A great work of comedy is likely to hit Australian cinemas later this year. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is the latest attempt by Christian fundamentalists to put a fake moustache on creationism and call it science. As with their previous stabs at winding the clock back to the middle ages, the producers quote respectable researchers wildly out of context and clearly assume that none of the viewers have even a rudimentary grasp of science or the scientific method - an assumption which has paid off in the past.

We know that evolutionary theory provokes hysteria among the religious, but why that theory alone? While our knowledge of selection, adaptation and genetics isn't perfect, evolution is hardly the only incomplete theory out there. Gravity is still a mystery in many respects, and if creationists think that disagreement among biologists invalidates evolution, then the vicious intellectual brawls among physicists should convince them the universe might fall apart at any moment.

Considering that every claim about the natural world made in the Bible is wrong - such as the geocentric universe and flat earth - you'd think that loyal Christians would be railing against astronomy and geograhy as much as evolution.

So, why aren't the fundamentalists producing hysterical propaganda about the "big lie" of quantum physics or dark matter? What is it about evolution that frightens them so much?

Just a quick glance through the masses of material that has already been produced on the topic in the US and Canada tells me this was pretty big over there.

There are even those who preface their comments with "I haven't seen the movie, but...", which is the kind of reaction we would normally expect from po-faced religionists sniffing about some movie that offended their sensibilities, so it is interesting to see the other foot well-booted.

Most fascinating is the blooming of a thousand sites on the theme "How to Share Your Faith Using Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which suggests an orchestrated push by the ID crowd to generate evangelical support activity amongst the faithful.

The movie itself made the top ten in its first week of release, so there's no doubt the pre-publicity had its desired effect. Reviews have been mixed, of course, as is to be expected of a documentary on such a controversial topic (the teaching of ID, that is, not evolution), but not all have been raves.

Even Christianity Today is somewhat lukewarm.

"the film succeeds in making the point that Intelligent Design should at least be on the table for discussion. But if you're looking for ammunition to argue your Darwinist friends under the table, you may want to look elsewhere."

I suspect the level of hype the movie experienced will not cross the Pacific. We tend to be a little less gullible when it comes to being manipulated into a faux controversy designed merely to get bums on cinema seats.

Mind you, it is altogether a very strong reminder of the power of viral marketing.

Excellent point.

As a side issue, did you see that they've discovered a tree in Sweden that is nearly 10,000 years old? Isn't this 4,000 years older than the world itself, according to creationists?

I thought that was neat.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7353357.stm

Come Vanilla..into my counselling room *creepy* ? :)

Please read the first verse of the Bible.. Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"

*kaaaaaBOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM*

Then, you can consider what it means in terms of the age of the Earth.

No..not yet.. don't post.. go back and readddd it.. thinkkkk about it.... more more more.

Ok..now you've reflected, we can progress to verse 2.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

At this point, science and theology seem to have a trial separation.
They increasingly poke at each other from a distance. But Theologically speaking.... all it's saying is that

-God created all things.
-Creation was not an 'instantaneous' process when it comes to the earth.
-There was a 'process' involved.

I don't know enough about science and astro physics to comment much on the possibilities of the 'order' and chronology of the subsequent events.

-Light /Dark
-Day/night
-Sea/ land
-Vegetation.
-Water team with living creatures.

Verse 14 might be a bit of a problem as it seems to suggest that the stars were created after the earth.... but jeepers creepers...this was revealed/made known to people at a time when they had no clue whatsoever about astro physics.

Isn't it possible that God made it known in a comprehensible way?

When it mentions 'the 5th day'.... should we interpret this as literally 24hours..or.. how? There is debate about this, and some people take an extreme view "If you don't believe in a 24hr day/night, you are heretical" Others take a less dogmatic approach suggesting the days might be 'ages'...

Me ? :) I take a "Let's start with the resurrection of Christ approach"

It was the 'athiests' who fired the first shot in this empty headed battle. They managed to get one unscientific theory labelled as scientific. It was inevitable that others would try to follow suit. They should just admit that evolution is not a scientific theory either. Extremists from both sides are giving science a bad name. While they insist that evolution is a scientific theory, they are unable to give any fundamental reason why creationism isn't. While they insist that evolution is a scientific theory, they are unable to define science in a meaningful way. It reflects badly on all scientists to be unable to distance themselves from such a philsophically shallow debate that is capturing the public attention.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Boaz,

I think the 4,004 BC thing has to do with clerics working the OT geneologies back to A&E.

What was a bigger challenge for Christians was seeing the Earth and the Universe both as natural phenomena. The Church/Christians saw Crystal Spheres, the Earth as natural creation and space, as heaven, [supernatural). When Galileo described the orbits of the planets, said motion, would have broken the Spheres meaning space was not the realm of the supernatural. Space was natural and the Church wrong.

Relatedly, a Christian Codex (1616) states regarding the heliocenric verses geocentric universe:

"... Propositions to be forbidden:
the sun is the immovable centre of the heaven*;
the earth is not the centre of heaven*...

* Note the reference to heaven [supernatural] with earth [natural at the centre.

- I posit Science has demonstrated the earth is not the centre of the universe or heaven. Herein, Jesus should have dissolved into space-time not ascended, his body achieving a quantum state of infinite indeterminancy, not floating somewhere in space [as heaven].

Matter evolves too with heavier elements being created intergenerationally between a series of stars. There were likely two solar systems before ours, ten billion years before Earth's creation.

Even before Galileo's discoveries Pope Pope III [1542] stated Christians must fight the new knowledge of the Reformation:

"...against heretical depravity throughout the Christian Commonwealth."

Christians must have taken such decrees seriously because Christian monks destroyed the works [genentics] of Gregor Mendel upon his death in 1884.

Freediver,

I thought I had explained in an earlier post, how proto-humans evolved by not adapting to savannah and the Topi antelope did survive there by natural selection? That is, evolution verses natural selection. Both predictable.

"Matter evolves too with heavier elements being created intergenerationally between a series of stars.

I don't think evolution is the correct term to use there.

"I thought I had explained in an earlier post, how proto-humans evolved by not adapting to savannah and the Topi antelope did survive there by natural selection? That is, evolution verses natural selection. Both predictable.

That's an explanation, not a prediction.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

freediver, it may come as a surprise and shock to you, but most people here respect the convention that when they include external references to support their argument, these references are to material produced by others.

Yours, I notice, simply refer the reader to more of your own work, which in turn simply regurgitates the arguments you put forward on this thread. This leads to the impression that your position can be stated as "it's true because I say it's true", as opposed to "look, all these other people think the same way that I do"

Do you spot the difference?

And Boaz, even on a topic as simple as this, you are displaying your ability to i) cherry-pick and ii) shift seamlessly from fact to metaphor, as it suits you.

>>"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth" *kaaaaaBOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM*<<

I presume from the *kaaaaaBOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM* that you would like us to take this verse literally?

The two entities are "the heavens" and "earth", and we have a word-picture of a formless earth, with some of it covered in water.

Very picturesque. But not much of the vasty universe encompassed in all that, is there?

So where exactly do we depart from the literal, Boaz, and dive into the metaphorical.

Because, as you yourself point out

>>jeepers creepers...this was revealed/made known to people at a time when they had no clue whatsoever about astrophysics<<

Well of course they didn't. So isn't it just possible - or even extremely likely - that they simply conjured up this God person to provide a credible explanation.

Something you don't understand? "It was God wot dun it".

You are in danger of overbalancing with this gem, Boaz:

>>Isn't it possible that God made it known in a comprehensible way?<<

But that's precisely the point - it isn't comprehensible in its present form.

It requires translation, supposition, imagination, invention.

If there were a God, and he had some interest in letting people know, wouldn't it have been a bit smarter to provide a more complete story?

The clash between the Charles Darwin followers and the Christians will go on probably right up until Jesus Christ gets back.
Closed minds will remain closed.
There will be enlightening for some as huge christian revival breaks out across the world as things darken towards that Day...but not all will come in to that enlightening...i.e. that the Holy Bible is the truth.
It might be better if the worldly folk took at look at what is really happening right before their eyes.
Some subjects you could look at are...Luke chapter 21, Revelation 13:16-18, 2 Timothy 3, etc.
What we see is a time, right now today, when wars are on the increase, as are earthquakes, famines, diseases...there is a slow move by the new world order to get a microchip on either the right hand or forehead for everyone (the mark of the beast, the mark/chip of the final dictator, we christian call it)... a great explosion of crime in the last days as people become selfish and brutal and rebellious. Its all on The Word and its all happening.
The Bible is the path into the future and to experience its greatest work we need to submit to God and receive His Saviour, Jesus Christ for that is what the Book is all about.

"but most people here respect the convention that when they include external references to support their argument, these references are to material produced by others

I've never heard of any such convention. Are you just making it up? Perhaps you are confusing the tendency to do something with an agreement to do it. It's just that in most cases people don't have a reference by themselves. In circumstance where people do, for example in academia, self referencing is common.

"which in turn simply regurgitates the arguments you put forward on this thread

The correct word is elaboration, not regurgitation. There is no way I could fit the entire argument in the tiny amount of space I am given here.

"This leads to the impression that your position can be stated as "it's true because I say it's true", as opposed to "look, all these other people think the same way that I do"

The former is a definitional identity (or close to it). The latter is argumentum ad populum. My argument is neither. It does hinge partly on semantics, but I give ample justification for my choice of definitions - something none of my opponenets are capable of. In fact, they can't even provide alternative definitions.

"Something you don't understand? "It was God wot dun it".

Sounds very similar to "it was evolution wot dun it." From a scientific perspective, neither have any value. Which is why the evolutionists are ahving such trouble beating down the creationists. They created the problem in the first place by opening the door for themselves, without realising others would inevitably follow their false lead.

No references freediver? Well, let me provide some for you. You mustn't have looked too hard through any literature.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-121645986.html

I think you'll find some eerie similarities between Popper's argument and your own(apart from the fact that Popper admitted he was wrong). That you do not even make a cursory examination of previous scientific literature or philosophy on your blog (or anywhere else that I can tell) is rather odd and certainly entertains your critics.

Oh, and self-referencing is occasionally done 'in academia' but it is never done to the exclusion of others work, that is seriously frowned upon and it will ensure non-publication in any reputable forum. In case you haven't noticed also: you are neither in academia nor is your argument unique, it was refuted soundly more than two decades ago. Science has moved on, but it appears some culture warriors just cannot.

Freediver,

" 'I thought I had explained in an earlier post, how proto-humans evolved by not adapting to savannah and the Topi antelope did survive there by natural selection? That is, evolution verses natural selection. Both predictable.' That's an explanation, not a prediction." - above

In the 1980s, I was a systems analyst developing a credit scoring system for a bank. I developed about twenty criteria using populations of records. Later, using data from "past" loans with outcomes blind to be I was a about to predict [bet you going substitute this word] with better than 90% accuracy those loans that became unproductive. It was also falisiable one could look at the total population that remained productive despite the risky traits being evident.

Likewise, I see no problem in using past records to demonstrate the difference between evolution verses natural selection. Albeit, the Scientist should first formulate the hypotheses to be confirmed or refuted and cross-test with null hypotheses.

Forget the dinosaurs. Let us consider skin colour. Current science would predict that if a large number of generations from "stem" black people lived in Iceland their skin would lighten to absorb vitamin "D". The hypothesis is likely to state a number of generations or a shade of skin gradient. Hence, is falsiable. If after fifty generations say there is a change towards lighter skin the hypothesis confirmed. If not, the hypothesis refuted. If an experimenter looking at the results in 2500 CE sees no change and extends the time required; this would not mean the original hypothesis was not falsifiable.

Moving the parameter is okay; actually that is what happened with studies into the cycles of high sun spot activity. Predictions of short cycles were refoted. Predictions of longer cycles [20 years?] were confirmed.

"No references freediver? Well, let me provide some for you. You mustn't have looked too hard through any literature.

Let's not go jumping to conclusions OK?

"I think you'll find some eerie similarities between Popper's argument and your own

I have addressed these similarities here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1176489173

"you are neither in academia nor is your argument unique, it was refuted soundly more than two decades ago

No it wasn't. Remember what I said about jumping to conclusions? How about you stick to what you can back up? Remember, argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20populum

Oliver:

"Likewise, I see no problem in using past records to demonstrate the difference between evolution verses natural selection.

Not sure what you mean by this. Your skin colour example is natural selection.

"Predictions of short cycles were refoted. Predictions of longer cycles [20 years?] were confirmed.

Do you mean the theories were refuted?

Why does the Black Knight spring to mind once again?

freediver, where did you address the similarities between Poppers argument and your own? Most of that link looks like it's talking about Kuhn.

Can you just summarise what your position is regarding Popper? You may have covered it, but I can't be bothered to trawl through all the drivel and bloggers slagging you off for being a thickhead, and I really wouldn't want to subject that anyone else that is actually interested in this topic either.

Is Poppers argument is the same as yours? Or different?
Remember, Popper admitted he was incorrect and published a retraction. This is NOT an argument ad populum, it was thrashed out publicly in refereed journals.
Now, if your argument is different to Poppers original position, please outline how exactly, just for us bloggers in the peanut gallery.

Just out of curiosity, who are these 'opponents' of yours you mention? Are they scientists, philosophers or anonymous internet bloggers?

Why evolution? Why not! Its the only thing that makes any sense. Proving it, is another story. These debates can go on until the cows come in, and too think that one being made it all, well, that just might be just a fact.( easy daivd). We all know that we cant be the only planet with life on it, and UFO'S and much more that has been seen or heard about, can not be put out of the acquisition. Personally, I think this planet is a zoo or a bank. Think about it! Why do we worship the skies. Why do we look to the above. Why life just happened all of a sudden. 6.5 billion years, is a haft way point, and when with our greatest thoughts and mathematical level of development, 13 billion point something the universe has been here, much more has light years on us. So why cant this be plausible?

I don't usually pour water on a drowning man, but a little more self-awareness might actually be good for you, freediver.

>>I've never heard of any such convention<<

That is blindingly obvious.

>>In circumstance where people do, for example in academia, self referencing is common.<<

Do you have any evidence of this? Apart from your saying it is true, of course.

>>The correct word is elaboration, not regurgitation<<

Nope. Regurgitation it is.

>>The latter is argumentum ad populum.<<

You are confusing my assertion, that academics tend to refer to the work of other academics, with the statement "everyone thinks so".

>>but I give ample justification for my choice of definitions<<

Regrettably, this is not true. Even more regrettably, you believe that it is. To me, you "justify" your position by merely referring to a longer, more convoluted, but equally incomprehensible entry in your blog. This may give you immense feelings of self-justification - not to mention self-importance - but the reality is that they advance the argument not one jot or tittle.

>>Which is why the evolutionists are ahving such trouble beating down the creationists.<<

Since when?

It seems to me that only argument in your locker is that evolution and creationism are equally valid philosophical propositions, because there is nothing "scientific" about either.

That is an argument that is only sustainable as long as you ignore all the work that has been undertaken over centuries, by other people.

So long as you remain self-referential, your position is untouchable.

Which, I guess, is why you put so much energy into it.

Actually, when religious belief comes with a healthy dose of common sense, I really don't have any clashes with it.

For all these debates, I really don't see why evolution and the Christian god have to be at loggerheads. As boaz pointed out, the '6 days' tale can be interpreted in any manner of ways. I don't see why it can't be interpreted through an evolutionary mindset, nor do I see why some Christians feel the need to cling to this idea that the world is only 5 or 6 thousand years old.

That, I'm afraid, is just plain stupidity and denies a great deal of scientific knowledge that mankind has painstakingly put forward.

As I understand it, the aramaic words for time were fairly vague, and could represent a vast period, when the creation myth was explained. None of this 'six days' foolishness, or very brief histories of the world.

Despite the protestations of atheist, I don't think there's compelling evidence to rule out the existence of a deity, even noting the 'teacup' proposition put forward by Dawkins.

It's the idea of a specific deity who's nature has been pinned down in some book of myths that really seems a bit bizarre, but provided these myths don't interfere with logic and common sense, I see no reason why they can't co-exist peacefully.

It's just the hardcore literalists who can't see that they're striving to return mankind to the dark age, who make problems.

And with that thought, I leave you with this comic gem:

http://xkcd.com/154/

Freerider,

1. Yes, I did mean refute. A typo.

2. Human skin colour in situation stated above, I predict would change regardless of selective pressure from competion. which, incidently, could be eliminated via experimental controls.

3. Dawkins makes the point that if a God did create the Universe that God is a complex entity. Following ths: How did God evolve its complexity. How do you explain the existence of God(s)? N.B. I am not asking does God exist? Hence, I repeat the question, "How do explain God's complexity and existence?"

"Human skin colour in situation stated above, I predict would change regardless of selective pressure from competion. which, incidently, could be eliminated via experimental controls."

Without selection pressure, it wouldn't change at all. Unless there is a factor giving dark pigmentation a survival advantage, people could live in Iceland for a million years and remain black as the ace of spades. What you're describing is a kind of Lamarckism.

I'd like to bring the discussion back to my original query: why is it evolution in particular that upsets fundamentalists? It seems that you can disprove or ignore any number divine dictates in the bible - from spousal abuse to buggering house guests - but exploring the origins of life is strictly off limits.

My guess is simply that a non-biblical explanation of life piques the death anxiety which drives so many people into fundamentalism in the first place, but I'm interested in other perspectives.

Sancho,

1. I will reflect on the pigmentation situation. I can see why short giraffes would die-out, but skin colour, while it might stress the body to lack of Vitamin D from being black; it is unlikely to prevent reproduction. I appreciate where you are coming from and will think it through.

2. With regards to believing in god and the need for an after-life, some [my references are not to hand] have suggested that higher brain functions [cortex] are trying to work with low brain functions [limbic system, which links in with the survival instinct].

Cheers,

O.

Sancho,

From Internet browsing one draws the possibility that skin colour "is" a result of selective pressure on the SLC24A5 threonine-111 allele, which is said to carried by blacks and whites. Herein, the pressure is on the allele not entire persons. So maybe black races would turn white in Iceland over time, via natural selection. The Internet referencing used was very poor, so, I will need to check this out idea, further, on a univiversity database.

Sells and Boaz,

Perhaps you might join Freediver in explaining the existence of God?

Sancho, selection is on the person carrying the allele. So if only dark people lived in Iceland and no mutants with lighter skin ever appeared, light skinned people would not occur. In contrast, if you had people with many skin colours, those with light skins would be fitter, would produce more children and over time the population would shift from predominantly dark to predominantly white. You need competition. This is what Darwin described as “survival of the fittest”. This is a classical example of natural selection and easily testable.

Freediver, you are unfortunately totally confused. Natural Selection IS evolution, just as Artificial Selection is. Both are testable and able to be proven false. Examples you might like to consider include antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance and herbicide resistance. All these have been tested and the results written up in scientific papers.

TRTL..nice to see a degree of open mind there :)

PERICLES..

"Well of course they didn't. So isn't it just possible - or even extremely likely - that they simply conjured up this God person to provide a credible explanation."

Your pedantry is your own worst enemy mate.
But my 'kaboom' statement was connecting to the Big Bang.
The first verse of Genesis is not a metaphor it is a statement..(of fact)
So simple and refreshing:

In the beginning...God.....created....

Now..you suggest that this idea of God was just 'conjured up'....

The reasons I disagree are many, but the most important ones aside from my own faith position, is the stark comparison between the Creation story and the Creation 'myths' like Gilgamish etc.

Perhaps its me... but when I hear of 'gods fighting and chopping each other up, and one body part becoming the moon'..... errrr cough.. lets face it.. we KNOW that isn't the case today.

But can we scientifically prove "In the Beginning...God did NOT create"? err..no.

What we DO have is 'speculation'.... and a lot of interesting facts about chemistry and the process of natural selection. But as to having proved God did NOT create? we are millenia away from that.

Not pedantry at all, Boaz, simply an enquiring mind.

>>Your pedantry is your own worst enemy mate. But my 'kaboom' statement was connecting to the Big Bang. The first verse of Genesis is not a metaphor it is a statement..(of fact) So simple and refreshing<<

My question, which must have been too heavily disguised for you to notice, was this.

If you accept the first verse of Genesis as fact, do you treat verse 2 in the same way?

When does it turn from being factual, to metaphorical?

"And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven." Gen 1 7-8

Or later.

"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth" Gen 1 16-17

Are we still being literal here?

The only point I was making was that you are as ever extremely picky when it comes to determining what is fact and what is metaphor.

You do it with your Bible, and you also do it with the Qur'an. The only difference is that you don't permit the concept that the Qur'an may be metaphorical too.

How do you choose? Just to suit yourself, I guess.

Incidentally, you didn't write 'kaboom'

You wrote *kaaaaaBOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM*

Cosmic Light
Space
Matter
All have an eternal dimension they were there in the beginning of space. Living forms have a more recent past. Certainly not 6,000 years as Bishop Ussher calculated and others who follow his teachings believe. It is spurious quoting what past views past generations or the Church has helds as evidence of Biblical revelation. The Bible no where held the Earth as flat, the oldest documents talk about the "circle of the Earth".

Assuming the population of humanity doubles every 100 years begin with two and multiply it 100 times this would put us near our present population. Now if evolution were factual we would not be starting with two but millions of similar ancestors. Or was there only Adam and Eve after all? No other huge population of ancestral species after all the huffing and puffing?

What happened to all our near human ancestors and their decendants? Human remains found preserved in the ice 3,000 years posess the same genes as humans today. Humans isolated for thousands of years like the original Australians, or isolated tribes in West Irian are equally human as any other human race. Isolation or land lock may develop some inbreeding characteristics that display some genetic mutated weakness but it has not developed a new or more advanced species which is the claim of evolution. Evolution relies on mutations and mutations is a loss of genetic information not and advance in genetic information.

Philo, some of the mutations result in duplication of genes. These new versions of the genes then change to give new activities. And who said evolution had to be more genetic information?

Species are not defined by a single gene. They become different because of reproductive isolation and separate selection. Species A evolves to cope with the environment it is in, Species B evolves to cope with a different environment. If they are separated for a long time (hundreds of generations), they can no longer interbreed and become separate species. There are huge numbers of papers in the scientific literature examining situations with recent speciation events.

Two websites may be of interest:

www.skepdic.com/creation.html

http://atheism.about.com/od.creationismcreationists/p/scientific.htm

Here something relatively recent -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Also, anybody know the creationist explanation for the existence of blind cave-dwelling insects and reptiles discovered in long sealed off environments?

Were their ancestors cut off in a cave environment and "evolved" or were they already created without sight and somehow managed to find their way into dark places and seal themselves off?

I'd really like to know.

So that is the reason some animals like fruit bats and insect bats are nocternal. They lived in dark caves for thousands of years until they found a way to escape to only come out at night. How did they survive underground - obviously found underground fruit or insects? Where is the underground fruit sources today? Obviously they ate them all. Or were they never there at all? They were genetically formed that way?

Why is it Australian termites cannot cope with sunlight, when their environment is the hottest surface sunlit environment on the planet? Obviously they never adapted to working in the sun unlike ants. When did they and how did they and why did they become sensitive to sunlight? Or is it they were genetically created within the environment?

We are born, we live , and we die. Just like everything else.( There is no hotels for entities )Religious people or man kind invented gods, cause of the fact they cant come to terms with their own demise, and the meaning of it, which helps one to cope with the fear's of death.( and not to mention, death too them cant be the last stop) Well it can!

People who fear death will manifest a place in their minds and this helps them to better understand the end and the point of living as well. SO 2000 years ago in the thinking.! ( and lets not forget that this manifested from the primitive mind and not to mention the selfish aspects the religious people have.

Christians are gullible to the fact, too where one cant see anything else and this is a shame, IMO, The answer that we seek, are not on earth, and you need to be alive to find it.

The answer too everything is OUT THERE. and not in the borrow of a god!

Its no wonder mankind hasn't got anywhere, to busy living in fear from something that we have no proof exists.

Like I said before, god is not what you think it is.

Just a thought.

Evolution,

The capture of God(s) by a religious priesthood would go back about 6,000 B.P. Before that time, there were post-nomadic garden coummunities. When the first cities, like Ur, were established, the question of who owns God's land came into question. The answer, "God". Who administers the property on behalf of God? Reply, "The Priesthood". Herein, a transition from tribalism and animism to institutionalised religio-politics and power occurs.

Of couse, Shamen also held power in earlier systems, but said power was more associated with the spirits of totems, ancestors and healing.]

Our Limbic system envolved to assist us in our survival [Rhawn] and is marketed to us by the religions and their respective priesthoods. Hence, Churches, mosques and synagogues market to that need:
Relionigists "indwell" [Polanyi] [typically] uncritically in the priesthood'd performance, reinforcing cognitions, via the neocortex, to serve the limbic systems instinctive fear of death.

The after-life is a powerful construct; and, churches inventing gods and satisfying that need to survive, is very influential indeed.

Lastly, I posit "divine creation" [which I believe did not occur]; if it did occur; would have nothing to the fabrications and confabications of church councils and decrees. Institutionalised religion via Humankind's manistifestations, devoution and cunning, would be different to a divine creator, of which, neither history nor science provides any evidence.

This begs the question does religion help us survive? Is relatant to evolution?

Freediver,

When can post:

Please explain the existence of God?

Does religion help us to survive? Yes It did and now it doesnt. In past posts I have said this. Ever since man became a conscious being, he has looked to the skies for the answers. Evolution has played a big part in everything, including religion.

Evolution,

I am much in agreement with your most recent statement on religion, except I think it might take a few hundred years to wean religionists off their beliefs: And we might need this time for disestablishment and social adjustment, presumably towards secular humanism of some sort. I would like to be around in 2500 to see. Alas, my atoms will have other duties by then: My sentience, history.

Bugsy:

"where did you address the similarities between Poppers argument and your own? Most of that link looks like it's talking about Kuhn

Yes it is mostly about Kuhn, but there is a bit about Popper in the first post.

"Is Poppers argument is the same as yours? Or different?

It is similar, but different in important ways. I am more familiar with Kuhn, as his view is more widely supported and I have read far more of his work. As I understand it, Popper's view differs in that Kuhn focusses on the emergent properties of science as a community, whereas Popper focusses on the ground rules. Popper makes them too restrictive and placed unnecessary demands on the motives of scientists, rather than the methods. In the argument about whether evolution is a scientific theory, I focus on the 'ground rules' which recieve only light treatment from Kuhn, however I share his view that for the most part it is not necessary for scientists to consciously follow them. As people, they are free to move in and out of the scientific method at will. However, the scientific method is distinct and shows remarkable overlap with the products of what is readily defined as science by the lay person. There are two sources of value in the semantic part of my argument - this overlap, and the insight and power of the method itself.

"Just out of curiosity, who are these 'opponents' of yours you mention? Are they scientists, philosophers or anonymous internet bloggers?

A mixture.

Pericles:

"That is blindingly obvious.

OK I'll simplify for you - that alleged convention does not exist.

"Do you have any evidence of this? Apart from your saying it is true, of course.

There is plenty around. Pick up any journal. It is common knowledge.

"Regrettably, this is not true. Even more regrettably, you believe that it is.

I have outlined the basic argument above. Perhaps you should respond to that, rather than asserting I made no argument.

"but the reality is that they advance the argument not one jot or tittle

Says the guy who just admitted he cannot understand them. Plenty of other people have no problem understanding it. Perhaps the problem lies with you after all and not me. In any case, understand the argument first before declaring it lacks value.

"It seems to me that only argument in your locker is that evolution and creationism are equally valid philosophical propositions, because there is nothing "scientific" about either.

Not quite, but you are getting there.

"So long as you remain self-referential, your position is untouchable.

Perhaps you still haven't noticed my references to other peoples work? Do try to keep up. There is nothing wrong with self referencing, provided you give the necessary basis.

TRTL

"Despite the protestations of atheist, I don't think there's compelling evidence to rule out the existence of a deity, even noting the 'teacup' proposition put forward by Dawkins.

Dawkins tended to use logical fallacies. His arguments merely reflect his assumptions about God, not the liklihood of God's existence. For example

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1195014419

Look at it this way Oliver. They can stay here and pray, while the rest of us goes out and explores the galaxy, eventually they will get the picture, and hey! We need someone to do the gardening.lol

All the best.

EVO

Vanilla, Vanilla, Vanilla ...

" ... a tree in Sweden that is nearly 10,000 years old ... "

Don't you know?

A creationist explained such phenomena to me. G-d is testing your faith.

If you believe this tree is 10,000 years old, you are DOOMED.

We're all ... well most of us are ... doomed I tell you ... DOOMED. Damned to hell and all its torments, grinding and gnashing of teeth (those without teeth will be provided for), for believing the tree is 4,000 years older than it actually is ... if you know what I mean.

Perhaps the tree had magical fertilizer ... some devoted soul. Or, perhaps g-d exilerated its growth ... JUST TO UPSET YOU ... and you ... and even you.

Having been warned about g-d and his machinations ... he's found his match in me ...

Now about the Chaos theory ...

freediver,
"As I understand it, Popper's view differs in that Kuhn focuses on the emergent properties of science as a community, whereas Popper focuses on the ground rules. Popper makes them too restrictive and placed unnecessary demands on the motives of scientists, rather than the methods."

I nearly spat my beer out all over my monitor when I read this. Your argument hinges entirely on the restrictiveness of definitions and 'ground rules'!

Periods of 'normal science' described by Kuhn do not mean that scientists "move in and out of the scientific method at will", I believe that you do not understand what is being talked about here.

No scientist is in any doubt about the value of the scientific method. However, the semantic part of your argument is where you fail. It is even more restrictive than Poppers, it has to be to define evolutionary theory as 'non-scientific', Kuhn would not put such a label on it at all.

So, if you believe your theory is a blending of these two major perspectives, I don't think you've succeeded very well. Neither of them (Kuhn nor Popper) concluded that evolution is non-science, with good reason. You have seriously failed to elucidate how you achieve your conclusions from using Kuhn's line of reasoning (if indeed you do use it).
In summary, what appears to be the case is that you are quite restrictive in what constitutes science (unnecessarily so in my opinion, and I'm sure it would be Kuhn's also) and that is all your argument hinges on.

That you have completely failed at properly attributing (ie referencing) ANYBODYS work in all your writings, other than to say you've 'read such and such', makes your blog not in the least credible, I suggest you work to improve that.
You haven't really outlined an argument in your latest effort, more like written bits and pieces and called it one.

Evo.,

Enjoyed your comment.

Freediver,

Popper and Kuhn use the terms confirmation differently. Popper is deferring away self-confirmation without the possibilty of refutation.

Kuhn, explains confirmation in terms of "reasonable agreement" in the scientific community. That determines scientists choice between theories, which later require further measurement. Here, Kuhn alludes to Lord Kelvin's dictum, "if you cannot measure; your knowlege is meagre and unsatisfactory".

To Kuhn, confirmation, and I am typing with a Kuhn journal aticle {Issis , Vol. 52, No.2 (1961), pp. 161-193] open to me, is a "function" and an "aid in the choice between theories"... "In scientific practice the real confirmation questions involve comparison between two theories and the world, not the comparison of one theory and the world. In these three way comparisons measurement has particular advantage." -- [Thomas S. Kuhn [1961]

Cosmology presents competing models to explain "the world" [Kuhn], the universe, actually. Hence, I ask again how do you explain God's estistence? ... And ask you to quantify God's model of the universe [to compete with other scientific theories]? What is your theory of God and what instrumentation and experiment can you bring to show that God is the best explanation

Sells,

Kuhn, I think makes an interesting point about the need to not have just one model and "the world" (say, also, universe or creation). Competing religions do not suffice, because history can show how these relegions were developed by humans and the faithful tend commence the investigations from a prior conclusions, as I have suggested to you, previouly. Hence I ask:

[1] What is your explanation for the existence of God?

[2] Cosmologists can present conceptual models and experiment for the competing models of The Big Bang and The Solid State Universe. Both must address "the work" in Kuhn's terms snd be refutable in Popper's terms.

- Hence, what is your conceptual model for divine creation and what experimentation and instrumention will confirm the Theory of God's creation?

To start with Jesus is a prioi rationale. Before claims on Jesus is God, one must define/prove the concept, "God", validly, reliable and with internal consistency. Idea should normally read to theory and theory to experimentation which provided qualifications and quantifications, showing better agreement [preferably measurable agreement] than a competing the theory, say The Big Bang.

God is a prime construct in creationism and is therefore relevant to evolutionary theory.

[Thanks a again for your earlier good wishes. Still under treatment.]

Sancho opened with “latest attempt by Christian fundamentalists to put a fake moustache on creationism and call it science.”

Go check out

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

and then tell me you reckon this is a challenge to evolutionist theories.

Without seeing more, I would suggest it has more in common with Mel Brooks than either Michael Moore (the big flab) or Al Gore (the big fake).

As for the rest. Evolution is a continually changing thing, hence theories will and should abound as knowledge expands to support new theories and delete the old ones.

ID is a deliberate attempt to define in those absolute terms what is evolving ad the last time I looked, “evolution” means “change” and “change” was something which is incompatible with “absolute definition”.

Whilst I choose to believe in a higher being, common sense suggests if he wanted us to be absolute in our evolution, he would not have endowed us with the freewill which enables us to invent, change and to some degree, control and direct our circumstances.

I can perform many mental contortions, freediver, but this one is beyond me I'm afraid.

>>I have outlined the basic argument above. Perhaps you should respond to that, rather than asserting I made no argument.<<

Since my view is that you have not succeeded in putting forward any credible argument, it is by definition impossible for me to respond to it. The moment you do state a position that holds some validity, I'll be happy to assess it on its merits.

Your argument still seems to rest upon the "I've said this in my blog" stance, which unfortunately sheds no light at all, as it says the same thing only using more words.

>>In any case, understand the argument first before declaring it lacks value.<<

I have freely admitted that I cannot see any rationale to your argument. You are free to suggest that this is down to my own stupidity, whereas I propose that it is due to your inability to put your ideas across lucidly. Either way, it is perfectly in order for me to determine that because your argument is both incomprehensible and unsupported by external sources, it lacks value.

>>Perhaps you still haven't noticed my references to other peoples work? Do try to keep up<<

I notice that, typically, you do not point to any of these, which would be a sure way to close off the discussion that you are primarily self-referential.

Like in the very next paragraph, addressing TRTL:

>>His arguments merely reflect his assumptions about God, not the liklihood of God's existence. For example...<<

Once again, the URL points to your blog.

Careful. Too much of that turns you blind

Sancho said on Tuesday, 22 April "Considering that every claim about the natural world made in the Bible is wrong .... you'd think that loyal Christians would be railing against astronomy and geograhy as much as evolution.

So, why aren't the fundamentalists producing hysterical propaganda about the "big lie" of quantum physics or dark matter? What is it about evolution that frightens them so much?"

This argument is based in ignorance of what Christians actually believe about the universe, astronomy, geography, quantum physics and dark matter. There is no dichotomy between natural science and Christian faith. Some of the leading research into natural science id done by committed Christians. The CSIRO has several Christians leading research into natural science fields

Hello Philo,

"There is no dichotomy between natural science and Christian faith."

If not so, it is a recent compromise.

The Early Church was against Gnosis [knowledge], the Medieval Church against Science in General [Read, "the Starry Messenger" chapter from Bronowski's, "The Ascent of Man'], supressing Mendel's work in the nineteenth century, and, in the US, the Monkey trials of the twentieth century. In the US too, there was recently built a creationist theme park. I

I know you personally would agree, with science, not older religious interpretations, on many matters. If I recall correctly, you feel that the churches distort the meaning of virgin birth. Me too.

Thiering suggests that an illegitimate birth would have negative implications for Jesus vis~a~vis James in establishing a new House of David, as only the latter, James, would regarded, as legitimately born in wedlock, by all the Jewish sects. Jesus would have had a harder time.

You see no dichonomy, yet millions of Christians do; Christians having as much faith in priests and ministers, as if they were god-substitutes. Herein, churches have historically led flocks into blind alleys and stustained ignorance of the natural world on many occassions.

I maintain whether one believes in Jesus, Zeus or another entity; one should study source documents, not the decrees and doctrines of clerics and councils.

In studying Jesus: Where I would differ from a Christian is that I would research the Hedronian and Davanic dynasties in context with Roman and to lesser extent Greek histographies and relate these studies to the OT projections, commentary [e.g., Plutarch] and relevant documents [Roman Law and the Dead Sea Schools].

Cheers.

"Your argument hinges entirely on the restrictiveness of definitions and 'ground rules'!

No it doesn't. I was trying to put it into context, by differentiating it from Kuhn's focus on emergent properites.

"Periods of 'normal science' described by Kuhn do not mean that scientists "move in and out of the scientific method at will", I believe that you do not understand what is being talked about here.

It doesn't rule it out either. This is just common sense. Does a scientist eat his breakfast in a 'scientific' manner? Must they avoid all other methods and fields (eg politics) while calling themselves a scientist?

"No scientist is in any doubt about the value of the scientific method.

that is odd, coming from someone who can't even define the scientific method.

"It is even more restrictive than Poppers

How so?

"it has to be to define evolutionary theory as 'non-scientific'

Argumentum ad consequentium is a loigcal fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20consequentiam

"So, if you believe your theory is a blending of these two major perspectives

Not really. I can't find anything in it that conflicts with Kuhn's views. It is more complimentary to Kuhn's views. I do think it conflict with Popper's views.

"Neither of them (Kuhn nor Popper) concluded that evolution is non-science

Did either of them conclude that it is science? Did either consider the distinction between evolution and antural selection?

"You have seriously failed to elucidate how you achieve your conclusions from using Kuhn's line of reasoning

I never claimed to do so.

"In summary, what appears to be the case is that you are quite restrictive in what constitutes science (unnecessarily so in my opinion, and I'm sure it would be Kuhn's also) and that is all your argument hinges on.

I have encouraged you to come up with an alternative that isn't so restrictive, but you are unable to. It doesn't make sense to change the definition just so you can include evolution.

"That you have completely failed at properly attributing (ie referencing) ANYBODYS work in all your writings....

There is no need to attribute what is common knowledge. I consider what I was taught in grade 8 science to be common knowledge. The rest is my original work. that's not to say no-one else has thought of it, but it does mean I do not have to credit others. I have had a look around and no-one has come up with exactly the same thing.

Oliver:

"To Kuhn, confirmation, and I am typing with a Kuhn journal aticle {Issis , Vol. 52, No.2 (1961), pp. 161-193] open to me, is a "function" and an "aid in the choice between theories"... "In scientific practice the real confirmation questions involve comparison between two theories and the world, not the comparison of one theory and the world. In these three way comparisons measurement has particular advantage." -- [Thomas S. Kuhn [1961]

While he uses a different approach to me, it would appear he would reach the same conclusion.

To the intellectual. Smile.

Actually freediver, I have offered different definitions on what constitutes prediction and experiment. However, I do not pretend that they are my own! I am not arguing Argumentum ad consequentium either, I am merely pointing out that if you relax your definitions even slightly, the point of contention disappears. It only hinges on the strictness of your definitions, you contend that 'observation' is not experiment, and yet it is under particular circumstances. Also, you think that predictions have to be about the future, they do not. They can be about observable phenomena deduced from hypotheses, without prior knowledge of their existence.

That you have "have had a look around and no-one has come up with exactly the same thing" does not mean that you don't have to attribute or address similar arguments in the literature. Your feeling that it is all your original work (but that someone else may have thought of it) and thus you don't have to acknowledge others is incorrect. In the music industry you would be sued for copyright infringement. In the scientific field, you would be accused of plagiarism, a mortal sin.

And to answer your question, yes, Karl Popper did conclude that the evolutionary theory is science.
To quote:
"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation" (Dialectica 32:344-346)

Also, 'Natural selection' is the basis of evolution to try and separate them is [comment probably should be deleted by moderator].

I guess you have never heard about breaking it down?

Yes you were arguing Argumentum ad consequentium. You argued that my definition must be wrong because you couldn't accept the consequences.

"if you relax your definitions even slightly, the point of contention disappears.

And a million other points of contention creep in.

"you contend that 'observation' is not experiment, and yet it is under particular circumstances

My argument does not exclude natural experiment from science, however this does not apply to evolution.

"Also, you think that predictions have to be about the future, they do not.

Yes they do.

"They can be about observable phenomena ....

'Without prior knowledge' is what brings the future bit in - you are predicting that you will discover something. However much of evolution is about predicting you will find something after you have found it, then pretending it is a genuine prediction.

"That you have "have had a look ... does not mean that you don't have to attribute ....

Yes it does. I am not submitting the article to s scientific jounral. I am putting it up on my website.

"you would be accused of plagiarism, a mortal sin.

Wrong. In the scientific field, you do not have to acknowledge what is already common knowledge, beyond that, I would only be accused of laziness.

"And to answer your question, yes, Karl Popper did conclude...

This does not contradict my position, rather it supports it, hence my question about whether he distinguished antural selection and evolution.

"Also, 'Natural selection' is the basis of evolution....

Aha, this is where you go wrong. Just because a theory is based on scientific theories does not make it scientific. Perhaps a bit of set theory might clarify this for you. If a theory has scientific and unscientific parts, the scientific parts do not magically make the unscientific parts scientific. I am not 'separating' the two theories. If it helps you understand it, I am pointing out that natural selection is the scientific part of evolution, while the historical conjectures (what is usually associated with evolution) is the non-scientific part. You are committing the association fallacy.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#association%20fallacy

Also, it is not a matter of 'relaxing my definitions' slightly. It involves no sliding scale that can be pushed one way or the other. You would have to come up with an entirely new definition for science, which would destroy all meaning to the term. This is why I am encouraging you to try to provide alternative definitions.

Thats why, its a never ending story.

freediver,
Popper made no distinction between evolution and natural selection, with good reason. Natural selection is not 'just a part' of evolution, it is central to evolution. It's the core, not just a subset.

That evolution does not logically follow from natural selection, but is actually somehow different or distinct appears to be a part of the basis of your argument and is incorrect.

Also what you appear to be arguing is that certain (limited) aspects of evolutionary historicism do not appear to be scientific. I would have no argument in this, it's not groundbreaking stuff. But it does not follow that the theory of evolution as whole is uncientific.

I think that you make a logical fallacy of your own when you argue that what appear to you to be (or may actually be) nonscientific periperhal inferences made using evolutionary theory actually affect the theory and make it unscientific.

Your 'common knowledge' and what you think is the theory of evolution and what it is in reality may be the source of your error.

Finally, if you wanted to put this argument on the table of any editors desk and call it your own, you would not merely be accused of laziness. Trust me on this.

Oh, and 'evolution' (the poster, not the theory), you'll be happy to know that I have now satisfied myself as to the nature of freedivers 'theory' and won't be bothering to keep this thread alive. The Theory of Evolution shall remain safe and well in face of such blistering critique. Besides, it will only give him more of an opportunity to try and increase his google rankings.

With each born persons, evolution adds one more degree to our present state of mind.
To simplify can only make the journey easier. I hear what you are saying word for word but this is not the point.

The definitions that you are requesting is only helping you and not the rest of the planet or the people on it. If you go back to my first post about the big bang, i guess that's the answer you are looking for.
Life and the universe is simple to me, it's just the human words to define it, is the most hardest task of all. To me the universe has always been here and if you want me to put it on slide scale i will do this for you.
If you put our universe in the centre of a 30cm ruler and lets put us right in the middle of, there is the smaller and there is the greater.
Now if we put our universe in the centre, we can see the infer-dent in either direction. If we go up the scale by one, we come back to the bean-bag theory. And this is were parallel universes come into play.

Yes! 101. Some-else said, for god to exist, matter had to exist for god to be there in the first place. So who made god. Do you see that this god thing cant possible exist. Go back to the big bang and see what I have said. Too pull you up to speed, Its a manifest of the primitive mind. Fossils don't lie! Only man does.

" 'To Kuhn, confirmation, and I am typing with a Kuhn journal aticle [Isis , Vol. 52, No.2 (1961), pp. 161-193] open to me, is a "function" and an "aid in the choice between theories"... "In scientific practice the real confirmation questions involve comparison between two theories and the world, not the comparison of one theory and the world. In these three way comparisons measurement has particular advantage.' " -- [Thomas S. Kuhn [1961] see Oliver pp.8-9

"While he uses a different approach to me, it would appear he [Kuhn] would reach the same conclusion. - See Freediver p.9

- What is said conclusion? Does your conclusion compare one or many theories with "the world"?

- In the context of using the term "confirmation" Kuhn and Popper are divergent. The word is used in separate contexts I do see how thes come together.

- How do you explain the existence of God? God or Physical Creation are underlying constructs to the formation of a Theory of God or Theory of Physical Creation. God or Physical Creation would be a moderating variables in the Model of Evolution.

- Relatedly, does/did God evolve?

[Boaz and Peter Sellick might care to answer the existence of God question, which is leveraged from Dawkin's observation any god is presumably highly complex.]

Evo.,

I am trying my hardest to gain some traction on what Freediver is contributing and not making much progress. I hope he will give something to work with?

Best regards

Freediver and others:

[1] My Error corrected, should be instead of the above: "In the context of using the term 'confirmation' Kuhn and Popper are divergent. The word is used in separate contexts I do NOT see how these come together".

[2] "Imagine … an evolutionary tree representing the development of the scientific specialities from their common origin in, say, primitive natural philosophy. Imagine … a line drawn up that tree … to the tip of some limb without doubling back on itself. Any two theories found along this line are related to each other by descent. … Consider two such theories each chosen from a point not too near its origin [i.e., after the science concerned has achieved 'maturity']. I believe it would be easy to design a set of criteria - including maximum accuracy of predictions, degree of specialization, number (but not scope) of concrete problem-solutions -which would enable any observer involved with neither theory to tell which was the older, which the descendant. For me, therefore, scientific development is, like biological evolution, unidirectional and irreversible" - Kuhn quoted in *Nickles (2003, p. 84)

* Book Title: Thomas Kuhn. Contributors: Thomas Nickles - editor. Publisher: Cambridge University Press. Place of Publication: Cambridge, England. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 84.


- Above Kuhn uses "biological evolution" to discribe the observation of scientific progress. Clearly Kuhn believes in evolution to use it as a metaphor in his discourse.

Nickles' take is Kuhn wanted to fit science into a historical ontology. To me this would seem consistent with his belief in science evolving and paradigm shifts being selected.

[3] "For Popper scientific change is rational or at least rationally reconstructible and falls within the realm of the logic of discovery. For Kuhn scientific change from one 'paradigm' to another - is a mystical conversion that cannot be governed by rules of reason and which falls within the realm of the (social) psychology of discovery." - Lakatos, I. 1970. 'Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes'." In: Lakatos and Musgrave (1970), pp. 91–195.

Think I will "all posted-out" for 24 hours.

Freediver [Sells and Boaz],

Your response to the above would prove interesting.

O.

Oliver. jesus just thought he was a god.

Evolution,

" jesus just thought he was a god."

Thinking himself divine, perhaps JC might have a go at my prime question, and, explain his non-terrestrial existence to us. Moreover, if he is god, he should be able to overcome OLO write limits. Now that's power!

If memory serves the "think method" worked well for the students and parents of the Music Man: Hmmm.. Seventy-six St.Pauls led the Ash parade, with 110 St. Pete's close behind, they were followed by rows and rows of the finest virgins seen, the cream of ever Jewish clan...

Peace.

Freediver,

1. Have you changed you position of Popper & Kuhn regarding evolution?

2. Please explain the existence of god.

Oliver. He wont answer you. But his kun-fo, is strong.

Freediver, Boaz and Sells,

- Can you expplain the existence of God?

Evolution,

I will try again:

I wish some very established posters would not just hit and run. If their auguments are sound, why not debate me and defeat me, and, my kindren

Bugsy:

"...certain (limited) aspects of evolutionary historicism do not appear to be scientific.... But it does not follow that the theory of evolution as whole is uncientific.

The term natural selection encompasses every aprt of evolution which is scientific. Evolution differs from natural selection in that it includes the unscientific bits. What differentiates evolution from natural selection is that evolution is not scientific. Saying that it is unscientific does not mean that natural selection is unscientific, but saying that it is scientific would imply that the 'historicisms' are scientific. Likewise, if ID incorporates natural selection, that is not sufficient to claim that ID is a scientific theory, but saying it is unscientific does not imply that natural selection is unscientific.

"Your 'common knowledge' and what you think is the theory of evolution.....

The difference between natural selection and evolution is reasonably well understood by both the general public and the broader scientific community and neatly captures the difference between scientific and unscientific theories.

"....you would not merely be accused of laziness. Trust me on this.

Well then, who would they claim that I have copied?

"The Theory of Evolution shall remain safe and well in face of such blistering critique.

You miss the point entirely. This is not a criticism of the theory of evolution. Theemotional baggage carried into it by staunch evolutionists does however make it difficult to conduct a rational debate on the issue.

Oliver:

"Does your conclusion compare one or many theories with "the world"?

My conclusion is not a scientific one. This is a philosophical question.

re: Kuhn quoted in *Nickles, you cannot make an evolutionary tree of ideas, due to the extent of 'cross pollination'.

"Clearly Kuhn believes in evolution to use it as a metaphor in his discourse.

Evolution can be a convenient metaphor for may things, but that is not really the issue here.

Oliver I would gladly debate your tangential issues if it weren't for this absurd post limiter. You are welcome to bring it up on OzPolitic if you want a less restrained debate.

Freediver,

[1]

"Does your conclusion compare one or many theories with "the world"?
- Oliver

"My conclusion is not a scientific one. This is a philosophical question." - Freediver

- Beyond science, I think Kuhn's proposition could be extended to say it is dangerous to just link A with B, stop.

- What is your philosophical question in three or four sentences, please?

[2]

"Clearly Kuhn believes in evolution to use it as a metaphor in his discourse." - Oliver

"Evolution can be a convenient metaphor for may things, but that is not really the issue here." - Freediver

- I thought it was an issue. Other posters and I took it you believed that (a) Popper & Kuhn had convergent approaches and (b) Popper and Kuhn did not believe in evolution. I think the correct propositions have now been stated.

[3]

- I enjoy the anonymity of OLO. I write curricula internationally and would not like my views picked-up in a Google search by someone in Asia or the Middle East. Thanks for the invite, just the same.

[4]

- How do you explain the existence of God?

Oliver: << I wish some very established posters would not just hit and run. If their auguments are sound, why not debate me and defeat me, and, my kindren >>

Too true. If it's not that it's elaborate sophistry designed to draw attention to its author.

Boring.

EXPLAIN the Existence of God?

Oly.. you surely choose simple questions don't you :)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

I don't think anyone can 'explain' our Creator or they would BE equal to Him.
We can only 'assert' His existence and reality based on His actions and words to the world. After all, we are the 'creatION.

Romans 9:20b "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "

Perhaps Hebrews-1 can explain it best?

1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

COMMENT.

Can anyone say more? I sure can't. Oly, all events, no matter how recent will be interpreted by observers, or hearers of reports in a certain way. On'e mans 'feeding of the 5000' is a miracle. (This was Jesus assertion) or.. "A mans selfless example shaming people into revealing the food they had brought, and sharing it with others" (Prof William Barclay) To Barclay, the miracle was the change in heart, not the multiplying of the physical resources.
Me, being the recipient of miraculous healing, am inclinded to the 'muliplying of resources' understanding.

"What is your philosophical question in three or four sentences, please?

I'm not sure if I can pad it out to three or four sentences, so you'll have to settle for one: Is evolution a scientific theory?

"Other posters and I took it you believed that (a) Popper & Kuhn had convergent approaches

Sorry about that. Not sure how you got that impression. What I suspect is that Kuhn and Popper approached the 'definition' of science from opposite directions, with Kuhn focussing on the emergent properties and Popper on the fundamentals. I agree with almost all of what Kuhn wrote. I'm not as familiar with Popper, but I get the impression he was wrong about a few things.

"Popper and Kuhn did not believe in evolution.

None of what I have posted is meant to imply that evolution is somehow 'wrong'. The theory is unscientific in the same way that the holocoust, trigonometry and oiji boards are unscientific. It just means they fall under different philosophical 'fields', based on the methods used to study and contribute to them.

"I enjoy the anonymity of OLO. I write curricula internationally and would not like my views picked-up in a Google search by someone in Asia or the Middle East. Thanks for the invite, just the same.

OzPolitic is just as anonymous. I discourage members from revealing any personal info, including their real name.

Hello Boaz,

I was picking-up on Kuhn's assertion, we should not compare one theory to the world, but two [or more] theories to the world.

For the creatiion, science [tentatively] has the Big Bang as the dominant heuristic and a the Steady State as the degraded heuristic. Here, we have empirical models. That is why I ask that Christians explain God as the creation agent, as might Roger Penrose phase-space a precursor to the Big Bang.

We know the universe must exist even, if we a simulation, becusue are here. If science can produce a model of first cause; should not Christianity do the same? [not a descriptive model like Genesis; something that would pass a PhD topic defence].

Moreover, Dawkins notes that a god must be a complex entity. How did the complexity come about?

All,

Richard Leakey alludes to evolution, without natural selection, before 500 million years ago. First of all he notes the process of the creation of primordial life does not periodically spring-up here and there, and, if it did, the primative creatures would loose out to the advanced.

However, before the Cambrian period, there were niches filled by evolving species without competition, only later, when more species evolved, then there was natural selection for each niche. Conclusion, we had evolution, without natural selection, for hundreds of millions of years and there is scientifically testimony in the fossil record. Evolution is a testable scientific theory with and without natural selection.

Sells,

If you are reading this, what is your stance?

All,

The eukatyote radiation [i.e., spread] of the ealy metazoans appear subsequent to the decline in stromatolites. Herein, circa 800 million BP we have a common ancestor to two branches of evolving fauna, namely, Ediacaran fauna [Precambrian] and Cambrian fauna [the Cambrian explosion/radiation]. The virtual extincion of Ediacaran fauna appears have occurred before the Cambrian funa radiation. Perhaps, this was natural selection between soft bodied and hard bodied species - but the time bridge is very wide - so, the jury is out*.

That said;

A fauna that had been existing for five hundred million years which took a "separate" branch to the another fauna [our tree] which led to was zapped. This has major theology ramifications. It took a further five hunderd million years for the Cambrian funa to evolvbe to the genus Homo [family]. This would be a very un-intelligent design.

Why would a god produce an essentially terminating branch, killing off millions of species, when Its intention to the "choose" genus Homo, as special from an entirely different branch of evolution? \

What is the relationship between say a Jesus dying for our sins, and killing billions of animals five hundred million years beforehand? Seems a bit odd to me.

Boaz? Sells? Sells wont answer, but it worth a try.

*Another possibility is a chamge in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere. Now it is 21%. One bilion years ago it was 1%.

Ooops. Immediately above, I didn't give a citation: Moris S.C, Nature, Jan. 21, 1993:vOL 361, PP. 219-225

Freediver,

"What is your philosophical question in three or four sentences, please?" - Oliver

"I'm not sure if I can pad it out to three or four sentences, so you'll have to settle for one: Is evolution a scientific theory?" - Freediver

- Perhaps, so we can all be in the picture, please define the constructs; evolution, scientific and theory. That should nail down your reaerch question. Then we can derive your philosophy, perhaps?

Freedriver et al,

Please don't truncate this thread. There is still more to be said. Moreover, as suggested above the Pre-cambrian exinction seems odd for a God planning on creating genus Home. Billions of creaures gone and one different genentic path to us. Wasteful? Cruel? Careless?

OLY.... mate.. you are asking me to comment on seriously deep and intricate scientific things for which I am most unqualified.

My starting point, in case you haven't guessed it by now.. is the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. He alone and that alone gives sense to the universe.

Speculating on the nature of events so long ago, is really just speculation don't you feel?

I can't comment on the divergent streams of natural selection, because the issue is too huge, and also a work in progress..

I hope this helps. I can't really offer more.

Boaz,

Thanks for your reply. I think it was a cleric who said "I don't believe in God because of Intelligent Design; I believe ib Intelligent Design have faith in God". I think you would respect that position more than mine :-).

With my post, above, I wish I could also have showed the diagram in Leakey's book, it shows two separate attempts at life on Earth. One died out five hundred million years ago. Ours' started separately allow a different path, different DNA, one billion years ago.

If Adam & Eve were the goal, it seems strange to invest in a truncated path. This path is not to do with say lions chasing prey, but a different path to ours' altogether. It is an uneconomic apporach and needlessly cost billions of [micro] animal lives.

Cheers. Have a good weekend.

All,

Please don't drop the ball by moving on to a new topic. We have an on-going debate here. Leakry makes presents strong evidence. I know it tempting to go to a new discussion. But isn't it better to have some depth to our discoues, after several exchanges of opinion.

Sancho,

You started this thread. Why not make further comment?