Americans Favour Creationism Over Evolution

[Powerman]

It is science because it is directly in opposition to a current theory and working to disprove that theory. That is science, it is part of the scientific process and denying that is as inane as those who would attempt to call it a Theory.

It is not a Theory because it is not testable as such and therefore has no evidence to support such status, it is science because it attempts to use observable phenomena to disprove a theory.

To say it isn't science because it isn't a theory is denying scientific process itself which allows for those who work to disprove a theory with observable data. If they do succeed in disproving the theory of Evolution it will not mean ID is the answer, it will only mean that at that time Evolution would no longer be a viable theory.

I don't know how to explain this to you. Trying to disprove a scientific theory alone does not make something scientific. If you do not use the scientific method then it isn't science. Once again ID is not science because it is not in any way observable, testable, or falsifiable. That is all there is to it. I don't know how to get this through to you but that is the reason it isn't science.

 

[Powerman]

Wasn't that true of black hole theory at one time as well? I don't think that stopped it from being taught in schools, in science class.

Do you know the name of this theory? Because if it is relevant to the discussion I'd like to look up some stuff about it.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't know how to explain this to you. Trying to disprove a scientific theory alone does not make something scientific. If you do not use the scientific method then it isn't science. Once again ID is not science because it is not in any way observable, testable, or falsifiable. That is all there is to it. I don't know how to get this through to you but that is the reason it isn't science.

It does. The Scientific Process includes those that attempt to disprove a theory. Attempting to disprove a theory is exactly as scientific as attempting to show evidence supporting a theory.

ID is not a Theory because it is not in any way observable, testable, or falsifiable, but it is science as it works toward disproving a current Theory. I don't know why you can't grip onto the fact that attempting to disprove a theory through observable testing is science. As they attempt to apply things like thermodynamic theory to disprove it they are using the scientific method. That that particular attempt was shown to be incorrect by observable data, didn't prove evolutionary theory, nor did it make it less than science it simply doesn't make it a theory.

There is a difference between stating something is not a theory for the reasons that you state and in saying something isn't science because of the reasons that you state. If they succeed in disproving evolutionary theory or not it still makes it science regardless of its status as Hypothesis or Theory.

 

[Powerman]

"I don't know why you can't grip onto the fact that attempting to disprove a theory through observable testing is science."

And I don't know where you missed the point that I said that ID isn't science because it is neither testable or observable. I understand the situation. You apparently are confused. I never said that ID wasn't science because it is trying to disprove something. I claimed that it isn't science because it isn't testable or observable. Disproving theories is part of science. But attempting to disprove something alone does not make something science.

 

[no1tovote4]

"I don't know why you can't grip onto the fact that attempting to disprove a theory through observable testing is science."

And I don't know where you missed the point that I said that ID isn't science because it is neither testable or observable. I understand the situation. You apparently are confused. I never said that ID wasn't science because it is trying to disprove something. I claimed that it isn't science because it isn't testable or observable. Disproving theories is part of science. But attempting to disprove something alone does not make something science.

Once again, it isn't a THEORY because of the reasons mentioned, it is science because of the reasons that I mentioned. Disproving theories is a part of science, attempting to disprove something does make it part of science as long as they use observable data. Since the Theory of Evolution is testable the method most ID'ers use is to use observable data in an attempt to disprove the theory. That is just as scientific as attempting to show evidence to support a theory.

Your confusion is found in those that attempt to say that ID is observable and testable for flawed reasons, that is not science. Not all IDers attempt to say that ID is a scientific theory, most simply deny belief in evolution as a theory and attempt to disprove it using the scientific method and that IS SCIENCE.

You have once again crowded all IDers along with all Christians into one group as in another post on another thread. You make a statement that is untrue and shown to be untrue. IDers are not all practicing flawed science, some are well within scientific method in their attempts to poke holes and disprove evolutionary theory, thus they are using science.

 

[Powerman]

"Since the Theory of Evolution is testable the method most ID'ers use is to use observable data in an attempt to disprove the theory. That is just as scientific as attempting to show evidence to support a theory."

That part of ID is science but I don't see why we even need to call it ID. Let's just call that criticisms of the theory of evolution. Because ID itself outside of what you talk about is NOT science for the reasons I listed earlier. It's not something that is testable, observable, or falsifiable. Part of it may be which we just showed but the overall premise of ID is not scientific.

 

[no1tovote4]

"Since the Theory of Evolution is testable the method most ID'ers use is to use observable data in an attempt to disprove the theory. That is just as scientific as attempting to show evidence to support a theory."

That part of ID is science but I don't see why we even need to call it ID. Let's just call that criticisms of the theory of evolution. Because ID itself outside of what you talk about is NOT science for the reasons I listed earlier. It's not something that is testable, observable, or falsifiable. Part of it may be which we just showed but the overall premise of ID is not scientific.

There is no reason not to call them IDers if they believe in ID. Just because you don't want to is not reason enough. That there are fascinating questions and holes that have not been supported with any observable evidence in the evolutionary theory is clear, to not teach that at all (as it was in our science books) is a travesty and leaves a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method in our children and shows a clear bias in teaching.

 

[Powerman]

There is no reason not to call them IDers if they believe in ID. Just because you don't want to is not reason enough. That there are fascinating questions and holes that have not been supported with any observable evidence in the evolutionary theory is clear, to not teach that at all (as it was in our science books) is a travesty and leaves a fundamental lack of understanding of the scientific method in our children and shows a clear bias in teaching.

So where is the outcry to pick apart every other theory that has holes in it?

 

[no1tovote4]

So where is the outcry to pick apart every other theory that has holes in it?

Like which? Almost no other theory that has as many holes as evolutionary theory is taught in the public schools at all. Which theories would you like to pick apart? I would agree that if a theory is taught, the holes should also be taught as well as what scientists are doing in attempts to disprove the theory along with what scientists are doing to support it with evidence.

 

[Hobbit]

Ok, let's talk scientific method.

Macro-evolution is theoretically observable, but is said not to have occurred since modern man started writing things down. That's awfully convenient, and evolution's lack of observation despite theoretical observability seems to be more of an argument against it than for.

Macro-evolution isn't really testable. You can't prove anything evolved from anything unless you observed it directly, which, as we have already established, has never been done.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it having to be falsifiable, so please elaborate.

ID is theoretically observable. Any being capable of creating us is capable of observing our creation and communicating it to us. This makes it observable, but not observed, just like evolution.

ID is only testable through observation, just like evolution.

So far, we're two for two. I think they should be given equal footing in debate. You don't because conceding that evolution might not be true takes a big chunk out of your anti-religious ivory tower.

Now, let's talk scientific process. Here are the steps, with macro-evolution as the example.

1. Observation of scientific query: There are similarities between some animals of similar complexity.

2. Hypothesis: All life forms came into being by the next less complex form slowly becoming more complex until it had fully adapted.

3. Experimentation: Hmmm, distinct lack of this in macro-evolution. There's been no experiments done to either support or deny it. Acceptance requires that experimentation results support the hypothesis in more than 95% of cases. Seems as though macro-evolution is stuck in the hypothesis stage until somebody finds a way to experiment with it.

4. Results: Without experimentation, there can be no results. As stated, more than 95% supporting is required for accpetance as fact.

5a. Alteration of hypothesis: Once again, can't reach here without experimentation, as this step comes when experimentation fails to support the hypothesis. If you are at this stage, return to hypothesis stage and repeat.

5b. Acceptance: This can only be obtained when over 95% of the data in a round of valid, scientific experimentation supports the hypothesis. The hypothesis is then accepted as true. Lots of people like to pretend macro-evolution is here, but they skipped steps 3 and 4, which is why people who respect fact over propoganda will always admit that macro-evolution isn't fact, at least not yet. ID's at the same stage. However, ID doesn't pretend to be fact.

Now, for one final thought, what about anthropology. Anthropologists use structures themselves as evidence of their creators. We're complex creatures, so complex that accidental creation is quite far-fetched, so how come our existence isn't seen as evidence of a creator. You may say, "Well then, who created us? Without solid evidence of the creator, you can't say we were created." To answer this, I present to you the Easter Island Statues. When they were discovered, the natives of the island still lacked the technology capable of carving those statues, much less the ability to actually move the statues into an arrangement. However, the prevailing theory is that SOMEone carved them, just not the natives. The truth is, it's far more likely that those stones were already in that formation and naturally eroded in the shapes of human heads that the likelihood that a single strand of DNA occurred without guidance. Stonehenge is another good example of this type of theorizing.

 

[Powerman]

Like which? Almost no other theory that has as many holes as evolutionary theory is taught in the public schools at all. Which theories would you like to pick apart? I would agree that if a theory is taught, the holes should also be taught as well as what scientists are doing in attempts to disprove the theory along with what scientists are doing to support it with evidence.

There are theories that have many more holes in them than evolution. Gravity for example has much more criticism surrounding it than evolution. They are actually doing some groundbreaking research not too far from here searching for gravitational waves. Yep that's right. They're actually trying to listen to gravity. Pretty interesting shit.

 

[no1tovote4]

There are theories that have many more holes in them than evolution. Gravity for example has much more criticism surrounding it than evolution. They are actually doing some groundbreaking research not too far from here searching for gravitational waves. Yep that's right. They're actually trying to listen to gravity. Pretty interesting shit.

Ah yes, very intersting stuff in Gravitic Theory. As I stated, if they teach the theory they should teach all of it, including the holes and misconceptions and problems. If you do not you simply give people the idea that such things have been proved which is not even part of the scientific method. The problems in the Theory of Gravity are in the fact that they have never figured out how it works, not that they haven't observed its existence at all. You would have a hard time telling people that it doesn't exist at all, they have the evidence of their own experience; no such experiential evidence would support evolution.

You can disprove something using the scientific method but you cannot prove it unless you can magically test something to an infinite degree and in all observable instances, we cannot, and therefore the scientific method provides evidence to support a theory but does not prove a theory. Teaching this would help our students better understand science, rather than having people out there that actually believe that evolution has been proven.

 

[Bonnie]

Intelligent design revisited
David Limbaugh

August 19, 2005

On those rare occasions that I write a column touching remotely on science, especially if I depart from the conventional wisdom of the greater scientific community, the contemptuous e-mails fill my inbox.

Such was the case a few columns ago when I broached the subject of Intelligent Design (ID) after President Bush indicated his receptiveness to ID theory being taught alongside evolution in the public schools. The hostile e-mailers pointed out what a consummate idiot and criminal trespasser I was for treading on their real estate.

They demanded I stick to law and politics, not because I know much more about them either, but by concentrating on those subjects at least I wouldn't be encroaching on their turf, which is reserved for the gifted.

OK, they didn't really say that explicitly, but I divined, via supernatural intuition, that that's precisely what they meant.

The thrust of the e-mails was that ID is not science-based but is purely a matter of faith -- Biblical creationism in disguise. It cannot be tested in a lab (can macroevolution or any historical science be reproduced in a lab?). As such, ID should only be taught in public schools, if at all, under the rubric of philosophy or religion, not science. Besides, it is just one alternative theory. If you teach it, in fairness you must teach all other competing theories.

But not all scientists agree that ID lacks a scientific foundation. In the first place, ID uses science to confute certain tenets of Darwinism. In addition, ID proponents, such as Michael Behe and William Dembski, have developed criteria for testing design inferences.

Behe contends that irreducibly complex features are better explained by design because our knowledge and reason tell us that such features can only be produced by intelligent causes -- putting the lie, by the way, to the claim that ID is just one competing theory. Thus, ID advocates argue that design inference is testable: It could be refuted if someone could empirically demonstrate that unguided natural processes could produce irreducible complexity.

Moreover, ID theory is neither faith-based, nor results-oriented. It is not a concoction of Christians who were already convinced that God created the world but needed a scientific theory around which to wrap their unscientific faith.
It is not the slave of certain preordained conclusions. It examines the evidence and follows it to its logical conclusions, even if those conclusions -- such as that ID is the most plausible explanation for life's origin -- deviate from currently accepted science orthodoxy.

I trust my correspondents will meet these assertions with equal contempt. But many of them are guilty of the primary sin they ascribe to ID proponents. For they begin with an irrebuttable presumption not just that evolution is a valid theory but that the very origins of life are the result of material, not supernatural causes and any inquiry that proceeds apart from this presumption, by definition, is not scientific. After all, God's existence cannot be proved in a laboratory. By the clever use of circular logic, they ensure that ID can never be accepted as scientific.

Anyone who does not initiate his inquiry with the obligatory presumption is, by definition, a heretic, a crackpot and not part of the scientific community no matter how many science-related degrees he may have on his CV. So again, through grossly circular logic, they perpetuate the myth that no scientists believe in ID.

Consider what Harvard chemistry professor David Liu said about Harvard University's plan to spend $1 million annually toward research concerning the origin of life. "My expectation," said Liu, "is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

Liu's statement is a tacit admission that Darwinists (used loosely here to include all scientific materialists) have yet to demonstrate the origin of life but nevertheless still fervently hold to their rigid presupposition that only a natural explanation is conceivable. That life began without intelligent causes is thus dutifully accepted without question and merely awaits the inevitable confirming evidence.

So held to their own standards, isn't the Darwinists' presupposition that life began without design unscientific? At the very least it requires as much faith as ID could conceivably require. Darwinists haven't even been able to prove, through empirical testing or otherwise, the evolution of existing species to others by Darwinian mechanisms.

I realize that not all scientists reject the idea of an intelligent creator. Nor am I saying that microevolution and ID are mutually exclusive theories. Natural selection, to a point, is entirely compatible with ID -- and with Biblical creationism, for that matter. It is the Darwinists' unsubstantiated leap that all forms of life began apart from intelligent causes that is incompatible, obviously, with ID.

It is neither ID proponents nor Christians who have created an artificial divide between science and faith but dyed-in-the-wool Darwinists. Many of them -- not all -- have chosen to define science in such a way that excludes the supernatural.

So why not allow ID to be taught in public schools or simply permit the fallacies of Darwinism to be exposed? As the brilliant biologist Jonathan Wells demonstrated in his "Icons of Evolution," much of the evidence Darwinists have offered has been exaggerated, distorted or even faked, including certain basic "facts" routinely included in biology textbooks. Does such "science" qualify as science?I repeat: Why can't we have an open inquiry?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20050819.shtml

 

[Powerman]

Macro-evolution is theoretically observable, but is said not to have occurred since modern man started writing things down. That's awfully convenient, and evolution's lack of observation despite theoretical observability seems to be more of an argument against it than for.

That is because evolution takes place over very long periods of time. Geologically speaking the amount of time sinec recorded history and especially since modern science is relatively small. A few thousand years when you are talking about millions of years is an instant. We haven't seen ourselves evolve but there have been noted observances of other creatures evolving in the fossil record.

Macro-evolution isn't really testable. You can't prove anything evolved from anything unless you observed it directly, which, as we have already established, has never been done.

I'm afraid this is faulty logic. You don't have to physically observe something in real time to prove it happened or happens. No one has actually observed the earth revolving around the sun but given other observations and calcultions we know this to be true.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it having to be falsifiable, so please elaborate.

Sure. For something to be considered science there has to be some method of testing that gives people a chance to disprove or falsify it. ID is based on the premise that a being of some sort created us. Since there is no physical scientific evidence of such then there is no way to disprove it. It's impossible to reasonably disprove something for which there is no proof of in the first place.

ID is theoretically observable. Any being capable of creating us is capable of observing our creation and communicating it to us. This makes it observable, but not observed, just like evolution.

ID is not observable by science. We aren't talking about a supreme being observing something as you are suggesting. We are talking about us observing thigns. I thought that would be understood.

ID is only testable through observation, just like evolution.

Criticisms of evolution are testable. ID is not testable. That is why it is not considered science. If you need to backtrack in the thread a bit where I posted some links to answers.com on the issue.

So far, we're two for two. I think they should be given equal footing in debate. You don't because conceding that evolution might not be true takes a big chunk out of your anti-religious ivory tower.

LOL. That's just silly. The only problem I actually have with religion is when they try to teach junk like this in school and get in the way of scientific advances. And you don't have to be anti religous to acknowledge the fact that ID isn't even considered a science. I backed that up with factual documentation. You can teach stories of creation at home. It's only a few pages anyway. Should only take you about 3 minutes. Leave the science to the scientists. If a competing theory for evolution comes along then they'll teach it. ID isn't considered science so no point in teaching it in science class.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That is because evolution takes place over very long periods of time. Geologically speaking the amount of time sinec recorded history and especially since modern science is relatively small. A few thousand years when you are talking about millions of years is an instant. We haven't seen ourselves evolve but there have been noted observances of other creatures evolving in the fossil record.



I'm afraid this is faulty logic. You don't have to physically observe something in real time to prove it happened or happens. No one has actually observed the earth revolving around the sun but given other observations and calcultions we know this to be true.



Sure. For something to be considered science there has to be some method of testing that gives people a chance to disprove or falsify it. ID is based on the premise that a being of some sort created us. Since there is no physical scientific evidence of such then there is no way to disprove it. It's impossible to reasonably disprove something for which there is no proof of in the first place.



ID is not observable by science. We aren't talking about a supreme being observing something as you are suggesting. We are talking about us observing thigns. I thought that would be understood.



Criticisms of evolution are testable. ID is not testable. That is why it is not considered science. If you need to backtrack in the thread a bit where I posted some links to answers.com on the issue.


LOL. That's just silly. The only problem I actually have with religion is when they try to teach junk like this in school and get in the way of scientific advances. And you don't have to be anti religous to acknowledge the fact that ID isn't even considered a science. I backed that up with factual documentation. You can teach stories of creation at home. It's only a few pages anyway. Should only take you about 3 minutes. Leave the science to the scientists. If a competing theory for evolution comes along then they'll teach it. ID isn't considered science so no point in teaching it in science class.

You havent responded to the problem of irreducable complexity.

And it has been observed that the earth revolves around the sun. Both by eye and by instruments.

 

[Hobbit]

ID is not observable by science. We aren't talking about a supreme being observing something as you are suggesting. We are talking about us observing thigns. I thought that would be understood.

So something must be discovered by homo sapiens to be considered science. What if an ancient species of alien life landed on this planet and showed us all the documentation from when they came to this planet and created life, right down to the construction process for DNA and the inner workings of the human brain. Would that not be science because it's a 'supreme being' observing something? If you think it wouldn't be science, then you've got a pretty narrow view. If you think it would, then why do we have to limit it to organic, carbon based beings? Why not accept science from a higher plane of existence, since the beings there would have a much better understanding of it than we would?

Criticisms of evolution are testable. ID is not testable. That is why it is not considered science. If you need to backtrack in the thread a bit where I posted some links to answers.com on the issue.

How are criticisms of evolution testable? Name me a conclusive test that can be done on evolution, and if you have one, please list why it hasn't already been done, unless it's rather obvious.

Sure. For something to be considered science there has to be some method of testing that gives people a chance to disprove or falsify it. ID is based on the premise that a being of some sort created us. Since there is no physical scientific evidence of such then there is no way to disprove it. It's impossible to reasonably disprove something for which there is no proof of in the first place.

Any theory of origin is falsifiable. If an alternate theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the two are mutually exclusive (much like ID and spontaneous creation), then the other is then disproved. Calling ID unfalsifiable is calling evolution unprovable, since proving one disproves the other.

LOL. That's just silly. The only problem I actually have with religion is when they try to teach junk like this in school and get in the way of scientific advances. And you don't have to be anti religous to acknowledge the fact that ID isn't even considered a science. I backed that up with factual documentation. You can teach stories of creation at home. It's only a few pages anyway. Should only take you about 3 minutes. Leave the science to the scientists. If a competing theory for evolution comes along then they'll teach it. ID isn't considered science so no point in teaching it in science class.

You say that, but apparently, unless their science agrees with you, it's 'junk science.' There are many non-religious scientists who have no notion to teach religion who support the theory of intelligent design and have backed their findings with easily observable data, the very machinelike efficiency and operation of our inner workings, for example. However, you seem quick to dismiss it all as junk science being pushed by the church, despite the fact that it's REAL science being done by REAL scientists, almost all of which are far more knowledgable on the subject than you, few of whom are exploring this theory for the purpose of religion.

I'd also like to know what observations we've made that show evolution. Once again, I'm talking macroevolution. Although I can't remember if you were one of them, all too many evolution advocates have pulled a bait-and-switch and accused me of disbelieving natural selection when I say this. Anyway, so far, all I've seen that seems to 'prove' evolution are similarities in a few species and less than a handful of fossils which kinda look like hybrids. It takes more proof than that to defend a circumstantial case in a court of law, so I'm going to need a bit more.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Very good article, Bonnie. Especially these two paragraphs:

"I trust my correspondents will meet these assertions with equal contempt. But many of them are guilty of the primary sin they ascribe to ID proponents. For they begin with an irrebuttable presumption not just that evolution is a valid theory but that the very origins of life are the result of material, not supernatural causes and any inquiry that proceeds apart from this presumption, by definition, is not scientific. After all, God's existence cannot be proved in a laboratory. By the clever use of circular logic, they ensure that ID can never be accepted as scientific.

Anyone who does not initiate his inquiry with the obligatory presumption is, by definition, a heretic, a crackpot and not part of the scientific community no matter how many science-related degrees he may have on his CV. So again, through grossly circular logic, they perpetuate the myth that no scientists believe in ID."

 

[Powerman]

You havent responded to the problem of irreducable complexity.

And it has been observed that the earth revolves around the sun. Both by eye and by instruments.

No it hasn't. Maybe you can tell me when this happened? It hasn't been observed from an outside point of view. We know it to be true because of other observations.

 

[Powerman]

I'm sorry but I've been attacked for the fact that I disagree with most of you. I have been very civil in this discussion but some of you will not accept simple facts. And you wonder why I can be rude....Some of you are just stubborn to a fault.

 

[Annie]

I'm sorry but I've been attacked for the fact that I disagree with most of you. I have been very civil in this discussion but some of you will not accept simple facts. And you wonder why I can be rude....Some of you are just stubborn to a fault.

Your point?