Disqus - Friends of dickschutz

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Matt — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:34:52 -0000

There are actually two sides to evolution, and they shouldn't be confused with each other.

The first is a fact. The fact is that creatures and lifeforms evolve over time. We observe this in the fossil record. It can't be rationally denied.

The other side is the theory. The theory only concerns how creatures and lifeforms evolve. Natural Selection is such a theory.

The problem with ID, and the sorts of arguments made here, is that it tends to confuse which part is fact and which part is theory.

ID seeks to replace the theory of Natural Selection with the explanation that God guides the evolution of life. There is nothing wrong with this as a theological argument.

But the point is that it is not a scientific argument and therefore should not be taught in science classes.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support it as a scientific thesis. There is, however, mountains of evidence to support Natural Selection as an explanation for the evolution we observe.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Matt — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 05:18:01 -0000

The fossil evidence for evolution doesn't rely on carbon dating. The order of fossils through rock strata (oldest lower down, newer ones near the top) clearly shows the evolution of species.

The absolute age of strata may be open to debate, but the relative change over time is unquestionable.

The most important thing to note is that there have been no anomalous discoveries. No-one has ever found a human (or similar mammalian) fossil alongside a T-Rex !

There are gaps in the fossil record, of course. As you point out, fossils arise only when creatures die. I'd go further and say that fossils only arise when creatures die in the right place and under the right conditions . . . a pleasant preservative mud, for example. But these gaps are being filled in all the time as palaeontologists continue to dig and continue to refine their techniques.

Now to the issue of religion in the science class. I'm afraid I'll have to accuse you of using a false analogy.

It's not a question of kicking ruler-users out of an art class. It would be a case of kicking ruler-users out of a class specifically for "impressionist art". Rulers then wouldn't be appropriate.

In the same way, the theory of Intelligent Design, in its postulation of a Designer, immediately puts itself outside the realms of science.

The postulation that there is a Designer can only lead to the question "what is the nature of the designer?". And while that's an interesting question, it's a theological question, not a scientific one.

You make the point that evidence for a Designer exists in the lives of believers. I'll leave aside the fact that you've leapt from a nameless Designer to the Christian God, and just say that any such evidence is subjective.

Religion is a personal thing and every believer has a different, personal and highly subjective experience of God. Science does not concern itself with such subjectivities.

Science is only concerned with things that can be objectively studied, measured and understood.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Matt — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 18:17:06 -0000

You're right, Andy, there is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides. But this is because science and religion are two separate fields.
It's like saying piano-players and chess players don't understand each other well enough. Well, do they need to?

There's no real conflict between religion and science except for some manufactured controversy made up by people with a vested interest.
Religion deals with belief and faith and a personal relationship with God. Science deals with what can be objectively observed and measured.
They're just two completely different and separate fields.

A scientist can believe in God (many do) and a Christian can believe in evolution (many do). Belief in evolution certainly does not equate to disbelief in God.

And a couple of minor points Andy, evolutionists don't claim that humans evolved from gorillas. The claim, supported by fossil evidence, is that humans and gorillas both evolved from a common ancestor, which is now extinct.
There's actually quite a lot of evidence for speciation of this type in the fossil record.

On the likelihood of life beginning on its own, nobody knows how likely or unlikely it is. It's certainly not "well-known" that it's unlikely. The universe could be teeming with life for all we know. We only have our planet as an example, which is one out of many billions.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Matt — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 05:17:54 -0000

Chris, I'm really interested in your view that belief in Evolution necessarily leads to disbelief in God.

I know many devout Christians (my father, for example, who is a Christian pastor) that have no problem at all believing in Evolution. They simply believe that Evolution is the mechanism by which God chose to develop life on Earth.

What's your view on that?

Re: ID Goes South

Matt — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:00:31 -0000

I absolutely agree. The two sides are arguing completely at cross-purposes.

ID proponents are offering "proof" or at least what they claim is evidence, for a Divine Hand. From their point of view, any argument against ID is taken of as a denial of the existence of God.

Speaking from the science side, on the other hand, I don't care either way if Christians (and it is pretty much exclusively Christians) want to believe in and teach ID. In fact, as a theological position it certainly beats Young Earth Creationism (you know, saying that the Earth and everything on it popped into existence 6,000 years ago).

My problem is only with teaching ID in a science class. Because it's not science. That's what Kitzmiller v. Dover was about.

When I said they were "roundly defeated", that wasn't to say that ID had been disproven. It was to say that trying to pass ID off as science had failed. Which was a victory for common sense and science education.

But teaching ID in Sunday School? No problem. Go ahead. It's no sillier than anything else in there. :-)

Re: ID Goes South

Matt — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:40:44 -0000

I must disagree with your first point. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that supports Intelligent Design.

The "evidence" that supposedly supports Intelligent Design consists solely of producing known gaps in evolutionary theory, combined with the statement "we don't understand this so God must have done it".

There's nothing more to it than that. It's not worth wasting any time in a science class examining it. Unless it's the 20 seconds or so it takes to read out the paragraphs above.

The argument can't remain on a rational scientific level (as you suggest). As soon as ID is suggested, it's not on that level anymore.

From the science side, I can understand the frustration. Scientists and science educators are having to spend time defending their position, and defending it to people who are actually uninterested in science . . . people who are only interested in pushing a religious agenda.

It's time that could be better spent doing actual research or improving science education.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Matt — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:12:13 -0000

Hi Andy. Wow, a few things in there. I'll answer them in order.

". . . what is this common ancestor that we share w/the gorilla?"

There are lots of fossils showing the lineage from prehistoric great apes to humans and from prehistoric great apes to modern primates. Precisely where the split between humans and the modern pimates occurred is subject to debate, but the latest theory is that Nakalipithecus is about the closest we have. There's a nice summary of all this on Wikipedia. (If you don't trust Wikipedia, it links to a bunch of references that might be worth reading.)

The short answer is, the fossil evidence is abundant if you care to look at it.

"Its be shown by science that life does not start on its own. Its not "unlikely", its just plain NOT."

That's not actually true. Until a few hundred years ago it was believed that life often started spontaneously (eg maggots growing in meat, mice growing in haystacks) but these particular examples have obviously been shown to be false. But that's not the same as showing that life doesn't start on its own.

"Why do we know it happened that one time? Because we're here! But, is that science? No, that's assumption."

It's not assumption that we're here. We are definitely here. That's how we're having this conversation. :-)

". . . the evolutionist assumes life started only that one time due to chance."

A couple of things wrong with that sentence. Life did not start when the Universe started. Life came along quite a few billions of years later.

And the evolutionist does not think it was due to chance. That's a common misconception. It was due to the right conditions for life being present.

It's not actually unlikely that that's going to happen somewhere in a huge universe. It's like the lottery. It may be unlikely for you or I personally to win, but if millions of people enter, then it's actually pretty likely that someone will win.

Re: Intelligent Design in Louisiana Public Schools; Internet Sings with Praise

Matt — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:31:39 -0000

What's so difficult to accept about random chance? Don't make the mistake of confusing "random" with "unlikely". They're very different things. Life did start by chance, but my point is that it's just not as unlikely as you seem to think.

And yes, it is amazing what can be deduced from jawbones and teeth, isn't it? Palaeontology is an amazing field. Jawbone and teeth tell us about the diet of a particular species, as well as the shape of the skull and hence the size of the brain. The cranial fossils from Nakalipithecus to modern human show a very clear, gradual change.

And on your final point, yes you're right. We weren't there at the beginning of the universe so we don't know exactly what happened. The difference between you and me is that I don't claim to know what happened. You do.

My starting point is only that the universe began . . . somehow. Any other conclusions are based on observations (e.g. background cosmic radiation, the expansion rate of the universe, subatomic particles observed in accelerators).

Of course, there are a lot of gaps in that knowledge and a lot of work to do. Filling in those gaps with the statement "God did it" may be comforting, but from a scientific investigation point of view, it's not particularly useful.

Re: Au-Shi Au-Shi Au-Shi

Matt — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 05:26:56 -0000

I'm sure there'll be one or two people there who speak Cantonese.

Re: Why Intelligent Design is Not Science

Matt — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:55:29 -0000

A couple of important points:

First, science is not concerned with the discovery of truth. Science is concerned with the interpretation of facts. That's a very different thing . . . and a point made by noted scientist Indiana Jones in the opening scenes of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Second, science does not claim there are no supernatural forces. It just excludes such considerations from its sphere of examination. Therefore, there's no requirement on science to prove or disprove such things. That's left to theists and metaphysicians.

Please understand that this is in no way a denial of such things. It's just a separation of inquiry.

You can question the validity of science defining itself in this fashion, but you must see that science is objective and credible precisely because it has taken this approach.

That's why people like Von Daniken, and proponents of Intelligent Design, are always trying so desperately to get their work seen as scientific.

Re: Occam's Razor

Matt — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:08:38 -0000

That's excellent. You absolutely should put that together.

Re: Occam's Razor

Matt — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:09:41 -0000

Not at all. It's been rationally questioned the whole way along.
There's just never been any convincing evidence that would change their position.

Re: Occam's Razor

Matt — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:50:25 -0000

Not at all. The "evidence" offered in support of the existence of God has been examined, questioned and scrutinised at quite some length. It's just that none if it's convincing.

Re: Ooh Shiny

Matt — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:01:22 -0000

It's a HP 6710b. Pretty basic setup but equal to my needs . . .

Re: Why Intelligent Design is Not Science

Matt — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 07:23:34 -0000

Evolution, or more specifically, the operation of natural selection, explains "how", but not "why".
Once you start talking about "why", then you're talking theology, not science.
And ID doesn't even explain "how" . . . simply saying "God did it" is not an explanation.

Re: I want me one of these

Matt — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:22:51 -0000

I like the comment at the end . . . that "Savannah cats are a soft target for Garrett. He failed on whales and plastic bags."
There might be something in that.

Re: A Very Probable Controversy

Matt — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:39:21 -0000

I wasn't really talking about the morality of gambling, but rather the dangers of problem gambling.

That's an important lesson which can easily be intertwined with the maths lesson, because it relates directly to the probability of (not) winning.

On the point about teaching morality and science, I'll leave aside the technicality that maths is not a science, and just say that I have no problem at all with morality and science being taught side by side.

It just needs to be made clear which is which.

Re: Cool Warming Vase

Matt — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:28:23 -0000

Good question. My guess is it's the baseline for some study or other.
And it means they get to use lots of red for the most recent years.

Re: Actuaries Gone Wild

Matt — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:06:56 -0000

Probably the latter. Although my Klingon improved as the evening wore on.

Re: A New French Verb

Matt — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 04:43:35 -0000

They seem to be happy for us to use it as a verb, but only in the specific case of using their specific services. Which I suppose is fine.
But unfortunately for them, the verb yahooer just doesn't work as well.

Re: L to the H to the LHC

Matt — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:04:46 -0000

Hi Sam,
I think you mean "Cosm"?
No I haven't read that one, although I've now added it to my list of stuff to look for in second-hand bookshops.
Thanks for the tip.

Re: An Interesting Argument

Matt — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:18:47 -0000

Wow, that's scary. I hadn't actually read any of his other posts. It's not really surprising, though. It's a pretty common position amongst your evangelical types. Kind of goes with the territory.

The reason I enjoyed that particular set of articles was the interesting angle he'd taken; trying to present atheism as inherently illogical because of perceived inconsistencies in (what he calls) Philosophical Materialism.

Unfortunately (for him) the inconsistencies only appear when he introduces the nebulous concept of "transcendency", which apparently disproves Materialism and disproves atheism and therefore God exists.

He says his arguments don't "resort to theism, deism, or fantasy", but actually they appeal to all three on a regular basis. Besides, deliberately disallowing theism or deism (unless it's useful to him) is a bit of a cop-out. It's just a way to avoid all the best arguments against theism, particularly the fact that it's all clearly been made up by humans.

Re: L to the H to the LHC

Matt — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:24:28 -0000

Margaret Fulton has something to say about the LHC?

Re: Doomsday . . . ?

Matt — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:50:14 -0000

Good question.
They're only sending particles in one direction at the moment. The next step will be to send them in the other direction. And sometime around October they'll actually start colliding them.
So . . . who knows.

Re: Doomsday . . . ?

Matt — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:26:56 -0000

Cool. I'll check back there in October.