Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

Argot

I believe its Free Admission on Friday evening for student card holders - even at Ten Euro for the day on Saturday - including lunch - is worth it for a day out!

Considering the weather in Dublin - it's bound to be warmer than MY house in the Astra Hall!!

I'll be heading along too. And reserving my judgement until after I give the man an admittedly interested ear!

robindch

> I used to be skeptical - now I question everything

How could you have been skeptical before, if you didn't question everything previously?

> I think that I will be a true skeptic and go along and
> LISTEN respectfully to Ken Ham before making my
> OWN MIND UP about what he has to say.

Why don't you visit Ham's site at http://www.answersingenesis.org and see what the man has to say for himself. Two random mouseclicks produce the following piece of crap:

> About 130 million [...] were slaughtered this century in the name
> of atheism, whereas all those killed in ‘the name of Christ’ in all
> of recorded history was at most around 17 million.

Firstly, 130m people were not murdered 'in the name of atheism', whatever *that* means. FYI, Hitler says in his Mein Kampf 'I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.', a fairly straightforward sentiment in favour of a faith which Hitler never renouced. Meanwhile, over the border to the East, 'Uncle Joe' Stalin trained for the priesthood in the Russian Orthodox Church and maintained an interest in religion, and particularly its methods, throughout his life. So, to be honest about it, should we add Hitler + Stalin's totals to the christian side of this frightful equation?

Secondly, at least Ham has the honesty to admit that 17m people are dead because of christ's self-appointed followers + hangers-on. His curious logic seems to be that it's ok for christians to murder a helluva lot of people, as long as non-christians murder more. Can some passing christian explain the weird logic of this to me?

Anyhow, back to creationism -- Ham's statements upon evolution are as disingenuous and dishonest as the one above and you don't really have to listen or read very much of his output in order to come to an informed judgement of his accuracy and honesty and, consequently, his worth.

> I recently discovered that the odds of producing the amino
> acid sequence for a particular 100 chain protein by accident
> choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on
> the chain is 10 to the power of 130.

At the rick of being accused of being a 'smart aleck' again (see the holocaust thread), how did you discover this? Are you a trained molecular biologist? Or did you copy this factoid from a creationist website?

The useful talkorigins.org website contains a useful discussion of probabilities, specifically, see the section labelled 'Coin tossing for beginners' and below.

> I would value your skeptical opinion on the above mathemastical calculation.

My polite opinion of this mathematical calculation is that it is worthless. See the link above.

> I would be even more interested in YOUR explanation for
> the spontaneous emergence of life - that doesn't involve
> pure fantasy.

Again, see talkorigins.org where these excellent questions are dealt with in far greater depth than I've time to develop here.

FWIW, I'd also be interested in hearing any creationist argument that doesn't involve fantasy.

Hope this helps,

- robin.

J C

My statement that "I used be a skeptic - but now I question everything" was in part a joke - and in part serious.

It is a fact that everyone, including skeptics of every description, bring their own "baggage" and bias to all of the issues that they encounter. I try to minimise my bias by actively listening to all points of view - especially ones that I disagree with. In fact, I have found that this is the only way to really broaden my mind!!

Your use of the words "trained molecular biologist" in your attempted put-down of me reveals that you don't question everything yourself. If you truly questioned everything you wouldn't have the apparent blind faith in all "trained molecular biologists" that your statement implies. The import of your statement is that unless I am a "trained molecular biologist" my views should be summarily dismissed.

As a true skeptic, I never accept that the experts always know best - we should remember that "trained experts" said that the Titanic was unsinkable!!

In answer to your question about my scientific credentials - yes, I have a university degree in science - and significant expertise in the biological sciences.

Your area of expertise is immaterial to me - your arguments stand or fall on THEIR own merits as far as I am concerned !!

I have visited the internet site that you have suggested - and all I got was confirmation of the enormous odds against the spontaneous generation of any aspect of life!!! This also echoes my everyday experience - I have never seen even a cell that has died coming back to life again - although it has all of the stuctures and biochemical systems still present!!! So far I have also been unable to successfully resuscitate one either!!!

Life is a truly amazing phenomenon - but because we see it every day we don't really comprehend how amazing it really is!!

My discovery on the probability of life occurring by accident was made independently by myself - I told you that I was a true skeptic!!
It draws as much on mathematics as it does on biology.

The real "eye opener" for me, however, was when I tried "to get a handle" on what size of number 10 to the power of 130 actually is. I discovered that if every electron in the known Universe, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 107 permutations would be produced which is many orders of magnitude less that what would be required to guarantee the production of a specific useful protein - and a single molecule of a particular protein isn't much use sitting there on it's own. There is basically not enough matter or time in the Universe to produce even a useful protein - so I haven't even bothered to calculate the odds of producing anything else spontaneously.

Being a true skeptic I would prefer not to label my argument - but if you would like to label it as a "Creationist" argument as you have implied - then it certainly isn't based on fantasy - unless you think that pure mathematics is fantasy!!!

As far as I can see the theory of evolution is dead - but it has forgotten to lie down!!!

What amazes me, as a skeptic, is how many other skeptics have been "taken in" by this crazy theory with no basis in reality - don't you guys ever question anything?

robindch

> If you truly questioned everything you wouldn't have the
> apparent blind faith in all "trained molecular biologists" that
> your statement implies.

From this, am I correct in thinking that you believe that I should accept the views of untrained people in the area of molecular biology, or indeed, the views of people untrained in whatever area I'm interested in? Sounds a bit daft to me, but I presume I'm not understanding you correctly -- please clarify!

> we should remember that "trained experts" said that
> the Titanic was unsinkable!!

Wrong -- the 'unsinkable' bit appeared in marketing fluff from White Star, and not from a naval architect. Sadly, the misquote stuck, because it made a good, though false, story. The Titanic was simply unlucky in suffering from simultaneous multi-point failure, as engineering structures are from time to time.

> As far as I can see the theory of evolution is dead

I don't think you have looked very far. Do you deny that there is any evolution at all? Or simply deny the existence of what creationists refer to as 'macro-evolution'? Or do you claim that since your calculation (based upon premises which you've not made clear) has demonstrated that life couldn't have arisen by itself, that life therefore *didn't* arise by itself, and therefore there is no such process as evolution? There are plenty of logical holes in the latter, but I'm interested in hearing more about your views, so if you could explain your chain of logic as you understand it, I'd be happy to read it.

> how many other skeptics have been "taken in" by this
> crazy theory with no basis in reality

I'm not aware of any trained biologists who think that evolution is a 'crazy theory with no basis in reality' -- congratulations, you're the first! -- in fact, on the contrary, all whom I know believe that it's one of the most well-demonstrated, thoroughly researched theories in existence and on a par with other theories such as gravity, electricity, magentism, etc, etc. See the NCSE's 'Project Steve' (details here), for a semi-light-hearted look at the number of trained and experienced scientists who have been 'taken in' by this theory.

One thing, though, as a trained scientist, I'm a bit surprised at your misuse of the word 'theory' in this fractious context. For anyone reading who's not familar with the scientific, rather than the common, sense of the term, see this link for a good explanation of what a scientific theory is, and why it's important to use it in an accurate, rather than sloppy, way.

> yes, I have a university degree in science - and significant
> expertise in the biological sciences.

Do you mind me asking which institution granted you your degree? And it would be interesting to hear about your expertises, too, if you've time to recount them briefly.

thanks,

- robin.

Turley

J C wrote:

My statement that "I used be a skeptic - but now I question everything" was in part a joke - and in part serious.

I see a lot of truth in your statement and you are wise to also be skeptical of the skeptics. After much investigation and contemplation, if I am going to believe in something, I settled on Psalm 62.

J C wrote:

The real "eye opener" for me, however, was when I tried "to get a handle" on what size of number 10 to the power of 130 actually is. I discovered that if every electron in the known Universe, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 107 permutations would be produced which is many orders of magnitude less that what would be required to guarantee the production of a specific useful protein - and a single molecule of a particular protein isn't much use sitting there on it's own. There is basically not enough matter or time in the Universe to produce even a useful protein - so I haven't even bothered to calculate the odds of producing anything else spontaneously.

Those are big numbers.

Myksyk

Being a true skeptic I would prefer not to label my argument - but if you would like to label it as a "Creationist" argument as you have implied - then it certainly isn't based on fantasy - unless you think that pure mathematics is fantasy!!!

As far as I can see the theory of evolution is dead - but it has forgotten to lie down!!!

What amazes me, as a skeptic, is how many other skeptics have been "taken in" by this crazy theory with no basis in reality - don't you guys ever question anything?

You're mixing your arguments here. You are speaking of the origin of life as if this is the same question as the evolution of species. These are separate questions. No-one has yet explained the origin of life though there are some interesting theories. The evolution of different species once life exists is unquestionably best explained by the theory of natural selection as proposed by Darwin and Wallace. The suggestion that this is a 'crazy theory with no basis in reality' is simply a denial of the reality of the overwhelming scientific verification this theory has received since it was first announced in 1859.

Your 'argument' 'based on mathematics' refers to the origin of life and is simply a statement of personal incredulity and disbelief.

The fact is there is life and clearly we have millions of species and to most people they are intimately related, a fact backed up by all the available data. What I would like to know is, in relation the evolution of species, what is your argument (which should be decidely 'not crazy' and 'based in reality')?

Turley

robindch wrote:

Wrong -- the 'unsinkable' bit appeared in marketing fluff from White Star, and not from a naval architect. Sadly, the misquote stuck, because it made a good, though false, story. The Titanic was simply unlucky in suffering from simultaneous multi-point failure, as engineering structures are from time to time.

I think the point was that experts can be wrong. I do not know if a naval architect said the Titanic was "unsinkable" but I am confident experts can be wrong. Robert Millikan, won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1923 said, "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." And Harry Warner of Warner Brothers said in 1927, "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"

robindch wrote:

...Do you deny that there is any evolution at all? Or simply deny the existence of what creationists refer to as 'macro-evolution'?

I think it would be good to define the terms of discussion so we all agree on what we are talking about. Evolution can sometimes mean the "big bang theory" and "creation" and "creationism" can be different things.

robindch wrote:

Do you mind me asking which institution granted you your degree? And it would be interesting to hear about your expertises, too, if you've time to recount them briefly.

Let's not change the topic. Perhaps a new thread could be opened if you want to discuss JC.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

You're mixing your arguments here. You are speaking of the origin of life as if this is the same question as the evolution of species. These are separate questions. No-one has yet explained the origin of life though there are some interesting theories.

I think this shows that we should agree on what we are discussing to avoid confusing issues. I find it acceptable to have both a creator and evolution.

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

I think it would be good to define the terms of discussion so we all agree on what we are talking about. Evolution can sometimes mean the "big bang theory" and "creation" and "creationism" can be different things.

Yes ... (Please refer to my earlier post). I have to say that I have not heard evolution being equated with big bang theory but maybe some people do. I think there are three questions being mixed up:

1. The origin of the universe
2. The origin of life
3. The evolution of life/species

J C

Robin

My position is that I question all views. As far as I am concerned, an argument stands or falls on it’s own merits – and not on the supposed qualifications of the person who is making it. I am not particularly impressed by how much “training” a person has received – the logic of their argument is my main concern.

One definition of “training” that I have come across in a dictionary is “bringing a person to a desired standard of obedience/behaviour by instruction and practice”. This whole idea of “training” sounds a little bit Orwellian to me, and it is certainly not likely to produce original breakthrough thinking among it’s recipients.

Turley has adequately dealt with the “Titanic” point – and said it better that I possibly could have!!.

I was using the word theory in its populist meaning to describe evolution. I think that Evolution is AT BEST a scientific hypothesis, or more accurately a collection of many different hypotheses. It has never merited the appellation of the word theory in it’s proper scientific meaning – i.e. a precise description and explanation of observed phenomena that is accessible to testing by repeatable observation or experimentation. To remain valid, phenomena must always be observed that are in accordance with and/or predicted by the theory.

Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined and is subject to continuous revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.
2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Evolution is therefore incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation.
3. It fails even more miserably on the validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Evolution” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis.

None of these deficiencies apply to other established scientific theories. Our knowledge of gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc. is so reliable that there are actually SCIENTIFIC LAWS of Gravity , Electromagnetism, etc.

Evolution may have had more effort expended on it by scientists but the results are abysmal in comparison to gravity and electromagnetism - a classical example of the merits of quality over quantity.

For your information, my honours degree was granted by The National University of Ireland and I’ve had a long and distinguished career working in both the Private and Public Sectors.


TURLEY
You are right there are many definitions of Evolution – which is one of the reasons why it is not a proper scientific theory – could you imagine similar confusion over the precise scientific definition of gravity, electromagnetism, etc. – I think not.


MYKSYK
You are absolutely right – science has not come up with a plausible hypothesis never mind a proper scientific theory on the origins of life – even though some evolutionary textbooks would have you believe otherwise. But then of course, the subject matter of evolutionary textbooks is outside of the scientific realm anyway!!

I always think that evolutionary textbooks should be kept in the fiction section of libraries – they are a great “read” – just like a Patricia Scanlon paperback. They certainly shouldn’t be kept in the science section!!

My ‘argument’ is based on BOTH mathematics AND “cutting edge” bio-science. My discovery was certainly a personal “Eureka” moment that gave me great pleasure. However, more importantly, the figures are absolutely devastating to both the spontaneous generation of life and the evolutionary hypotheses.

The Theory of Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory as it is precisely defined and is testable by repeatable observation and/or experimentation. Having said that, Natural Selection itself certainly doesn’t produce variation – and tends to produce stability / mediocrity rather than novel / improved types of creatures. For example, an “improved” (and therefore different) specimen is almost always sexually selected AGAINST in wild populations of animals - and often in the Human population as well!!! The theory does provide an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments. However, the adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity already within the population and IN EXTREMIS a highly adapted population can end up in an inbred genetic cul-de-sac unable to adapt to any new environmental changes due to it’s loss of genetic diversity during the initial adaptation process.

The Evolution Hypothesis, on the other hand, is totally defunct, lacking as it does any plausible mechanism for creating genetic diversity. The only mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time. This is hardly a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in genetic information evident at all points between “muck and man”.
The phenomenon of irreducible complexity means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage. Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST. Irreducible complexity also means that it is mathematically impossibile to produce a complex useful organ through random means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.

You validly ask what my argument is – As a true sceptic, and a professional scientist, I will start with what I have observed / haven’t observed:-

I have never observed any plausible mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life.
I have never observed the spontaneous or assisted restoration of life to any dead organism or cell.
I have observed millions of different species which are distinctly different and whose cells are packed with organised information of amazing density and unimaginable complexity.
I have observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind.
I have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems.
I have observed missing links between ALL species, both living and fossil.
I have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species.
I have observed evidence that all populations are degenerating over time with accumulated mutations – and many extinctions of species are due to this degeneration.
I have observed the fossil record to actually be a record of instantaneous death and catastrophic burial – and NOT a record of the gradual development of life over time.
I have observed that the production of USEFUL biochemical polymers by random means is a mathematical (and physical) impossibility.
I have observed that all living systems use pre-existing sophisticated complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce simple bio-molecules – and the production of DNA itself requires the pre-existence of DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”.
I have observed that geological formations, such as the Grand Canyon and new canyons formed during the Mount St. Helens eruption, to be evidentially formed through the action of large amounts of water acting over a small amount of time.
I have never observed any "higher species" to actually increase genetic information over time.

ALL of the above observations are contrary to the predictions of "The Evolutionary Hypothesis" and that is why I maintain, as a professional scientist, that evolution is invalid i.e. dead - but it has forgotten to lie down. It’s failure to lie down, i.e. to be rejected by the generality of the scientific community, is as big a stumbling block to modern scientific progress as the Geocentric Hypothesis was to progress in medieval astronomy. Another good example of “trained experts” getting it totally wrong – ironically, BECAUSE OF their “training”!!!

My message is to abandon the dead hypothesis of evolution and stop trying to resuscitate it. Go back to what science does best – objective observation – and frame a new hypotheses that fits all of the REALITY that we observe – and NOT what some people would like to continue to BELIEVE, in spite of the evidence against it. For my money, I think that some “untrained scientists" would have the best chance of producing this breakthrough thinking.

Finally, one last example of a case of "Foot in Mouth" by a so-called "trained expert". I read recently that, in his retirement speech in the 1860's, the Director of the US Patents Office advised the US government to close the Office because he believed "that all inventions that are useful to humanity are already invented". On second thoughts, maybe he WAS right!!! (JOKE!!).

My challenge still remains to all you supposed skeptics out there - to point out ANY aspect of the so-called "Theory of Evolution" that doesn't involve a complete suspension of MY common sense and YOUR grip on reality!!!

I look forward to hearing Ken Ham talking about common sense and reality next Saturday!!!

Myksyk

My position is that I question all views.

Do you question the views outlined in the bible? If so to what extent?

As far as I am concerned, an argument stands or falls on it’s own merits – and not on the supposed qualifications of the person who is making it. I am not particularly impressed by how much “training” a person has received – the logic of their argument is my main concern.

Actually, the evidence for their argument is what matters.

I was using the word theory in its populist meaning to describe evolution.

That is not how it is being used here and it is crucial to appreciate the difference.

Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined and is subject to continuous revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.

This is called science. All knowledge in science is deemed tentative (the best we have at the moment in accordance with the available evidence). How unlike religion it is in this regard which claims the Truth and must fit all observed phenomena into the old frame rather than create a new more valid frame, regardless of twisted and tangled the truth becomes in the process.

2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Evolution is therefore incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation.

All theorising includes speculation. Take for example cosmology, archaeology, paleontology, biology etc etc. The theory of evolution by natural selection is, like all good theories capable of easy refutation. Just show us the hard evidence which refutes it. A simple example like a human skeleton beside a dinosaur skeleton will suffice. Darwin said this is all it would take.

3. It fails even more miserably on the validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Evolution” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis.

The theory of gradual evolution is still the most accepted form of evolutionary theory. It is not an invalid hypothesis.

None of these deficiencies apply to other established scientific theories. Our knowledge of gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc. is so reliable that there are actually SCIENTIFIC LAWS of Gravity , Electromagnetism, etc. ..... could you imagine similar confusion over the precise scientific definition of gravity, electromagnetism, etc. – I think not.

Yes I could because there is. There are different theories about what gravity really is for example. Is it the actual bending of spacetime or the exchange of yet to be discovered graviton particles - speculation and wonder. Wonderful speculation. Time, thought, observation and experiment will help refine the current theory to an even better fit with the evidence and reality. You seem to think that if we don't have all the facts now that the theory is invalid or useless. This is simplistic and wrong. No-one has yet come up with a general theory of any part of nature and reality which in its first manifestation explains everything. Constant change and refinement are the currency of good science theory and practice. Quamtum Mechanics added to Classical physics which was an incomplete theory but they are both compatible. If we were to follow your example then scientists would have thrown out classical laws when qunatum physics was posited, making an egregious error in the process. Likewise, the theory of natural selection can be refined and added to making it a better and better theory, not a weaker theory. As I said this is science. Surley you understand this.It also fits with all other theories in science, contradicting none of them. This idea of agreeing auxiliary hypotheses is important and shows the homogeneity of all scientific theories' understanding of reality.

.... the subject matter of evolutionary textbooks is outside of the scientific realm anyway!!

Why?

The Theory of Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory as it is precisely defined and is testable by repeatable observation and/or experimentation.

Agreed.

...an “improved” (and therefore different) specimen is almost always sexually selected AGAINST in wild populations of animals - and often in the Human population as well!!!

This does not make any sense to me. Please explain.

(Apparently my post with quotes is too long so please see this continued in next post)

Myksyk

The phenomenon of irreducible complexity means that an organ with an ultimate advantage, say a functioning eye, is a significant DISADVANTAGE in any intermediate non-functioning stage.

Are you saying JC that if were in a room with a predator (who had very poor vision - but had some) trying to kill you that you would not choose to have say 5% vision rather than none, or 10% or 50%? Would having ths amount of vision be a significant DISADVANTAGE to you in that arena? Of course it would be the opposite and you know it. Intermediate forms do not know they are intermediate forms. They are adequate and useful in the context of what resources others (competitiors or predators) have at that time.

Intermediate forms, will generally command resources, create weaknesses or be sexually repellent and as they are without any compensating advantage they will be SELECTED AGAINST.

How do you know this? What information have you on the sexual preferences of early life forms (if they had any)!

Irreducible complexity also means that it is mathematical impossibile to produce a complex useful organ through random means - try improving your sight by "whacking" your eye and see what I mean.

Unfortunately this betrays a really fundamental lack of understanding of evolutionary processes. The old 'random' chestnut is a favoured one by creationists and is corrected so many times without success that the failure to acept those corrections can only be construed as deliberate obfuscation. Although genetic mutations are random events, natural selection is not.

I have never observed any plausible mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life.

No-one has. Maybe one day we will. It is not relevant to the theory of evolution.

I have never observed the spontaneous or assisted restoration of life to any dead organism or cell.

So what? It's currently too difficult to do that. What does this show. What is your point.

I have observed millions of different species which are distinctly different and whose cells are packed with organised information of amazing density and unimaginable complexity.

We all have. It's entirely, head-shakingly wonderful.

I have observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind.
I have observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems.

We all have. It's entirely, head-shakingly wonderful.

I have observed missing links between ALL species, both living and fossil.

Really? That's astounding.

I have observed great perfection and genetic diversity in all species.

ok.

I have observed evidence that all populations are degenerating over time with accumulated mutations – and many extinctions of species are due to this degeneration.

This is an extraordinary statement. What evidence have you to back this up?

I have observed the fossil record to actually be a record of instantaneous death and catastrophic burial – and NOT a record of the gradual development of life over time.

Where did you observe this?

I have observed that geological formations, such as the Grand Canyon and new canyons formed during the Mount St. Helens eruption, to be evidentially formed through the action of large amounts of water acting over a small amount of time.

This is a joke right? Oh I forgot, you HAVE to believe this to fit with the inerrancy of the bible. No refining or changing allowed in that story.

My message is to abandon the dead hypothesis of evolution and stop trying to resuscitate it. Go back to what science does best – objective observation – and frame a new hypotheses that fits all of the REALITY that we observe – and NOT what some people would like to continue BELIEVE, in spite of the evidence against it.

Let's be honest. Creationists will NEVER change their position no matter what science finds. They beleive they have the Truth and hhave to squeeze everything into that frame. Science on the other hand WILL continue to change and be refined. Scientists will be open to whatever view of reality the evidence points to. Scientists, despite what creationists fervently believe, will gladly abandon the theroy of evolution by natural selection in favour of a better theory which fits the evidence and data better. This would take a lot of disconfirming data and time (as should be the case, but it would happen). What it won't do is abandon an extraordinarily successful and useful theory because it doesn't agree with the bible.

For my money, I think that some “untrained scientists" would have the best chance of producing this breakthrough thinking.

Funny, I would have bet that you'd think that!

I would leave the “trained scientists” doing what they do best, routine mondaine day-to-day work!!!

Patronising spite. Doesn't deserve further comment.

bus77

I think the people who came up with the terms 'creationism' and 'darwinism' should be shot. It was probably the press, as usual :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote:

You seem to think that if we don't have all the facts now that the theory is invalid or useless. This is simplistic and wrong.

Well said, i was about to say exactly the same thing

Evolution is an idea of how life develops. The finer details are a work in progress, but the over all idea, that one species develops through continous change into another species is a sound scientific theory that so far nothing has ever come close to disputing. Because the fine print details of how evolution exactly works in individual species and species that lived millions of years ago are still being worked out does not main the theory is flawed.

It would be like saying we should rethink that idea that gravity exists because we are not sure exactly how black-holes work.

J C

Quote:
All knowledge in science is deemed tentative
Correct – but this is precisely why ALL scientific theories must be subject to continuous testing – otherwise science would rapidly degenerate into a collection of tentative “old wives tales” that are never tested.
Evolution is a “unique and very strange beast” indeed. On one level it is held as an Article of Faith by many people and is thus a form of “World View” for these people. On another level is awarded the (undeserved) status of a Scientific Theory.
The people who hold it as a “World View” are entitled to do so if they so wish – I don’t believe in it – but I also don’t believe in several other philosophies either!!
Awarding it the status of a Scientific Theory is another matter entirely. All proper Scientific Theories are tentative – a single repeatable observation or experiment may invalidate them at any time – and that is how it should be. A SCIENTIFIC THEORY therefore:-
1. Must be PRECISELY DEFINED – so that everyone knows what they are testing / talking about. Evolution is very loosely defined with almost as many definitions as there are scientists!!!
2. Must lend itself to repeated testing by observation and/or experimentation. The essence of Evolution refers to events in the distant past, which do not lend themselves to observation and/or experimentation. A Scientific Theory cannot be validated in the first place without being repeatedly tested – and because core aspects of Evolution cannot be tested it has therefore never been a valid Scientific Theory.
3. Must IMMEDIATELY be declared invalid or amended if ANY repeatable observation and/or experimentation detects any phenomenon, which is not in accord with the theory. A new hypothesis may then be proposed – but if no adequate hypothesis is available to “fill the gap” the theory must fall anyway. This is actually implemented with every other Scientific Theory – and should also apply to Evolution as well.

Quote:
All theorising includes speculation. Take for example cosmology, archaeology, paleontology, biology etc etc. There are different theories about what gravity really is for example. Is it the actual bending of spacetime or the exchange of yet to be discovered graviton particles

Any theorising, which includes speculation, may be very interesting but it is strictly outside the realm of science. I could speculate that all gravity originates in my big toe – but because I am not able to prove it by repeatable observation or experimentation – it won’t become a Scientific Theory – at least I hope not!!


Quote
The theory of evolution by natural selection, like all good theories is capable of easy refutation. Just show us the hard evidence which refutes it.

Show me the hard evidence that PROVES it – otherwise I will ask you to show me the hard evidence that refutes my theory that all gravity originates in my big toe and by an undetectable process finds it’s way from me throughout the Universe. At least, you will have the advantage of a precisely defined hypothesis – which is more than can be said for Evolution. The theory of evolution by natural selection is not capable of refutation because significant aspects of it are not capable of testing by observation or experimentation, just like my “Big Toe Theory” – and that is why neither are valid Scientific Theories – though my “Big Toe Theory” does provide some great speculation – for me anyway!!!

Quote:
The theory of gradual evolution is still the most accepted form of evolutionary theory. It is not an invalid hypothesis.

It is an invalid SCIENTIFIC hypothesis because of all I have just said – no matter how many people believe in it – in fact, I think that it has recently been replaced by the “Theory of Punctuated Evolution” – which is equally un-testable and therefore equally invalid scientifically.

Quote
You seem to think that if we don't have all the facts now that the theory is invalid or useless.

No – as long as any theory confines itself to what is actually known, and conforms to the requirements of a Scientific Theory, as a professional scientist, I will accept it as valid.

Quote
Quantum Mechanics added to Classical physics which was an incomplete theory but they are both compatible. If we were to follow your example then scientists would have thrown out classical laws when quantum physics was posited, making an egregious error in the process.

Classical Physics Laws still remain scientifically valid because they are continuously validated by repeated tests every day throughout the world. I’m not so sure that all Quantum Mechanics speculations are on as solid ground – I am beginning to get that very heavy gravitational feeling in my Big Toe again !!!

Quote
Are you saying JC that if were in a room with a predator (who had very poor vision - but had some) trying to kill you that you would not choose to have say 5% vision rather than none, or 10% or 50%? Would having this amount of vision be a significant DISADVANTAGE to you in that arena? Of course it would be the opposite and you know it.

You have moved the argument from the general laws of natural selection, to the particular of a theoretical predation scenario of your own invention. I will answer you by saying that if the “primordial eye” in this scenario had 0% vision and was growing out of the bottom of the foot and had become so infected that the leg had advanced gangrene – the possessor of such an appendage would certainly be at a DISADVANTAGE. The chances of a complex structure such as an eye having ANY vision and being it the right place through random processes is effectively zero under the Laws of Probability. I am also unaware that any continuum of intermediate eye structures have ever been observed in either living or fossil creatures.

Quote
Scientists will be open to whatever view of reality the evidence points to. Scientists, despite what creationists fervently believe, will gladly abandon the theory of evolution in favour of a better theory which fits the evidence and data better. This would take a lot of disconfirming data and time (as should be the case, but it would happen). What it won't do is abandon an extraordinarily successful and useful theory because it doesn't agree with the bible.

I also agree that scientists should be open to the reality that the evidence points to – that is their role, after all. The abandonment of a Scientific Theory, however is never contingent on the availability of a better theory to replace it – a theory should ALWAYS be abandoned if it is proven to be invalid or is outside of science in the first place. A lot of disconfirming data and time is NEVER required to invalidate a Scientific Theory – all that is required is ONE REPEATABLE observation or experimental result that is not in accordance with the Theory. The alternative is for science to be chronically infested with disproven “old wives tales”, awaiting an acceptable replacement theory – which may never materialise. The integrity of science demands that it honestly says that it doesn’t know something rather clinging to ANY invalid theory.

Myksyk

Any theorising, which includes speculation, may be very interesting but it is strictly outside the realm of science.

I'm sorry but this is gloriously, almost amusingly, misinformed. Speculation and theory based on observations are at the heart of science, not outside of it. Theories inform the type of experiments that need to be carried out and it is this experimentation and the resultant data will confirm or disconfirm that theory. The theory of natural selection has been overwhelmingly confirmed by the evidence collected since its proposal.

Show me the hard evidence that PROVES it

Do you accept that there is irrefutable experimental evidence of micro-evolution?

The theory of evolution by natural selection is not capable of refutation because significant aspects of it are not capable of testing by observation or experimentation.

You are confused. You can never definitively prove any scientific theory. You can only continue to add to its evidential support. Again, these are basic aspects of science ('tentative knowledge' as spoken to before). Refutation on the other hand is a simple matter (relatively) ... For example, finding the skeleton of a human in 2 billion year old rock would 'rock' the foundations of the theory of natural selection to its core. Now that would be interesting but of course, every bit of fossil evidence to date only lends support to the theory of natural selection.

I think that it has recently been replaced by the “Theory of Punctuated Evolution”

No it hasn't.

You have moved the argument from the general laws of natural selection, to the particular of a theoretical predation scenario of your own invention.

So? It was merely used to expand YOUR point. Either an organism with a miniscule amount of vision is at an advantage over one which has none or it isn't. If light sensitive cells (readily available in vasts amounts of organisms) can mutate slightly over vasts amounts of time to confer advantage they will be selected for and survive.

I will answer you by saying that if the “primordial eye” in this scenario had 0% vision and was growing out of the bottom of the foot and had become so infected that the leg had advanced gangrene – the possessor of such an appendage would certainly be at a DISADVANTAGE.

Correct. But then such a development would not be selected for and would not survive. Perfectly predicted by evolution by natural selection. Anyway, your point was that supposed 'intermediate' stages would always confer disadvantage which is patently false. Let's say that our vision improves 20% in the next 5,000 years ... are you saying that any previous level of functioning conferred disadvantage?

The chances of a complex structure such as an eye having ANY vision and being it the right place through random processes is effectively zero under the Laws of Probability.

You are entirely correct. Random genetic mutations would hardly ever produce advantageous functional changes in physiology on their own. Lucky for us then that natural selection is not a random process. You actually don't seem to understand that evolution by natural selection is not a random process. Actually, on the basis of this statement, you don't understand the basic idea behind natural selection at all.

By the way, with all this talk of the importance of evidence, scientific validity and your requirements for repeatable experiments etc ... I'm inclined to ask what is theory do you support for the origin of species?

Myksyk

Carl Zimmer has a couple of short but interesting essays on the evolution of eyes here

Turley

J C wrote:

Finally, one last example of a case of "Foot in Mouth" by a so-called "trained expert". I read recently that, in his retirement speech in the 1860's, the Director of the US Patents Office advised the US government to close the Office because he believed "that all inventions that are useful to humanity are already invented".

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -Charles H. Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899.

Capt'n Midnight

Myksyk wrote:

Carl Zimmer has a couple of short but interesting essays on the evolution of eyes

LOL - if humans are the pinnacle of evolution then how come we have a blind spot when mollusc's don't, any creationist must admit that we are higher on the scale of things than bleedin' shellfish like scallops (even if they are good swimmer and have lovely blue eyes.)

http://home.san.rr.com/denbeste/humaneye.html - design review

http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/Ch11b.html - other types of eyes , inc pinhole eye of Nautilus

And who had the best eyes - obviously the pinnacle of evolution
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&itemid=2021&cat=11

the eyes of the trilobites were composed of inorganic calcite .... Objects one foot away, or objects one hundred yards away, would be in focus simultaneously. Such intricacies suggest that evolution is a degenerative process, for nothing on Earth today compares to the eye of the trilobite.]

Calcite is also known as "Iceland Spar"
Other advantages of this type of Eye - it's more solid than bone, has polarization properties (bees use this to navigate) and double refraction so unlike our eyes you aren't limited to light coming in the front or just the amount of light arriving in though a pupil only 5mm in diameter..

Zombrex

JC you seem to only be interested in arguing over the dictionary definition of "theory" and "science" ... it is rather silly imho

There is a huge huge wealth of physical evidence that shows the evolution is the method that life on earth develop from on species to the next. We are still not totally sure how it happens exactly, probably because there is not one method but hundreds working together in different species for billions of years. But the foundation of evolution, that one species through mutations that are of advantage develops into another is totally scientifically sound and is backed up by the last 100 years of study. Also nothing of any serious consideration has ever been put forward as a viable alternative suggestion. When faced with only one idea that seems to fit scientists should study that idea, not dismiss it.

We are not sure how it happens exactly, but we are sure it is happening just like we are not sure how light works but we are sure it does work.

J C

Question
Why is it that most sceptics are sceptical about everything – EXCEPT Evolution – when there are more reasons to be sceptical about Evolution than almost any other idea that I am aware of?

Quote:
Speculation and theory based on observations are at the heart of science, not outside of it. Theories inform the type of experiments that need to be carried out and it is this experimentation and the resultant data will confirm or disconfirm that theory. The theory of natural selection has been overwhelmingly confirmed by the evidence collected since its proposal
I accept that speculation is a significant component of the important “brainstorming” stage of the scientific process. It can provide the “seed” ideas that may subsequently be framed into scientific hypothesises for testing to validate them as a Scientific Theory (or not as the case may be). Speculation can provide a very useful service to science – but it is strictly outside of the deposit of scientific knowledge contained in validated scientific theories – and the two should never be confused.
The theory of Natural Selection is a valid scientific theory as I have already pointed out – and continues to remain valid. The "Theory of Evolution" is still stuck at the speculation stage - where one person's view is as good as the next - and that is why there are as many "Theories of Evolution" as there are people who believe in it!! My own (VERY PERSONAL) "theory" is that Evolution travels every day on the 46A Bus - but I haven't met it yet!!

Quote:
You are confused. You can never definitively prove any scientific theory. You can only continue to add to its evidential support. Again, these are basic aspects of science ('tentative knowledge' as spoken to before). Refutation on the other hand is a simple matter (relatively) ... For example, finding the skeleton of a human in 2 billion year old rock would 'rock' the foundations of the theory of natural selection to its core. Now that would be interesting but of course, every bit of fossil evidence to date only lends support to the theory of natural selection..
I am not confused - but I think I know someone who ...iiiis. Refutation (by testing / experimentation) is only a relatively simple matter if the theory being refuted is a valid Scientific Theory in the first place i.e. precisely defined and lending itself to testing by observation / experimentation. The essence of Evolution refers to events in the distant past, which do not lend themselves to direct observation and/or experimentation. You can observe a fossil and I can observe the same fossil and we both can IMAGINE all kinds of “stories” about how it lived and how it got there – but that is all they are – nice “stories” with no SCIENTIFIC basis.

Fossilised Human artefacts HAVE been found in rocks – but their presence in the rocks has been INTERPRETED as indicating that the rocks were very young. The dating of rocks by using so-called Index Fossils and then dating the fossils themselves by the supposed "age" of the rocks that they are found in, is circular logic !!.

Quote:
Either an organism with a miniscule amount of vision is at an advantage over one which has none or it isn't. If light sensitive cells (readily available in vast amounts of organisms) can mutate slightly over vasts amounts of time to confer advantage they will be selected for and survive.
IF pigs had wings they could fly! However, there is NO EVIDENCE that “light sensitive cells (readily available in vast amounts of organisms)” can mutate slightly over vast amounts of time. As I have already said, I am unaware of any continuum of intermediate eye structures ever being observed in either living or fossil creatures and the Laws of Probability indicate that the chances of a complex structure such as an eye having ANY vision through random processes is effectively zero. Sadly these speculative “intermediate forms” remain in the realm of mythology along with all of the other “missing links” that are still missing.

Quote:
your point was that supposed 'intermediate' stages would always confer disadvantage which is patently false
Intermediate stages (if such ever existed) would always confer net disadvantage – because an eye, for example, is only useful when it is a functioning eye - otherwise it is a liability. Your belief that an “intermediate eye” would have partial sight or even partial light sensing ability is not founded on reality. Complex structures don’t work AT ALL unless all components are present and capable of functionality – and the GRADUAL production of a number of functional components INSTANTANEOUSLY is an oxymoron. This is where Punctuated Evolution tries to come in - but also fails the tests for a valid Scientific Theory. If one component is missing or any component is incapable of functionality that individual will be totally blind – and not partially sighted.

Quote
Let's say that our vision improves 20% in the next 5,000 years ... are you saying that any previous level of functioning conferred disadvantage?
No - because the previous functioning eye of a sighted individual is obviously functioning.


Quote:
Random genetic mutations would hardly ever produce advantageous functional changes in physiology on their own. Lucky for us then that natural selection is not a random process. You actually don't seem to understand that evolution by natural selection is not a random process. Actually, on the basis of this statement, you don't understand the basic idea behind natural selection at all.
Whether Natural Selection is a random process or not, is a moot point – because of the lack of a plausible mechanism for "Evolution" to supply the necessary organised and increased genetic information for Natural Selection to work on.
I’m not so sure that YOU actually understand the basic idea behind natural selection. The Scientific Theory of Natural Selection provides an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments, full stop. However, this adaptation has always been observed to utilise inherent genetic diversity ALREADY WITHIN the population. The theory doesn’t explain how this genetic variation arose in the first place – Evolution attempts to do so, but doesn’t succeed.

Quote
By the way, with all this talk of the importance of evidence, scientific validity and your requirements for repeatable experiments etc ... I'm inclined to ask what is theory do you support for the origin of species?

As a professional scientist, my primary role is to test the validity of current Scientific Theories – not necessarily to propose new ones. Where the credibility of science is at stake, as with it’s apparent endorsement of the scientifically defunct Theory of Evolution, my first duty as a scientist is to expose it’s invalidity.
As I have already said, I await some truly sceptical scientist(s) to produce the breakthrough thinking required to postulate a hypothesis or hypotheses that fits the REALITY that we observe in living systems. We really do need to go back to what science does best, objective observation and experimentation, on this one.

Quote
If you really want something in this life you have to work for it ... now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers Homer J. Simpson

Unlike Homer J Simpson, it’s time for the “sceptical evolutionists” out there to really do some hard work and original thinking for a change!!!

I will be very happy to peer review any new hypotheses, accompanied by the necessary recorded observations / experimental results, that may be produced.

There might even be a Nobel Prize in it for somebody!!!

Attending Ken Ham’s talk might be a good first step - but probably only a truly open minded sceptic would do so - and I don't know how many really open minded sceptics are out there !!!

J C

Turley

Thanks for the accurate reference for the US Patents Office story – apologies about my wrong date and slightly erroneous quote.


Wicknight

Quote
JC you seem to only be interested in arguing over the dictionary definition of "theory" and "science" ... it is rather silly imho
Unfortunately, it is not silly – but goes to the very heart of what "The Scientific Method" is all about - which is why science is trusted as a valuable and reliable source of knowledge.

Quote
There is a huge wealth of physical evidence that shows the evolution is the method that life on earth develop from on species to the next. We are still not totally sure how it happens exactly, probably because there is not one method but hundreds working together in different species for billions of years. But the foundation of evolution, that one species through mutations that are of advantage develops into another is totally scientifically sound and is backed up by the last 100 years of study. Also nothing of any serious consideration has ever been put forward as a viable alternative suggestion. When faced with only one idea that seems to fit scientists should study that idea, not dismiss it.
At the risk of repeating myself, the abandonment of a Scientific Theory, is never contingent on the availability of a better theory to replace it – a theory should always be abandoned if it is proven to be invalid or is found to be outside of science in the first place. The alternative is for science to be chronically infested with disproven “old wives tales”, awaiting an acceptable replacement theory – which may never materialise. The integrity of science demands that it honestly says that it doesn’t know something rather clinging to ANY invalid theory. This also “makes way” for new hypotheses to be proposed and hopefully new theories to be validated.

Quote
We are not sure how it (evolution) happens exactly, but we are sure it is happening just like we are not sure how light works but we are sure it does work.
The scientific theories on light are precise and testable – and they are therefore valid. Science admits that it doesn’t know everything about light and the frontiers of validated scientific knowledge about light are also very clear.

We are certainly NOT sure that Evolution (“Muck to Man” by gradual random change) has EVER happened. In fact NO evidence has been observed to merit such a conclusion – but the lack of scientific precision in relation to “The Theory of Evolution” and this “Theory” alone has led to a popular belief that Evolution is an “undisputable fact” – when nothing could be further from the truth.

Capt'n Midnight

Dinosaurs by Design ISBN 0-89051-165-9 www.masterbooks.net
Nice introduction to dinosaurs and paleontology, just some of the extrapolations are a little strange

Page 82

Remember the duck-billed (or hadrosaurs) dinosaurs, on pages 38 to 41, that had bony crests or inflatable sacs of skin connected to thier nostrils? Parasaurolophus had a great bony crest with hollow chambers. Perhaps a Parasaurolophus could combine chemicals in his hollow crest and spray a combustible mixture, which would spontaneously ignite when contacting the oxygen in the air. Just think of how offensive a 5-ton dinosaur could be! If this sounds a little farfetched, let me tell you about a special little beetle that is only a half an inch long.

Capt'n Midnight

Dendrochronological Dating Service For £75 + Vat they will date a piece of oak back as far as 5474BC

Not sure how good they would be on gopher wood (cypress) though..

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

robindch

> On one level it is held as an Article of Faith by many people and is thus a form of “World View” for these people.

For those who've not had the time or interest to delve into the strange world of the rank-and-file creationist, I can point out that this is a commonly-held view, and its statement, as above, is quite typical in using an overtly religious form. It comes, clearly enough, from a closed-minded limited-axiom worldview which informs its adherents that everything in the world can be understood using its own axioms and logic and is divorced by necessity both from the need to change (why change Truth?!), or from any need to conform to the outside (real) world, and, by application of the old line 'those not with us, are against us', concludes, erroneously, that evolution is a religion, and an evil one at that (since it's not 'us').

To take but one consequence of evolution, as stated by creationists -- if for example, in the USA where around 85% of the people declare some belief in the notion of a benign God guiding the development of mankind, if not creating him outright, and evolution is the root cause of the decline of mankind, then who on earth is doing the moral declining? The creationists (making up the vast majority), or the non-creationists (a pitiful minority)? Personally, I think the answer is quite obvious, but creationists may well disagree.

Anyhow, in short, creationism is 'easy' -- you don't have to know any facts about the world, or be able to process this data accurately, and abstractly, once acquired, and you'll never, consequently, be able to come to an understanding of evolution, a consistent, deep and pervasive explanation for the presence of so much wonderfully varied life upon the Earth. It's simply much easier to say that somebody called god put plonked it all there fairly recently -- why bother investigating any further?

The immortal HL Mencken reported upon the Scopes trial of 1925, and his reports live on, in their entirety, at this site, and are worth reading, as much for a longer and better description of what I've summarised above, as for their sparkling prose style.

- robin.

J C

'Sceptics' and 'Evolutionists' and indeed 'Creationists' are perfectly entitled to hold and espouse their various BELIEFS.
I think that your figure of less than 15% 'Evolutionists' in the US is amazing - in view of the "wall to wall" uncritical publicity given to the "Theory of Evolution" there as elsewhere. That may even be the problem for Evolution - it is being "killed with kindness" by the media - just like a certain Emperor and his clothes. I believe in the common sense of the ordinary people - and maybe the American figures are saying something to 'Evolutionists'. It is certainly saying something to science - whose very credibility is "on the line" here.
The yardstick for a valid Scientific Theory remains - i.e. precisely defined and lending itself to testing by observation / experimentation. Science needs to implement this standard in relation to “The Theory of Evolution" or it too may end up being accepted as a reliable source of knowledge by “a pitiful minority” to use your own words.
As for my assertion that Evolution is An Article of Faith – a theory that does not lend itself to testing by observation / experimentation is not empirically based and therefore can only be believed in through faith. Calling it a religion is probably going a bit too far - although the concept of a "Religious Sceptic" kneeling obediently and unquestioningly at the 'Altar of Evolution' is certainly an interesting one!!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Turley
The scientific theories on light are precise and testable – and they are therefore valid. Science admits that it doesn’t know everything about light and the frontiers of validated scientific knowledge about light are also very clear.

We are certainly NOT sure that Evolution (“Muck to Man” by gradual random change) has EVER happened. In fact NO evidence has been observed to merit such a conclusion – but the lack of scientific precision in relation to “The Theory of Evolution” and this “Theory” alone has led to a popular belief that Evolution is an “undisputable fact” – when nothing could be further from the truth.

That is simply not true,

Firstly we are not sure how light works, and there have been a number of experiments that give different out comes. There is still a debate going on about whether light is a wave or a praticle, because experiments can show it is both. If we cannot agree on the most fundamental nature of light how can you say our theories are any more vaild than evolution

Secondly, there is a wealth of evidence that show evolution is a sound scientific theory. Everything from the fossil record, where you can chart the graduial development from species to species, to micro-evolution that you can actually watch happen in front of you, to what we know about DNA, cell reproduction and mutation.

I would say we are more sure about how evolution works than we are about how light works or about how gravity works.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The yardstick for a valid Scientific Theory remains - i.e. precisely defined and lending itself to testing by observation / experimentation. Science needs to implement this standard in relation to “The Theory of Evolution" or it too may end up being accepted as a reliable source of knowledge by “a pitiful minority” to use your own words.

It has been, years ago.

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that observations must only take place on something directly and happening right now. This is something that secondary school children have to have explained to them, but as a "trained scientist" I would have expected better from you.

No one has ever seen an atom. By definiton we cannot directly "see" an atom. We know it is there by watching the effects of its presence. Likewise no one has ever directly observed the presence of some of the plants in other solar systems. We know they are there by observing their effects on their surrounding, and applyign sound theory as to what would be causing those effects. Likewise with evolution, no one has directly observed macro-evolution, because by definition that is impossible. What we have observed is the effects of macro-evolution, on the fossil record, and by studying the adaptability of species in certain enviornments

By applying your rather incorrect application of "science" it is not scientifically correct to say Vikings ever existed, because no one has ever observed a Viking. We know they did exist by observing the effects they made on their surroundings, the artificats they left behind.

We apply everyting we know about biology, fossils, micro-evolution (that can be observed), chemistry and nature. All of these different fields support the idea of evolution. Nothing disputes it. The theory makes sense, is supported by evidence and can be modelled. What more do you want. That is better than most scientific theories.

J C wrote:

As for my assertion that Evolution is An Article of Faith – a theory that does not lend itself to testing by observation / experimentation is not empirically based and therefore can only be believed in through faith. Calling it a religion is probably going a bit too far - although the concept of a "Religious Sceptic" kneeling obediently and unquestioningly at the 'Altar of Evolution' is certainly an interesting one!!

Evolution Theory is nothing like faith at all. If something came along that disproved evolution tomorrow (the human inside a dinasour) scientist would drop evolution tomorrow. Evolution is a scientific theory based on evidence and observation of the natural world.

ecksor

robindch wrote:

For those who've not had the time or interest to delve into the strange world of the rank-and-file creationist, I can point out that this is a commonly-held view, and its statement, as above, is quite typical in using an overtly religious form.

(Some) People appear to be countering J C on the basis of his creationist views. Has he expressed creationist views? I can't see them. Perhaps I'm misreading them. Perhaps he is a creationist but my suspicion from reading his posts is that he is not. Either way, I think his points can be usefully discussed without discussion of religion.

Maybe I'm mistaken (and if so then no doubt you will point it out) but I seem to be seeing some irony in somebody coming to the skeptics forum, encouraging people to question something and finding that instead they jump to further conclusions based on shaky assumptions.