BTW, none of this has anything to do with George W Bush drinking,
but it is STILL off-topic.
This discussion now fall squarely within the subject matter of
talk.origins but I suppose people who want Scientific Journals
to publish papers about God are not going to be inclined at all
to moving this thread to a newsgroup where it belongs.
Not, I daresay, a coincidence.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 29 Sep 2005 16:16:03 EDT, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Steve Peterson wrote:
See http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp and http://www.ncseweb.org/
for some information on evolution and "Intelligent Design." ID is at best a
pseudoscientific attempt to undercut teaching of evolution. It is big on
That may be true. Just bear in mind that postulating intelligent
design/creation is *not* the same argument as demanding a literal
reading of the Genesis account.
public relations and press coverage, but basically void of the key to the
scientific method, i.e. making testable predictions.
Then why is the Science community so terrified to led ID have it's day
in court (journals, conferences, etc.) and *refute* it? So far,
most of what I've found is members of the Science Establishment
taking ad hominem pot shots, not actually refuting the IDer methods
or claims.
Because it could potentially expose their own slavish adherence to a
certain orthodoxy and faith as well as the underlying first postulate that
relies upon suspension of all current laws of science and logic for the
initial genesis of the universe ...
Which is an issue of cosmology, not evolutionary biology and I
daresay that NO Journal of nor conference on Evolutionary Biology
will or should accept papers on cosmology.
to which they pledge their allegience to
the laws of science and logic? i.e, one of the fundamentals of science and
logic is that for every effect,there must be a cause -- sometimes that
cause is not easy to unravel or identify (ala Locke), but there is a cause.
The fundamental tenet of current cosmology requires the suspension of that
scientific principle (Ex nihilo nihil -- from nothing, nothing comes) and
substitutes instead a non-causal event (from nothing, everything comes).
Until the adherents to this theory can explain the origin of their big bang
and its causitive agent, they have nothing more to stand on than any other
theology.
Aside from the confabulation I addressed above, it is clear that
you do not undersand the Big Bang Theory. Big Bang theory does
not presume that the Universe was preceded by nothing.
However, "Creation Science" does presume that God Created the
Universe, "from the void".
Of course, like most scientists, I don't have a problem with that.
Putting aside for the moment the question of whom is a scientist
and whom is not almost everyone who calls himself a scientist
does have a problem with religionist insisting that "God did it"
must be an acceptable element of scientific theory.
For crying out loud, any time someone runs accross something they
can't explain they can just declare that "God did it" and be
done with it. Science came into existance precisely because
some people decided to look for non-divine casuality.
One quote from Darwin is telling (no, fred, I'm not going to list a cite
-- look it up yourself), when he was questioned regarding fundamental
problems with his theories was that yes, there were problems, but that his
theory was the best thing available that wasn't based on creation -- hardly
a scientific comment.
Before explaining why your final statement is plainly wrong let me
proceed on the assumption that the quote is reasonably accurate
and suggest a probable context. Natural Selection and adapted
traits were readily understood and observed. The stumbling block
for evolution theory in the 19th Century was the issue of
inheritance. While selective breeding was understood to the
extend that it had becomea very useful process there was still
no underlying physical process that could account for the
inheritance of traits whether they had been selected for or
acquired.
This was equally a problem for Lamarck and Darwin. So probably
Darwin's remarks was in the context of THAT problem.
Need I point out how easy it would have been for either Larmarck
or Darwin to address that deficiency by modifying the second laws
of their respective theories to say:
"Those traits are passed on to the next generation by Divine
intervention."
Logically, their theories would then be proven but only if,
a priori_ you accept a logic that allows metaphysical intervention
in the material world. To their credit neither man resorted
to that, the oldest excuse for an explanation that is to be
found in the historical record. They had enough backbone (or
not enough chutzpah) to make such a claim.
So the statement attributed to Darwin: "yes, there were problems,
but that his theory was the best thing available that wasn't
based on creation" IS a very scientific statement.
Scentific theories are by their very nature the best explanations
for Natural phenomena that are independent of metaphysical
considerations.
Until you accept that, you reject science.
"God chose to do it this way" is not an element of a scientific
theory. It is an excuse to not do science at all.
--
FF