[Variola]

Variola (an interesting name, by the way), Occam’s razor conveniently gets rid of “imaginary friends”.

Thank you  []

Occam's razor isn't just a convenient tool to be used to discourage other theories. it gives a grounding to work from, if the basic idea doesn't fit satisfactorily then and only then can you move on to more exotic ideas. The problem there is humans, we like the exotic!
Evolution may have holes in it, but I believe that is because we don't understand it enough yet to be able to explain it all.
But it sure beats an idea that some self-contained deity, of whom we have no existence created the lot on his day off!

Science is always challenging itself, sometimes it can take decades for the proof to be found but the challenge always remains. Hence medical advice and treatments, for example have changed so much. Blood letting was once thought of as a useful medical treatment, until science eventually proved otherwise.

Take a eukaryotic cell, just a normal cell. The complexity of that cell, and how it regulates and how it functions is mind-blowing!! It is absolutely mind-blowing, and we still do not understand it all. Sometimes I look at it and think there is no way all that has happened by chance, it must be intelligent design. But then I look again and think it must be by chance, or diseases like cancer wouldn't happen.
( for the biologists, I am meaning the cancer cell's ability to ignore what it is supposed to be doing)

I do empathise with you on the physics, mostly I find it hard to swallow because much of it is all theory, I know that is why some people love it, but I prefer the solid-squishyness of biology.  []

[Variola]

The reason I really abhor "intelligent design" is because it accepts some science, while rejecting good science that does not align with its preconceptions.

Now, that's anti-science.

It's cognitive dissonance too  []

[Geezer]

The reason I really abhor "intelligent design" is because it accepts some science, while rejecting good science that does not align with its preconceptions.

Now, that's anti-science.

It's cognitive dissonance too  []

Right!

(crap - now I'll need to look up dissonance.)

[Variola]

LOL!! sorry  [:X]

Start with Festinger first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger

There is a link on there to Cog D

Festinger is perhaps best known for the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, which suggests that inconsistency among beliefs or behaviors will cause an uncomfortable psychological tension. This will lead people to change their beliefs to fit their actual behavior, rather than the other way around, as popular wisdom may suggest. [1]

[Geezer]

LOL!! sorry  [:X]

Start with Festinger first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger

There is a link on there to Cog D

Festinger is perhaps best known for the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, which suggests that inconsistency among beliefs or behaviors will cause an uncomfortable psychological tension. This will lead people to change their beliefs to fit their actual behavior, rather than the other way around, as popular wisdom may suggest. [1]

Oh! I thought it was maybe something to do with self-abuse. See, you learn something every day!

[Variola]

Oh! I thought it was maybe something to do with self-abuse. See, you learn something every day!

 []
Well it is quite unusual for me to  post up something that is not smut-related I know!

But if you get the chance to read When Prophecy Fails, or read anything about it then grab the chance. In my previous incarnation of having a career I used to study social sciences, so for me it is fascinating.  []

[Geezer]

To Geezer:
• Of course, “Intelligent Design” is Creationism relabeled.

DiscoDave:
      Well no. Actually it isn't.

ID accepts evolution in general, but rejects the bits that might lead anyone to believe that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. I have had a lengthy debate with Tracey Luskin at the DI on this particular point.

[BenV]

DI? Who's Tracey Luskin and what did she have to say on the matter? I hope it was an enjoyable debate rather than one of those annoying circular ones...

I was under the impression that ID was a poor compromise, effectively claiming that natural selection happens, but a mystical being tinkers with all the major changes, and created existing species in more or less their current forms. Creationism lite, with a built in get loophole around the thorny issue of natural selection being directly observable.

[Geezer]

I think you hit the nail on the head.

DI = Discovery Institute (in Seattle)
Tracey Luskin is a major force at the DI (notice how it is ID reversed!) and, I suspect, at least one of the inventors of ID (Intelligent Design)

[Geezer]

I think (and I could be wrong) that according to ID, humans were created by some intelligent designer (presumably we are supposed to conclude that must be a God, or The God) and that we were, sort of, "beamed down". It's not clear to me that ID makes that process very clear because ID/DI seems more interested in pointing out any minor flaws in well accepted scientific evidence.

If you can figure it out, please let us know.

[Variola]

I think (and I could be wrong) that according to ID, humans were created by some intelligent designer (presumably we are supposed to conclude that must be a God, or The God) and that we were, sort of, "beamed down". It's not clear to me that ID makes that process very clear because ID/DI seems more interested in pointing out any minor flaws in well accepted scientific evidence.

If you can figure it out, please let us know.

After speaking to many advocates of ID, I had formed a similar opinion to Ben's, in that yes the evolution did happen but it was designed to do so by some overseeing force.Therefore it gives them license to say 'oh it was meant to be like that' with whatever you say. I have even confronted them with why cancer happens, a disease that could only have come about from evolution as we know it ( in my opinion that is )and even that is put down to God's will, in that the population number needs controlling so God created cancer to keep numbers in check.

[Variola]

I just watched a couple of ID animations depicting the inner workings of a cell.  The first thing I quickly noticed is that these videos depicted molecules as seemingly alive and intelligent, moving around and performing task with a purpose, etc.  This molecule goes here and does this on purpose, that molecule goes there and does that on purpose, etc.  Almost like in Disney's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice".

It is amazing isn't it?  [] [] The moles are not alive or intelligent in the way we are, they are all controlled by genetics and biochemical reactions. They all have purpose for their being, and they all perform their tasks as they should, but there is no thought process behind it.
That said, it is still pretty darn awesome!

Maybe that's one of ID's sticking points ... that humans, as alive and sentient beings, must be alive and sentient all the way down to their smallest detail.

Sticking point how? Cells are not conscious or sentient in the same way we are, if they were we would not be able to shed them in the way we do. Nor could they be programmed  to perform apoptosis in order to save other cells. (Unless they were feeling particularly Kamikaze!)
They obey their genetic and biochemical instrustions, usually faultlessly as they have been doing for millions of years. We just happened to arise from that near-faultless design.
(does is show that I love microbiology?  [])

[_Stefan_]

Stephan, a scientific theory is NOT the highest status that any scientific idea can achieve.

You don't get it. A Law is not better than a Theory.

Also, the correct spelling of my name occurs twice with each post I make.

 

Consider these definitions by Wiley Publishing Co, which has a long and illustrious history of publishing science and has published the works of hundreds of Nobel laureates.

• Opinion - A conclusion or judgment which, while it remains open to dispute, seems true or probable to one’s own mind [it’s my opinion that he’ll agree].
• Belief - Refers to the mental acceptance of an idea or conclusion, often a doctrine or dogma proposed to one for acceptance [religious beliefs].
• Hypothesis - Implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experimentation [the nebular hypothesis].
• Theory - Implies considerable evidence in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of certain phenomena [the theory of evolution].
• Law - Implies an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions [the law of the conservation of energy].

Examples of laws of science appear in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science, which states that even “laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them.”  Just ask Newton.  As a scientist, I strongly recommend that the readers of this forum acquaint themselves with the laws of science.

So Stephan, if ‘Evolution is not “just a theory”’ and ‘The Big Bang is not “just a theory”’ (that is, they are supposedly laws), then: describe an observed occurrence of the emergence of a new species and describe the observed occurrence of the birth of the universe -- no, I’ll make it easier -- the birth of just a galaxy.

And Stephan, if what I ‘might call “just theories” are actually hypotheses’, then you’ve relegated Evolution and The Big Bang to tentative explanations with an inadequacy of evidence needing further research.

As I said, the tough thing about astronomy (and, essentially, speciation) is that it’s all observation and theories and no experiments due to the overwhelming scales involved.

No, you misunderstood. "Just theories" does not apply to evolution or the big bang, period.
"Just theories" would apply to a hypothesis. You are the one abusing scientific terminology, not me.


Further, it seems to have escaped you that observation of the available evidence is extremely informative. Your astronomy objections equate to the creationist's "were you there when it happened?" nonsense.

Ultimately, it is a scientific responsibility to challenge theories such as Evolution and The Big Bang.

Of course, but nothing you've said so far is a match against the science.

[_Stefan_]

Regarding ID Creationism,

ID really is a form of creationism, and ironically, the evolutionary transition from straight creationism to ID has been recorded in their own propaganda. Most notably, the phrase "cdesign proponensists"... http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

[Geezer]

DI? Who's Tracey Luskin and what did she have to say on the matter? I hope it was an enjoyable debate rather than one of those annoying circular ones...

I was under the impression that ID was a poor compromise, effectively claiming that natural selection happens, but a mystical being tinkers with all the major changes, and created existing species in more or less their current forms. Creationism lite, with a built in get loophole around the thorny issue of natural selection being directly observable.

Oh! Tracey is a guy! I made the same mistake myself.

Yes, ID is kind of Creationism Lite. But it's not to be underestimated. Personally, I believe it to be particularly insidious because it was fabricated to appease Christians who are unwilling to take the Bible quite literally, and also to circumvent the US Constitution's requirement that religion cannot be taught in public schools. This is a purely political agenda.

It has had some success in the first regard, but none, so far, in the second.  BTW, President G.W. Bush subscribes to the idea that ID is science and that it should be taught in US schools. God help us!

[Geezer]

Occam's razor is interesting, but Sweeney Todd's razor is final.

[_Stefan_]

Stefan, I apologize for my misspellings, and I will try harder in future posts.

A Law is not better than a Theory.

Your statement speaks for itself.  You propose an inexperienced and sophomoric idea that the world-wide scientific community rejects, and you do so without justification or explanation -- ie, without merit.  You promote theories to the level of laws, and hypotheses to the level of theories.  Once you leave the theoretical/academic world and enter the working world of science, bosses and customers will look you in the eye and ask if you base your proposals and work on laws or just theories. 

You have yet to describe an observed occurrence of the emergence of a species or the observed occurrence of the birth of a galaxy.  Furthermore, try explaining how an emerging species contain enough genetic diversity to survive, or describe the state of the universe one second before the Big Bang.  You cannot address these topics with sufficient certainty because Evolution and the Big Bang are still theories because they do not contain an “exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in nature”, observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions.  We reserve that distinction for “laws” alone.

I already mentioned the ungainly immensity of scale involved, and so, science may never explain the emergence of species or the development of the universe with enough certainty to call those explanations “laws” of science.  I propose, as a truce, that the immensity of scale has caused our understandings of speciation and the universe to remain in their formative stage, that they may continue to remain there for some time, and that their formative stage causes such controversy.

Perhaps your own breathtaking ignorance will be dispelled by this site:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/


As I am not an astronomer, I will not address galaxy formation or "before the big bang". I will however reemphasise that lack of experimental data or direct live observation does not mean we can't know about something. Observation of the after-effects are also valuable.

Why would you think "how an emerging species contain enough genetic diversity to survive" is even a problem? Obviously any new population that lacks the genetic diversity to survive, does not survive. By definition, surviving populations have sufficient genetic diversity (and the set of alleles that are compatible with the population's environment).

Since when has speciation not been properly explained by science? Which universe have you been in?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[_Stefan_]

Geezer, yes, the ID/Creationism movement is definitely not to be underestimated.

[_Stefan_]

Are you actually reading what I am posting and linking to? Or can't you see past your own misconceptions? The only person here expressing "inexperienced and sophomoric ideas" and "scientific anarchy" is you.

Your ideas about what constitutes, and the value of, a Scientific Theory and a Law, are wrong.

You are also wrong regarding speciation.


Asserting that my position is false will not change all that. Not everyone who reads these posts is as intellectually dishonest or as deliberately ignorant as you are. If you are unwilling to be honest and accurate to the best of your ability when you post, please stop posting. This is a science forum, not a medium for propaganda.

[_Stefan_]

Your ideas about what constitutes, and the value of, a Scientific Theory and a Law, are wrong.

Stefan, I reported you to the moderator as defaming my character.  While we're waiting for the moderator to contact you about this, please provide us with the definitions of: a law, a theory and a hypothesis, and please site your sources.  Thank you.

You have been defaming me by misrepresenting my views and then saying they are "inexperienced and sophomoric" and that I "promote scientific anarchy". What you perceive to be my defamation of your character are mere observations of your posts that the moderators can appreciate for themselves.


Since you need it spelled out to you:

I posted a link earlier that should have explained my position to you extremely clearly, had you read it. Unfortunately you seem not to have read it, so I will post it again for your benefit:

http://www.notjustatheory.com/


I will also quote several other sources:

Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens.

. . . the common error of assuming there is some universal authority that ranks scientific ideas into "laws" and "theories", with laws having some objective priority. This is not true. It's largely arbitrary. If you come up with a description of something that can be typically written out in a short and easily testable mathematical formula, it tends to be called a law: for example, Newton's laws, including F=ma, etc., or the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. Laws tend to be short and simple. This is not always true, of course (arbitrary, remember?): for example, Ernst Haeckel called his description of the relationship between development and evolution the Biogenetic Law, which has the virtue of being a counter-example that is neither mathematical nor in any way formally correct.

Theories, on the other hand, tend to be descriptions of more complex phenomena, and are often not easily reducible to a formula: for example, cell theory, germ theory, and the theory of evolution. They are neither more nor less true than a law, and a scientific theory is nothing like the colloquial meaning of "theory", a guess. Theories can also encompass many ideas that we call laws. Evolution, for instance, includes concepts like the Hardy-Weinberg Law and Dollo's Law.

Before attempting any explicit definitions, let's return to that old Junior High fallacy which states that: "Hypothesis becomes theory becomes law, as degree of proof increases". A hypothesis is indeed an idea requiring further research. When sufficiently confirmed, a hypothesis may become a theory, a law, or a fact. "A fact", one might ask? "Aren't facts so certain they require no confirmation?" This is another common misconception.

 . . .

Scientific facts, laws and theories are three very different types of statements. One sometimes hears the word "theory" used in place of the word "hypothesis" - as in "I have this theory that ..." - but this is an abuse of the word, possibly motivated to avoid the pretentious sounding word "hypothesis". If formal definitions of the terms are requested, one might offer:

A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.

A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.

A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones.

 . . .

Theories often explain "why" laws and facts are "true" or "how they work". . . . Notice that not only theories and laws, but also facts may be falsified by new observations.

Perhaps that will satisfy you. Or perhaps I am being too optimistic about someone who has tried to hide behind moderators when their position is demonstrated to be false.