The Evolution Conspiracy

[crawfish]

"Expelled" is a documentary hosted by Ben Stein (of Ferris Bueller fame) that discusses the tendency in the science community to blackball anybody who publicly adopts an "intelligent design" stance regarding origins. If you don't preach evolution, the argument goes, you're unworthy of being a scientist. Ben Stein's documentary sets out to expose this and to demonstrate the hypocrisy of such practices.

The truth is that the ID crowd simply do not want to follow the rules of the scientific method - that is, they want a level of respect accorded their scantly-evidenced hypotheses equal to that of more mature and well-supported theories.

Resistance to ID is more a resistance to putting untestable, religious ideas into science than being opposed to religion (or Christianity) itself. ID only really works as a "negative" science - looking to poke holes in current theory that it disagrees with, and does not produce forward-looking hypotheses. It offers almost nothing in the way of discovery (what has ID ever done to help us unlock secrets of the universe?), and its only utility is to support the faith of those who believe that God did not or could not have created other than what they believe. And that utility is even limited because, by setting itself up as a matter of faith, when it proves wrong it hurts the faith of the one who believes in it.

[Old Earther]

Yes, I have a problem with common descent. I thought I made that clear. All life from no life, I don't buy. Change over time, I have no problem with.

You are confused. Life from nolife is abiogenesis, not common descent. Look up "common descent". Do you agree with this idea that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor?

[GitRDunn]

The answer to the bolded part is that little word "claim". They claim to be Christians. If they really were, they would believe what the Bible said. There are too many people in this world that "claim" to be Christians. It really sickens me to think about it.

That's rather judgmental on your part. Many Christians do accept evolution (God controlled) and in no way does it contradict anything in the Bible and people can be Christians and still believe in evolution. The reason there are so many Christian scientists and most of them support evolution is because it doesn't contradict the Christian faith or the Bible in any way and science and facts support it.

[Studyin'2Show]

I think you mean, "Eugenics has its roots in Darwin". The idea came out of Origin of Species, not the other way around. I guess it may have existed earlier in another form of selected breeding, with no scientific backing other than observation (animals have been subject to a form of "eugenics" for thousands of years).

Biological science shows that the entire argument is wrong today, anyway. How many generations of "selective breeding" would it take to completely remove undesired genetic traits? Dozens? And to attempt to do so would decrease genetic diversity, leading to an increased probability of defects and disease.

Actually, I meant it exactly as I stated it. Take a look at the actual name of Darwin's 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Make no mistake, the idea of eugenics was in the mind of Charles Darwin long before his cousin Sir Francis Galton coined the term in 1883.

God Bless!

[KATA_LOUKAN]

Resistance to ID is more a resistance to putting untestable, religious ideas into science than being opposed to religion (or Christianity) itself. ID only really works as a "negative" science - looking to poke holes in current theory that it disagrees with, and does not produce forward-looking hypotheses. It offers almost nothing in the way of discovery (what has ID ever done to help us unlock secrets of the universe?), and its only utility is to support the faith of those who believe that God did not or could not have created other than what they believe. And that utility is even limited because, by setting itself up as a matter of faith, when it proves wrong it hurts the faith of the one who believes in it.

Good point. There is a big movement in my part of the world to have Islamic sciences replace science in the schools. Imagine, two types of science, one for the Christians, and one for the Muslims! This is not in the true spirit of science at all.

The point of this discussion is that scientists are free to criticize evolution to their heart's desire, as long as they provide evidence.

BUT when somebody starts using holes in the evolutionary theory to suggest untestable hypotheses, then chaos ensues and everyone with a guess (including Scientologists) is on equal footing. I have NEVER had my Christianity disrespected any time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all Creation Science Institutions require that one be a professing Christian (or Muslim) to contribute or serve on boards?

[Studyin'2Show]

You are confused. Life from nolife is abiogenesis, not common descent. Look up "common descent". Do you agree with this idea that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor?

No, I am not confused. I know the definition of abiogenesis and common descent. You were asking a broad question concerning what I accept and what I do not accept. All life from no life pretty much sums up what I do not accept and includes BOTH abiogenesis AND common descent. If you'd prefer I can say I do not buy all life from single celled life but either way what I said is a correct sumation of what I do not accept that is widely accepted in modern science.

God Bless!

[Studyin'2Show]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all Creation Science Institutions require that one be a professing Christian (or Muslim) to contribute or serve on boards?

Oops. If you replace that with ID then yes you are wrong. The Discovery Institute has fellows that are both agnostic and atheist. As for creation science, the movie Expelled did not address creation science, only ID.

[KATA_LOUKAN]

Make no mistake, the idea of eugenics was in the mind of Charles Darwin long before his cousin Sir Francis Galton coined the term in 1883.

Eugenics does not appear in the title.

"Races" is simply the archaic term for species, as Darwin was careful to note in his correspondence. He did not include aspects of humanity intentionally, because he knew it would evoke too much controversy.

(Note: Eugenics as a movement had its start in Plato, who suggested that the government control which people had the right to reproduce.)

Furthermore, the Nazis banned Darwin's work.


S2S: Point taken. Thank you for the info.

[crawfish]

Actually, I meant it exactly as I stated it. Take a look at the actual name of Darwin's 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Make no mistake, the idea of eugenics was in the mind of Charles Darwin long before his cousin Sir Francis Galton coined the term in 1883.

God Bless!

There is a difference between being favored by natural selection and trying to favor selection yourself. The former is observation while the latter is application.

[Old Earther]

No, I am not confused. I know the definition of abiogenesis and common descent.....

....All life from no life pretty much sums up what I do not accept and includes BOTH abiogenesis AND common descent.

Life from nonlife is a concept unrelated to common descent. Common descent deals only with life from life.

You were asking a broad question concerning what I accept and what I do not accept.

My question was not broad at all. I asked you if you have a problem with the notion of common descent.

[Literalist-Luke]

Did you check out the expelledexposed link?

Anyway, can you give me one scientific reason for believing the Earth to be young?

Nope, but I don't care, because the author of the Bible created the physical laws that science attempts to explain, so I trust what He says over humans.

[Literalist-Luke]

The truth is that the ID crowd simply do not want to follow the rules of the scientific method - that is, they want a level of respect accorded their scantly-evidenced hypotheses equal to that of more mature and well-supported theories.

Resistance to ID is more a resistance to putting untestable, religious ideas into science than being opposed to religion (or Christianity) itself. ID only really works as a "negative" science - looking to poke holes in current theory that it disagrees with, and does not produce forward-looking hypotheses. It offers almost nothing in the way of discovery (what has ID ever done to help us unlock secrets of the universe?), and its only utility is to support the faith of those who believe that God did not or could not have created other than what they believe. And that utility is even limited because, by setting itself up as a matter of faith, when it proves wrong it hurts the faith of the one who believes in it.

Well, there's an equal problem with evolution as well. Because evolution is equally ill-equipped to explain origins. Sure, sure, evolution will attempt to go further back in time, but even when we get all the way back to that "big bang" that started everything, the question still remains unanswered regarding where the material in that "big bang" originally came from. ID simply realizes the inherent inability of science to explain the ultimate origin, and simply jumps straight to the end conclusion without wasting any time in between. So the argument that ID fails to contribute as a reason for ignoring it doesn't hold water, because evolution merely takes longer to admit that we don't know where it all came from, short of a supernatural origin.

[crawfish]

No, I am not confused. I know the definition of abiogenesis and common descent. You were asking a broad question concerning what I accept and what I do not accept. All life from no life pretty much sums up what I do not accept and includes BOTH abiogenesis AND common descent. If you'd prefer I can say I do not buy all life from single celled life but either way what I said is a correct sumation of what I do not accept that is widely accepted in modern science.

God Bless!

Common descent starts from the point at which there is life. Whether that life sprang from nonlife, was seeded from the stars or was created ex nihilo by some intelligent designer, the same rules still hold.

[crawfish]

Well, there's an equal problem with evolution as well. Because evolution is equally ill-equipped to explain origins. Sure, sure, evolution will attempt to go further back in time, but even when we get all the way back to that "big bang" that started everything, the question still remains unanswered regarding where the material in that "big bang" originally came from. ID simply realizes the inherent inability of science to explain the ultimate origin, and simply jumps straight to the end conclusion without wasting any time in between. So the argument that ID fails to contribute as a reason for ignoring it doesn't hold water, because evolution merely takes longer to admit that we don't know where it all came from, short of a supernatural origin.

Evolution doesn't have to explain origins. In fact, it doesn't attempt to.

What evolution does contribute is an explanation of what we are. Hypotheses and theories based off an understanding of common descent evolution have led to huge advancements in the fields of medicine, genetics, disease and the like. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Evolution may be theoretical, but it has led to many, many concrete discoveries.

ID does nothing of the sort. Inevitably, it will be pulled into the ever-dwindling gaps in our knowledge to describe what we don't know. I have little problem with that as a matter of faith (just be careful what exactly you put your faith in). I have a big problem with it being used as an equally scientific plausible explanation to things that have the support of evidence.

[Old Earther]

Nope, but I don't care...

You don't care about what? Hacing scientific evidence to back your belief in a young earth?

...the author of the Bible created the physical laws that science attempts to explain

Yes he did.

so I trust what He says over humans.

Me too.

Remember though that God gave us wonderful brains by which we can come to understand his creation.