When my Friend, Satyavati, said that Sometimes People have a "propensity to take words and have them mean whatever's most convenient.", she was Speaking the Truth. I guess that she was Talking about Conservatives and yet the same thing is also True in Relation to so many other Things.
While Debating the Subject of Evolution and Intelligent Design, we can not Be Required to Use only the Definitions of Terms that are "Convenient" to One Side and Reject those that are “Convenient" to the Other. Both People have to Be Tolerant of Definitions Used by the other.
The Word "Evolution", for Example, could be used to Mean "Natural Selection" within Species. This Subject, however, does not Interest me because it does not Prove "Darwin Evolution", which Includes Speciation. I'm more Interested in Talking about Speciation, then Evolution within Species. My Hope is that People will Hear what I am saying and not Get Bogged Down in the Definitions of Words.
You can not Use One Set of Definitions and Rules for the Science that is already Accepted as Science and another Set of Definitions and Rules for a Newer Science that Seeks Recognition. For Example, the Definition of "Scientific" has to be the Same when Applied to Both the Accepted "Status Quo" Science and the Newer Science that Seeks Acceptance.
On the One Hand, a Person could say, "Science doesn't invoke unprovable causes, period." and Apply that Standard and Definition to the Science of the Opponent, yet on the other Hand, Point Out that Astronomy can not be called a Non-Science because no one can physically visit a black hole to prove it's really there and Geology can not be called Nonscientific because it's impossible to visit the core of the earth and take samples to prove the exact mineralogy of it? And Apply that Principle to the Science that is Already Accepted as "Status Quo".
To do so would be Contradicting that Original Statement that was Applied to the Opponent, "Science doesn't invoke unprovable causes, period."
We can not Use Two Definitions, and in doing so, Applying Different Standards to "Status Quo" Science, than we do to Intelligent Design. This is Inconsistent and Biased and therefore, Hurts the Credibility of our Argument when we do this. It simply must be Recognized that if the Statement "Science doesn't invoke unprovable causes, period." is True, then Astronomy and Geology are also not Science because of the Reasons Given Above.
In my Opinion, it is the Evolutionists that are Ignoring the Facts, or shell I say the Absence of Facts, in Relation to Speciation.
This is so Typical, for Everything that is said in Order to Try and Discredit Intelligent Design is also True of Speciation; You Can't Prove it, It's Biased, Terms are Defined in Ways that are Convenient to the Accepted Position, Etc. Etc. Etc.
This Post was Inspired by Satyavati and the Comments that were Written below one of her Posts...
Time for me to Read the Origin of Species Again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I'm Surprised that no One Left any Comments on this one. There were some Interesting Discussions, though, on my other Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Posts, just Click on the Label to the Right.
Meanwhile, I'd Like to Finish up my thoughts by Copying a Comment that I Left over at Satyavati's Blog.
"As to the Argument that we Define Words in Ways that are Convenient for us. Here is the Definition of Darwinism. As you can see, it has to do with Questioning 'the then current belief in special creation of each species' and 'the descent of all life from a common ancestral origin', so it has Everything to do with Speciation and just giving Evidence for 'Natural Selection' within Individual Species does not in any way Prove it."
Latest findings in the research on
HLA genetic diversity ...there is much research in the area of human DNA and chromosome and it's relation to phylogeny . The few Intelligent Design scientists
are not working in this field, apparently too busy supporting
candidate Rick Santorum....
Ok BB,
I guess I've been Ignoring the Fact that you had Left this Comment for Long Enough. I Guess I've Told you before that I am not a Good Multi-Tasker and because of this, it is really not that hard to Throw more at me at Once than I can Read.
In Response, though, How can One mate with Neanderthals, which are Extinct? From what I can Tell, the First of your Articles is based more on Speculation than on Science. There is no Way to Conclusively Prove what Happened in Relation to something that is Extinct. Similarity is not Proof of Evolution or Ancestry. It seems to me that I must of said that at least Once Before.
You can See Clear Evidence of the Speculation and Uncertainty in Words such as "were likely to" and "New Ancestor MAY BE Ape Human Link".
Also, even if Neanderthals Mated with Denisovans and eventually Resulted in the Present day Human, there is really no way to Prove that Neanderthals ever Mated with Apes. To Assign them to One Species or the Other and then Claim Speciation Depends on your Definition of Species, which is a Word that has been Debated by Darwinists and Creationists.
The Whole Thing is Based on Speculation and Unproved Assumptions, the most Obvious of which is that Commonality Proves Ancestry.
This Article Focuses Mostly on Linking Neaderthals to Humans, but said Nothing about how they are Linked to Apes. The Shape of the Skull is not enough.
Since Neadertals are Extinct, the Assumptions and Conclusions that are Made from Similarities can not be Tested, so this Places them in the Same Category as Astronomy and Geology, as Mentioned in my Above Post. Let me Repeat some of it for you.
"Astronomy can not be called a Non-Science because no one can physically visit a black hole to prove it's really there and Geology can not be called Nonscientific because it's impossible to visit the core of the earth and take samples to prove the exact mineralogy of it?"
Likewise, it could be said that Darwinism can not be Called Non-Science because it can not go Back and Time and Observe what Really Happened. Ok, Fine, but this Places it Out Side of the other Claim that has been Made that "Science doesn't invoke unprovable causes. Period."
Can't we at Least Admit that Darwinism is a Soft Science and then at the Same Time not Insist on Holding Creationism to a Standard of Hard Science. That's all that I was Saying in the above Post.
I Know that some Time has Passed since I Wrote the Above Post, but I do Hope, BB, that you will go back and Read it again if you have not already done so.
Here is an Off Topic Comment that was Left by Satyavati on another Post...
"This is totally off topic here but I have been reading this book that I thought you might find interesting. We have had discussions about creationism and young earth ideas before and this book might give you some new perspectives. It's not a new book, so it's available as an ebook free online. Here's a link:
http://books.google.com/books/about/THE_RELIGION_OF_GEOLOGY.html?id=pvRZlsOLPF8C
"I would be interested to hear how you feel about the author's views in light of your young earth/creationist thoughts."
My Response might be Awhile in Coming due to the Fact that it is Rare that I can Actually Read all the Way Through an Entire Book, since I am a Very Slow Reader. I Thank You anyway for the Link, though, cause you never know. I may actually get to it. We'll see.
Back to BB:
The Reason why Intelligent Design Scientists, or Actually Creationists, are not Working in the Field of Phylogeny is because it is too Focused on the Bias of Evolutionary Theory.
A Similar Science of Creationists is Called Baraminology.
Here is an Interesting Quote from a Video of an Archaeologist that is Linked to One of your Links.
"Things are Basically Meaningless when you Pull them out of the Ground......They have no Inherent Meaning to them. It's only within a sort of a context, an Interpretive Context that you can actually Create some notion of Meaning out of this Stuff."
There you have it, Folks. A Clear Example of a Soft Science, so why is Creationism Expected to Produce Hard Evidence, as would be Required of a Hard Science? That's all I'm Asking.
I would hardly call chromosomal
analysis a soft science ...
...a 'soft science' is one where
the 'scientist' does no research and is only interested in 'opinion'.
Oh Shoot! I thought I had the Time to Respond to this, but I Don't. Got to Run; be Back Later Today.
Hi BB,
I Scanned the Page that you Left a Link to for the Phrase "Soft Science" so that I could Find your Definition and yet the Phrase "Soft Science" wasn't there. Apparently, you "did no Research" before Stating your Definition. :)
Here is The Definition. When the Wikipedia Comes Back on line, we can Check their Definition as well.
Anthropology is Listed as a Soft Science, as well as Psychology and the Social Sciences. I would Include Astronomy and Geology as well, based on what has been said about them above. Darwinism is also a soft Science because it too "Relies more on Conjecture and Qualitative Analysis, then on Rigorous Adherence to the Scientific Method".
Even though Hard Science is Occasionally Used (and Yes, Chromosomal Analysis is a much Harder Science than Straight Archaeology), this would Still Qualify Darwinism, as a Whole, as a "Soft Science", because it Represents "a Mix of Hard and Soft Science", just as "A Number of Fields could be Considered Soft Science, such as Social Sciences, Psychology and Anthropology, although, in fact, these Fields represent a mix of Hard and Soft Science" Intelligent Design and Creationism is also such a "Mix of Hard and Soft Science" and just Pointing Out a Part of it that is Soft, does not Negate this Fact.
The Experiments that have Been Done on Irreversible Complexity are Examples of the Scientific Method Used by Intelligent Design Scientists and Here is an Example of the Use of the Scientific Method by Young Earth Creationists. As to Darwinism, Chromosomal Analysis May be a little more of a Hard Science, yet Guessing Ancestry Based on the Similarity of Skeletal Remains is not. Similarity does not Prove Common Ancestry, because it can be Explained just as easily as a Common Creator, just as Cars, Trains and Airplanes all have Similar Combustion Engines.
My Favorite Point from the Article that I Linked to for the Definition of Soft Science, though, is that "Many of the Alleged 'Hard Sciences', like Physics, rely on Vast Leaps of Logic and Conjuncture, especially at the Higher Levels. Had Einstein been Limited by the confines of Hard Science, for example, he might never have come up with the 'Theory' of Relativity, since the 'Theory' involved a great deal of Conjecture and a Scientific Leap of Faith when he first came up with it."
Remember that even Hard Science is Based First on Observation and Hypothesis and a Hypothesis is nothing more than a Guess or Conjuncture based on Observation, so Once again, to Show Only the Soft Side of the Science that one Opposes and Only the Hard Side of the Science that one Supports is not an Unbiased Subjective Argument.
As to Neanderthals, Even if Chromosomal Analysis, Points to the Neanderthal being an Ancestor of Humans, the Shape of the Skull is not enough Evidence to Prove Common Ancestry with the Monkey. If that Neanderthal was Human, then so be it, but that does not Prove that it has any Connection what so ever to the Ape. Such an Assumption is not Based on Hard Science.
As regards genomic research, I would consider it relatively 'hard' as it is based
on chemistry, physics and math.
Rather than soft, the word 'novel' or 'immature' might describe the
findings thus far. Indeed as this
article in AnswersInGenesis notes,
there are numerous ways to interpet
genetic differences and Genetic Biology adapt as further data is gained. The Neaderthal has been somewhat mysterious since remains were first found in a German cave. We have gradually learned more of
these 'people' through the years...and I expect the field of
genetics research to expand our
knowledge in these and other areas of paleoanthropology.
Thanks for your Link, BB. I don't Think that I disagree with anything that you just said.
The Thing is, though, it would seem that the Research Places the Neanderthal in the Category of People, not Monkeys. To Prove Common Ancestry, there would have to be a Connection Found to Both People and Monkeys. To my Knowledge, this has not been Found in relation to Genetics. Instead, they are just Analyzing the Shape of the Bones and Skull and that is not the same thing.
Satyavati,
I don't know if you Followed me over to this Post or not. I Wonder if this Book can be Checked Out from the Library. I have Trouble Reading Books Off Line and it is even Worse on Line. I Spend too much Time Staring at the Computer Screen as it is.
I did Scan the Table of Contents of the Book, though, and it does Sound Interesting.
BB,
I've just Read your AnswerInGenesis Link. That's a Pro-Creationists Argument. I'm Surprised that you Left such a Link, cause I Thought you were a Doubter.
A Couple of Things within the Article are Key...
"If 5% of the DNA is Different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA Base Pairs that are different between them!"
"The DNA sequence for all People are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is 'a Recent Single Origin for Modern Humans, with general replacement of archaic Populations.'" (That would be Adam and Eve)
"Research on Observable Generations Mutation Events leads to a more Recent Common Ancestor for Human than Phylogenetic estimates that assume a Relationship with Chimpanzees."
And...
"The Conclusions of Scientific Investigations can be different depending on how the study is done."
Sounds to me Like the Darwinists are having Trouble Making the Data Match their Model of Darwinism, as well as Uniformitarianism.
RE: 'I've just Read your AnswerInGenesis Link. That's a Pro-Creationists Argument. I'm Surprised that you Left such a Link,' ..thought you might accept it rather than something from
Oxford, Stanford, MIT, Harvard,
Cal Poly, Princeton, Cambridge...
Yeh, Well, What the Article says to me is that even DNA Research is not as much of a Rock Solid Hard Science as they Claim it to be and that is just the Problem. Darwinism Claims to be a Much Harder Science than it actually is and they Make Intelligent Design and Creationism Out to be much more of a Soft Science than it actually is and that is the Basic Core behind the Controversy.
The Assumptions and Accusations are Exaggerated and Biased and those who do not Want to Accept anything that is different than the Status Quo will Keep their Blinders on and Refuse to Take them Off.
Now..
"Darwinism Claims to be a Much Harder Science than it actually is and they Make Intelligent Design and Creationism Out to be much more of a Soft Science than it actually is and that is the Basic Core behind the Controversy."
I disagree. Since 99% of scientists agree with evolutionary theory and 97% of evangelical christian leaders do
not accept that evolution has not occurred as a natural process, the basic core of the controversy is
bibical literalists and the findings of science. ..and so, the
arguments go on ad nauseum while
we struggle with Kipling's dilemma:
"East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth"...
and so we find Muslim creationists muddying the waters
of common sense as well.
I am Quite Certain that your 99% Number is Incorrect, BB. There is a Definite Bias in Science that Favors the Status Quo and even a Prejudice and Unfair Discrimination. The Evidence of this that was Presented in the Movie "Expelled" has not been Adequately Disproved to me.
No, BB, Biblical Literalists are not the Ones that are Driving the Controversy. There are Actual Real Scientists Involved. Intelligent Design Scientist are Adamant about Keeping their Studies Focused on "Evidence of Intelligent Design" and NOT Describing the Nature of this Designer, nor trying to Prove any Specific Form of Theism.
Ok, so the Creationists have Actually gone so Far as to Accept the Biblical Text as Evidence Worthy enough to Lead to Hypothesis, yet ID does not Share that Focus and it is Important to Remember that Distinction.
If you Insist on Making this a Matter of Religion, though, then on a Religious Plain, it is About the World View of Theism Verses the World View of Atheism and Yes, Atheism is also a Religious Point of View. The Conflict is Between two World Views with Scientific Evidence of Both. It is NOT Between a Christian World View and Science. That is a Deceptive Lie.
On a Scientific Plain, there should not be a Bias towards One World View over another, yet the Bias of Atheism is most Definitely Present. Since you are an Atheist yourself, you are Blinded to this Reality.
Here's One more Thought...
When you say that 97% of Evangelical Christian Leaders "do not Accept that Evolution has not Occurred as a Natural Process." you over look the fact that since these Leaders are not Scientists, they do not Understand the Conflict on a Scientific Level. I Suspect, though, that these Numbers have been Skewed just as the 99% of all Scientists Number has.
It is Better to Present Scientific Evidence, rather then Statistics about Opinions, BB, because Statistics are Often Biased.
I agree that there is somewhat less consensus among religions, depending on how literally they
interpet the bible. For example
77% Jews and 58% Catholics support evolutionary theory, while those
believing Genesis as some sort of scientific truth are not supportive of evolution, for example, only 24% of Evangelicals,
22% of Mormons and 8% of Jehovah
Witnesses believe in evolution (and these last three don't seem to agree with each other on much else..:) )
Sciencewise:
"The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007. This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce. The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1100) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent. The organization "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity" maintains a list of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism". So, the 99% figure comes from "The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists". Biblical
literalists are absolutely the ones attempting to create the controversy because they regard
scientific evolution as a threat
to their beliefs. It is not: most
scientists are Christians, just not
biblical literalists. So the
battle goes on. We must remember that science is open to change depending on evidence: biblical
literalists are not.
You Know what, BB? I Need a Break, so this is the Last Comment that I am Going to be Publishing on this Post for the Rest of the Day. As you Know, this Debate can be Never Ending.
I'm going to Stick with what I said about Scientific Evidence being more Important than Statistical Data about People's Opinions and Once Again, Please do Remember that the Goal of Intelligent Design Science Only has to do with "Evidence of Intelligent Design", NOT Proving the Bible. I Simply Can not Stress this Enough, so this One can not be Pinned on "Biblical Literists".
"the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent."
You Mean to Tell me that there was no Actual Research or Survey that this is Based on. Come on, BB, I thought you could do better than that.
"The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal."
The Word, "Relevant" is subjective and yes, "science is open to change depending on evidence: biblical literalists or not." This is just another way of saying that the Facts are what Matters, not the Statistics about Opinions, nor the Driving Force behind the Hypotheses.
Right; we've been around on this
quite a bit, and no one else seems interested. Still, I wonder what the fate of the Neanderthals was..
If I wasn't so Busy with Soap right now, in relation to Politics, on my Top Post, I'd be making more Appeals to Try and Stimulate more Interest in this Page, yet I've been Feeling sort of Swamped. You know how I am not a very good Multi-Tasker and that it is easier for me to Focus on One Issue at a Time. Thanks for the Discussion, though. Perhaps we'll Visit it again some day.
Post a Comment