -- MW] predict? NOTHING - it simply provides a post facto rationalization for some of the processes observed in biology. Just like "F=mv" vs. "F=ma", ID chokes on those cases that are explained elegantly by the theory of evolution.Apparently, Gene Expression author "godless" isn't particularly familiar with typical descriptions of evolution. To quote some of Fred Reed's questioning of evolution:
So much of evolution contradicts other parts. Sparrows evolved drab and brown so that predators won’t see them. Cockatoos and guacamayas are gaudy as casinos in Las Vegas so they can find each other and mate. But…but….Not remotely. (Some of Mr. Reed's questions are refutable in detail, but they give a general sense of the most persuasive arguments against evolution.)The answers to these questions either lapse into a convoluted search for plausibility or else boil down to the idea that since guacamayas are as they are, their coloration must have adaptive value. That is, it is the duty of the evidence to fit the theory, rather than of the theory to fit the evidence. This is science?
I do not to deny that, as "godless" points out, the theory of evolution has led to some interesting lines of thought -- from molecular chemistry to computational algorithms (the utility of which he appears to vastly overrate) -- but that doesn't make the theory true. After all, one particular implementation of the theory of Intelligent Design, called Christianity, has had a substantial effect on civilization as well.
I could go through "godless'" post point by point, but I doubt I would convince anyone of anything, because -- as "godless" denies but Steven Den Beste accedes -- belief in evolution is based on faith. Despite what "godless" claims, evolution is not falsifiable, any more than is ID; absent a time machine or direct and convincing revelation, neither can be proven nor disproven. One is free to construe the existing evidence in the direction one finds most convincing -- in conjunction with other aspects of one's worldview -- but claiming that either theory is more fact than faith is intellectually dishonest.
(HT: Donald Sensing and S3.)
I don't see a conflict between evolution and creation. If God is omnipotent, he would be able to create a world that looks as if it's billions of years old, and he would be able to make creatures that look as if they evolved. Scientists who believe that evolution negates creation have very small concepts of God.
just because bad scientists and bad proponents of evolution speak for evolution does not mean the stuff you're saying is accurate.
one: what do you mean by "evolution"? Be scientific here. Do you mean "natural selection"? Do you mean "homo sapiens came from homo erectus? Do you mean a general idea about human intelligence coming from randomness?
two: of course theories about evolution are falsifiable. Here are a number of ways in which they are falsifiable: 1. we determine some estimate for the number of mutations necessary to have bigger heads/larger brains/opposable thumbs/uprightness/language acquisition/whatever trait or sets of traits. We compute the expected number of mutations over a span of X years. We find out that the number of mutations expected to produce us requires an order of magnitude longer time than humans have been on earth, or earth has been in existence, etc.
another way to falsify evolution: find out that no species ever died out! ever! a constant number of species exist now and at some prior point in time (of sufficient length over which evolution should predict die out)
another way: simulate over the lifetime of earth all of the conditions, creatures, etc. see what happens. Determine that with the same parameters,
natural selection did not occur.
another way: aliens land here, and tell us that they seeded our world, and give us a bunch of scientific evidence about how they faked the carbon-14 signatures.
another way: aliends land here, and tell us how they genetically altered our DNA at key moments in time, and demonstrate such scientific capability, repeatable on demand.
another way: God comes and tells us that we had it wrong, and he misled us to encourage our scientific development.
but ID is, as you claim, and as I understand it, (due to no one ever giving me a thought experiment by which they'd give it up), not falsifiable.
the fact is this: science is not about FIRSTS. it's about effects, not causes. We continually ask "how did that happen/what caused that?" but the answer is that scientists add another theory to explain causes, and then yet again, the question remains "well, then, what caused THAT?". Science can do this forever--going back, never having a First answer--because what they do to validate a theory is OBSERVE EFFECTS.
evolution is an effect. We don't yet know how to pose experiments to test the circumstances creating this effect, but then again, neither did anyone know how to test whether Newton was right about light being corpuscular. It didn't mean he was wrong. It didn't mean that his theory of light was based on faith. It didn't mean that it wasn't falsifiable. It just meant that our scientific sophistication couldn't do it yet--it took HUNDREDS of years to get there. Maybe it will take more than that to test evolution, too. but that doesn't mean it's not falsifiable.
but "Evolution" is a bad description for a theory. It's like saying "the theory of quantum mechanics". And how many people actually have A CLUE what QM says? How many TERRIBLY WRONG descriptions have you heard--even by people IN THE FIELD??? Doesn't mean QM hasn't been tested to 46 orders of magnitude.
in case it's not clear, the point of saying "science is not about firsts" is that Creation is, obviously, FIRST. Science will never answer questions of our creation. It will always reach further back towards it, but it can't get an closer than to answer questions one instant after creation--for however small that instant is.
i think the whole Wiki thing is really worth mentioning. For anything difficult, Wiki's model will simply produce the least common denominator bad explanation. There's no way that Wiki can be a source of anything but, essentially "what common wisdom" says, where CW refers to what the typical geek-wiki people believe to be true and no longer question.
it's a big lose. but then again, the kind of peopl likely to consult Wiki aren't really interested in deep questioning of a subject, now are they?
'So much of evolution contradicts other parts. Sparrows evolved drab and brown so that predators won’t see them. Cockatoos and guacamayas are gaudy as casinos in Las Vegas so they can find each other and mate. But…but…'
The guy who plays out this scenario assumes only one factor came into play. That is, only predators influence the evolutionary development of birds' plumage. This is astonishingly simplistic. Where is the argument put forward to support this assumption? One can readily think of other influential factors. The imagined biologist is also restricted to this assumption, and by implication all biologists. More than a little unfair. 'The answers to these questions either lapse into a convoluted search for plausibility blah, blah, blah...' Helpfully the only counter-arguments that can be put forward against this straw-man scenario clearly demonstrate that evolutionary biologists have extreme trouble in explaining this nail in the coffin.
Trep: As I've discussed elsewhere, all defenses of evolution eventually lapse into the "you're looking at it too simply, it's much more complex than that" position.
You very helpfully avoid addressing any of the points I made about Fred Reed.
Let us assume that your statement 'all defenses of evolution eventually lapse into the '"you're looking at it too simply, it's much more complex than that" position' is indeed true. Anyway, your statement requires an assumption: that the anti-evolutionist isn't being simplistic (otherwise claims of 'intentional ignorance' are fair comment). Now, assuming you are correct there are still two possible conclusions which can be drawn. Firstly, that biologists know full-well that evolution is silly nonsense which is wrong and so must patronisingly suggest that anyone who disagrees is being too simplistic about things. Secondly, the biologists could be correct and people such as Fred Reed (and yourself it seems?) always indulge in the "you're looking at it too deeply, it's much more simple than that" postion to set up straw-man arguments. Why do you choose the former option? Well it's obvious.
I give good reasons as to why Reed is being simplistic, yet your only refutation is that 'all arguments...' What would you have me do, pretend Reed isn't streamlining things in order to construct his straw-man argument?
Trep: You're talking about hypotheticals, I'm talking about experimental fact. I've run countless thousands of evolutionary simulations during the course of my AI graduate work. Do the simulations prove anything? No. But they suggest that merely increasing complexity doesn't lead to the emergent properties that people try to explain with evolution. Saying something "just needs to be more complex" is basically the same as saying it's magic. People have been trying for decades to discover exactly what form this mysical complexity must take because it results in significant emergent phenomena, and no one has found it yet.