![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 28 to 52 of 53. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 18:31:54
In reply to Re: i'm sure yours are lovely ;-) (nm) » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 17:44:37
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 18:54:07
In reply to Re: But not very intelligent, I'm afraid. : ( (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 18:31:54
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 19:35:12
In reply to Re: maybe god found them aesthetically pleasing (nm) » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 18:54:07
>So, the question must be asked: Should we teach ID in our biology classrooms even though ID is not a viable alternative to natural selection? The answer is "yes, if we teach ID properly." The answer is "no" if we are asked to teach ID as a viable scientific theory worth spending precious classroom time on. To teach ID properly would be to demonstrate to the students that nothing of scientific interest follows after one posits an external agent to explain something. To say the eye was designed by God or an alien race is to say: Stop, go no further in trying to understand this. Students might be taught that ID is just the kind of theory that some philosophers and theologians find interesting but since it doesn't lead to any deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, doesn't lead to new discoveries or research ventures, and doesn't have any practical scientific applications, it is left to those in other fields to pursue. A good biology teacher ought to be able to explain why ID, even if true, is of little scientific interest in about 15 or 20 minutes. That should leave plenty of time for them to instruct their students in science.
From:
http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
The link goes into a lot of detail...
It also has a commentary on the current state of legislation (in the US) near the end...I was very suprised at the poll results...
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 20:40:34
In reply to Re: link, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 19:35:12
I really enjoyed that link to the Skeptic's Dictionary. Thanks for posting it.
I.
Posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 20:51:12
In reply to Re: maybe god found them aesthetically pleasing (nm) » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 18:54:07
Posted by rainbowbrite on September 6, 2005, at 21:09:05
In reply to Re: Is god lactose intolerant? (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 20:51:12
Posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 21:13:16
In reply to what? huh? lol (nm) » Toph, posted by rainbowbrite on September 6, 2005, at 21:09:05
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 21:19:11
In reply to Re: Is god lactose intolerant? (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on September 6, 2005, at 20:51:12
Posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 23:17:37
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » messadivoce, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 17:34:15
<But once again... Intelligent design theory is not a legitimate scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.>
Alex, you and I are not going to agree on this. I believe that it is...I just wish I could recall all the evidence I've read on this subject. I hope that someday I will be able to put my facts in order better. That may be something for me to work on and read up on.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that everything from the human body to penguins to platypuses (sp?) just happened, randomly and without a Designer. I think it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in a Creator. Either theory takes a tremendous amount of faith.
Not to say I don't believe God couldn't use evolution if he wanted to...
Putting all evidence aside, from either theory, I just find it really hard to believe that everything that exists in earth was a random series of events. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a beautiful designed sculpture or painting was made by someone. Why is it out of the realm of possibility that our fabulous bodies were created by someone? I don't understand why that's not a viable alternative.
If scientists are looking for God's literal "fingerprints" then they aren't there. If they are trying to "prove" the existance of God, they can't.
But if they try to prove the lack of a God, they can't to it either. So they have to have faith that no God exists.
It takes faith either way, Evolutionist or Creationist.
Posted by Ilene on September 6, 2005, at 23:46:34
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 23:17:37
> It takes a lot of faith to believe that everything from the human body to penguins to platypuses (sp?) just happened, randomly and without a Designer. I think it takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe in a Creator. Either theory takes a tremendous amount of faith.
>
I don't think so. It takes faith to believe the words of the Bible are infallible, but scientists develop theories based on observable facts. They state their observations/experiments in a way that can be replicated by someone else. If no one else gets the same result, or if the results are widely varying, then their positions are weakened. Scientists use observations to develop theories. The definition of "theory" is different when used in science. It means an explanation of observations that makes predictions.One of the most difficult parts of evolutionary theory is getting a grip on the *vast* spans of time involved. Most people can imagine a century, and a thousand years is 10 centuries, 10,000 years is 100 centuries, 100,000 years is 1,000 centuries... after a while your imagination fails you.
> Not to say I don't believe God couldn't use evolution if he wanted to...
>
That's the position of Catholics.> Putting all evidence aside, from either theory, I just find it really hard to believe that everything that exists in earth was a random series of events. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a beautiful designed sculpture or painting was made by someone. Why is it out of the realm of possibility that our fabulous bodies were created by someone? I don't understand why that's not a viable alternative.
>
It's outside the realm of science because all the answers are the same: God made it so. You can't predict anything from that; consequently, it's not science.Maybe your body is fabulous, but mine isn't. Look through some medical books for seriously unfabulous bodies.
> If scientists are looking for God's literal "fingerprints" then they aren't there. If they are trying to "prove" the existance of God, they can't.
>
> But if they try to prove the lack of a God, they can't to it either. So they have to have faith that no God exists.
>
I don't quite understand your point. Science and metaphysics are different. Many, if not most, scientists are believers of one stripe or another.> It takes faith either way, Evolutionist or Creationist.
>
I think they exist in separate spheres of inquiry.
>
>
I.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2005, at 23:58:41
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 23:17:37
> Alex, you and I are not going to agree on this.
Thats okay :-)
I'm sorry I sound a little dogmatic at times... I don't mean to sound that way... I'm not upset or anything if people disagree with me. And trying to clarify my thinking... Is to my own benefit at any rate. I appreciate that you have thought about what I had to say :-)With respect to whether the intelligent design hypothesis is a scientific theory or not... To be honest it all depends on how you define a scientific as opposed to unscientific theory.
Unscientific theories aren't necessarily bad or false - it is just that they do not compete with scientific explanations.On most standard interpretations of what 'scientific theory' amounts to it amounts to a theory that is either true or false. It makes claims about the natural world which are capable of being supported by observations of the natural world or capable of being falsified by observations of the natural world which show the theory to be false.
If you allow the intelligent design hypothesis as scientific you also must allow the brain in a vat hypothesis as scientific. Or the 'the universe has doubled in size overnight' theory as scientific.
> It takes a lot of faith to believe that everything from the human body to penguins to platypuses (sp?) just happened, randomly and without a Designer.Nobody believes that.
The 'randomness' is mutation. That has a relatively small part to play in evolutionary theory.
And it isn't that they 'just happened' it is that they happened just so... and then there is a more detailed theory that science aims to provide.Okay... So my biology isn't that great but I shall have a go...
Take a population (of whatever species you like).
Those that are best suited to the environment tend (on average) to have more offspring than the individuals that are not so well suited to the environment.Some characteristics are heritable which means that they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation.
There is also mutation that occurs so some members of the next generation may have a new characteristic.
So mutation is the only random element. Aside from this you just need
- a population where members vary with respect to fitness (fitness is ALWAYS relative to environment)
- a population where those characteristics that provide relative fitness are heritable (more likely to be passed on to the next generation.
- mutation (so that new features can arise).Evolution is defined as 'change in a populations gene pool over time'. And that happens. We can observe that in the lab even. So I guess the difficulty is whether one species can evolve into another species over time. We have found fossils to support the hypothesis that this is so.
> Not to say I don't believe God couldn't use evolution if he wanted to...
Right. And so evolutionary theory does not preclude their being a god.
> Putting all evidence aside, from either theory, I just find it really hard to believe that everything that exists in earth was a random series of events.I could try and find you a link on evolutionary theory that explains things with a minimum of rambelling terminology if you would like.
Because it is quite an important point... That evolutionary theory does not appeal to a 'random series of events' in explanation. If it did do that... Then it would indeed be inadequate.
Evolutionary theory is difficult. I don't have my head fully around it. I'm sure the first year students who study it for a couple weeks don't really have their heads around it. I don't think most high school students do either. And i don't see how diluting the science curriculum will help with that. Because... It is important to understand what evolutionary theory says before considering whether things really could have happened the way they say it did.
>It's not out of the realm of possibility that a beautiful designed sculpture or painting was made by someone. Why is it out of the realm of possibility that our fabulous bodies were created by someone? I don't understand why that's not a viable alternative.
Evolutionary theory doesn't rule out that god created the world. god could have caused the big bang. science is silent on the cause of the big bang (science can only talk of causes from within the natural world if you ask what set the first event in the natural world into motion then the answer to that question will always lie beyond science).
So 'god made the people and the species' may be true (evolutionary theory doesn't care). The point is just that if god did indeed make people then this is how he did it...
> If scientists are looking for God's literal "fingerprints" then they aren't there. If they are trying to "prove" the existance of God, they can't.
> But if they try to prove the lack of a God, they can't to it either. So they have to have faith that no God exists.Because there is no proof either way the scientists conclude that whether god exists or not is not something that is a matter of science. science is about the observable world. god lies beyond science. with respect to god... science is silent. you can believe in god and be a scientist. an evolutionary biologist even. there is no contradiction in that. there is only a problem if god (as you define him) rules out evolutionary theory as being a true explanation of the origins of life on this planet. the scientists are good enough to leave god out of it they appreciate that science has nothing to do with god. it would be nice if the theologians could extend the same courtesy in return. god has nothing to do with an explanation of natural world phenomena.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 7, 2005, at 0:47:30
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 23:17:37
Here is a link to a lesson plan that is supposed to illustrate that while mutation is random selection is cumulative:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/ns.cum.l.html
That whole website looks pretty good to me...
Here is a list of all their lessons:
Posted by JenStar on September 7, 2005, at 1:13:38
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » messadivoce, posted by alexandra_k on September 7, 2005, at 0:47:30
Alexandra,
you seem to know a lot about philosophy, literature....lots of stuff in general! :) I'm impressed. :) I know this is sort of off-topic, but I just wanted to compliment you on your breadth of knowledge. It's cool.JenStar
Posted by alexandra_k on September 7, 2005, at 1:46:12
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on September 7, 2005, at 1:13:38
Thanks Jenstar. I think it is just that I do a lot of talking. I do worry sometimes that somebody will come along and correct me bigtime :-) And I have an especially bad memory for the empirical details...
oh. and if it is any consolation i can't do math at all. thats kind of what put me off biology before... and... i was a creationist at high school. but i thought i was the first to come up with the 'god planted the fossils' idea. i only did it to annoy the hell out of my bio teacher lol!.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 8, 2005, at 20:00:50
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » messadivoce, posted by alexandra_k on September 7, 2005, at 0:47:30
i think it is good to teach that there are limits to science. while it is authoratative in a limited domain (with respect to natural processes) there is a whole other realm that is also of importance to people:
religion
spirituality
meaning
consciousness
art
ethicsthere is so much more to the world than natural processes!
philosophers are still trying to work out methods for studying those things...
and what i mean by saying that science is authoratitive with respect to natural processes is just to say that it is the BEST method that we have at present for learning about natural processes.
scientists start with observations of the natural world.
they want to explain this phenomena (that they observe to occur)
they come up with a theory (typically positing unobservable entities such as 'genes' and 'electrons' and 'gravity') that predicts that IF _______ happens THEN _________ will be observed.
IF _______ happens AND _______ is observed then this provides some support for the theory, and thus some support for the unobservable entities postulated by the theory. You can never PROVE a theory to be true - but you can find support for a theory in this manner.
IF _______ happens AND NOT______ is observed then this shows the theory to be false. Either the theory has to be revised, or it has to be tossed out.
In this way the observations that the scientists make are crucial.
A theory is supposed to unify what initially seem to be unrelated observations of the natural world. It takes a diversity of facts and provides one explanation that can account for them all.
Eventually... Anomalies arise for the theory. Observations that cannot be handled by the theory.
Eventually... A rival theory emerges.
Theories differ when the predictions that fall out of them are different. Usually... There is a 'crucial test' - an observation that will support one theory and falsify the other.
Once that happens then scientists tend to abandon the first theory in favour of the second.
As an example... The Michelson-Morley experiment was anomalous for Newtonian physics yet unsuprising given relativity. It is observations such as these that showed Newtonian physics wasn't perfect and this ultimately led to a new theorietical framework in physics (relativity).
observations...
science is all about making sense of observations...
and whether future observations are predicted by or ruled out by the theory are the criterion by which we decide whether the theory is correct or inadequate.the intelligent design hypothesis is not scientific because there are no possible observations that could serve to support or falsify the theory.
so... the intelligent design hypothesis is not a legitimate alternative to evolution by natural selection.
the intelligent design hypothesis can be true at the same time as evolution by natural selection (an intelligent designer caused the first event in the natural world AND natural selection is the natural process by which he/she did it)
they aren't really rivals.
here is another hypothesis:
THE BRAIN IN A VAT HYPOTHESIS
evil scientists have removed my brain from my body and they are keeping it alive in a vat of nutrients. they are stimulating my brain in such a way that they are causing the experiences that i am currently having. i have never come into contact with the external world. other people... actually don't exist at all (aside from the evil scientists).
(you have to consider this hypothesis from your first person perspective)
the point to this hypothesis is that there are no observations that i could make that would serve to support or falsify that hypothesis. my experiences would be the same whether the hypothesis was true or false.
there is no reason to believe that i am a brain in a vat...
there is no reason not to believe that i am a brain in a vat...observations are similarly irrelevant to the intelligent design hypothesis and to the brain in a vat hypothesis.
observations are the crucial test for scientific theories.
after a lot of thought...
i don't see the harm in teaching the intelligent design hypothesis... i don't think anything that is offered seriously should be ignored. if people disagree then they should say their reasons for why they disagree or whatever.
i do think it is important to teach about the limits of science...
about how messy real world observational data is and about how IRL it is never as neat and tidy as one theory being able to handle ALL phenomena (thats why statistical techniques and statistical significance was invented...)
and no scientific theory is perfect...
science is a process
and it is good to question
it is good:-)
Posted by caraher on September 9, 2005, at 11:23:27
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on September 8, 2005, at 20:00:50
> i think it is good to teach that there are limits to science.
I certainly agree here.
...
> i don't see the harm in teaching the intelligent design hypothesis... i don't think anything that is offered seriously should be ignored. if people disagree then they should say their reasons for why they disagree or whatever.The problem is that its proponents portray ID as a *scientific* hypothesis and falsely claim there is a serious *scientific* debate about the validity of evolution and ID as an alternative. From your perspective outside the US it may be harder to see that this issue is strictly power politics on the part of the "Christian Right," rather than a serious intellectual discussion about teaching the nature and limits of science.
I have no problem with a biology teacher prefacing a discussion of evolution by saying that there are limits to scientific knowledge, and that there are intellectually respectable ways of understanding the world other than, and possibly even in conflict with, science. But it is intellectually dishonest to demand that biology teachers lie to children by saying ID is science.
As an aside, the Daily Show next week will be doing a week-long series titled "Evolution? Schmevolution!" in which they promise to resolve the issue "once and for all." Sure to be enlightening... ;)
Posted by Dinah on September 10, 2005, at 7:58:34
In reply to Re: Evolutionary Theory and Creationism, posted by messadivoce on September 6, 2005, at 23:17:37
And I wish that everyone would admit that atheism is a belief system just like any other, a religion with "no god" as the supreme deity. With adherents as impassioned as any fundametalist.
Then we could apply the same rules about separation of belief system and state that are applied to those with a belief system not in keeping with the atheist doctrine.
Posted by lynn970 on September 10, 2005, at 8:41:37
In reply to I'm with you » messadivoce, posted by Dinah on September 10, 2005, at 7:58:34
I was staying away from this conversation, but...
>And I wish that everyone would admit that atheism is a belief system just like any other, a religion with "no god" as the supreme deity. With adherents as impassioned as any fundametalist.
I Could not have said it better myself.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 10, 2005, at 17:00:24
In reply to I'm with you » messadivoce, posted by Dinah on September 10, 2005, at 7:58:34
> And I wish that everyone would admit that atheism is a belief system just like any other
I agree. Atheism, theism, agnosticism, deism are belief systems. But none of these are *scientific* belief systems.
A scientific belief system would be beliefs about the natural causes of natural (i.e., observable, measurable) phenomena.
God is a super-natural phenomena in the sense that God lies beyond or outside the natural world. So god isn't an appropriate subject matter for the natural sciences.
(Neither is ethics or aesthetics or subjectivity so to say that something isn't a fit subject matter for the natural sciences isn't to imply that it is rubbish. It is just that science only works within a limited domain - natural explanations for natural phenomena).
Science... Is agnostic. It is silent on whether there are any supernatual phenomena, it is silent on whether there are any (true) supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Those very questions lie beyond science.
Scientists just focus on natural explanations for natural phenomena.
You can study religion, god, spirituality, ethics, aesthetics, meaning, consciousness etc. They are fit topics for rigorous investigation. But once again, they are not fit subject matter for science because we haven't worked out how to construe them as natural phenomena in order to be able to give them a naturalist explanation yet.
Science only deals in natural explanations. That isn't to say that they disregard super-natural phenomena because they don't believe there aren't any. It is to say that the methods of the sciences (where observations of the natural world are a crucial test for the adequacy / inadequacy of natural explanation) aren't suited to the topic of supernatural phenomena (i.e. god) or super-natual causes (i.e. god).
> Then we could apply the same rules about separation of belief system and state that are applied to those with a belief system not in keeping with the atheist doctrine.Perhaps agnosticism (I don't know whether there is a god or not) is the middle way...
And given that none of us really knows...
(Or that most of us admit that we don't really know)
It might be wise for science to limit itself to natural causes for natural phenomena.
The people who say that the intelligent design hypothesis is a legitimate scientific alternative hypothesis to evolution by natural selection...Don't really understand the nature of science.
God lies beyond science.
If you want to consider reasons for being a theist, atheist, agnostic then you are dealing with an a-priori subject matter rather than an a-posteriori (empirical one based on observations - which is what science is about).
For example...
(1) In the natural world nothing can cause itself and every event is caused by a prior event in the natural world (science goes with this)
(2) There are no infinitely long cause and effect chains (so the natural world can't be infinitely old)*
(3) There must have been a first event in the natural world.
_______________________________________________
C1) A supernatural event must have caused the first event in the natural world
_______________________________________________
C2) That is god.*A seperate argument is offered for this:
1) If a causal chain lacked a first member then the subsequent events in the chain could not have occured
2) But they did occur! (We are here now, for example)
________________________________________________
C) There must have been a first event in the natural world which is to say that the natural world can't be infinitely old.So you can study god and you can study the question of whether god exists, whether the concept of god is coherant (if something is incoherant it cannot possibly exist), whether it is more rational to believe than to not believe, whether belief in god is a matter of reason or a matter of faith, the nature / role of faith etc etc. But that is an a-priori investigation (looking into arguments and reasons to believe rather than looking to the world for a naturalistic investigation of the phenomena)
None of this is a scientific investigation.
And... If it turns out that there is a true super-natural explanation for natural phenomena (i.e., that an intelligent designer designed the natural world) then that does not show the scientific explanation to be false. The scientific explanation is still a true explanation of the natural causes for natural phenomena.
This is an interesting topic...
But I'm not sure that there is the time to address it adequately at high school level...
And I'm not at all sure that it should be made compulsory...
Posted by Toph on September 10, 2005, at 17:00:28
In reply to I'm with you » messadivoce, posted by Dinah on September 10, 2005, at 7:58:34
> And I wish that everyone would admit that atheism is a belief system just like any other, a religion with "no god" as the supreme deity. With adherents as impassioned as any fundametalist.
>
Some atheists have a belief system, others a disbelief system.> Then we could apply the same rules about separation of belief system and state that are applied to those with a belief system not in keeping with the atheist doctrine.
We already do apply the same rules Dinah.
Posted by Dinah on September 10, 2005, at 20:07:27
In reply to Re: I'm with not knowing » Dinah, posted by Toph on September 10, 2005, at 17:00:28
No, we really don't apply the same rules.
But I don't feel like arguing the point.
May we just agree to disagree?
Posted by Dinah on September 10, 2005, at 20:10:19
In reply to Re: I'm with you some of the way... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on September 10, 2005, at 17:00:24
My opinion, such as it is, is that statements about what is behind or what is not behind the process of natural selection or evolutionary processes strays from science into belief systems, and shouldn't be taught in school.
But that goes both ways, not just one.
Posted by Toph on September 10, 2005, at 21:04:25
In reply to Re: I'm with not knowing » Toph, posted by Dinah on September 10, 2005, at 20:07:27
>
> May we just agree to disagree?Sure. In someone we trust, if only ourselves.
Hey, I'm not sure of your status, but it sounds like you've been displaced. If this is the case, I'm sure, in the end, you will be stronger for the experience. You strike me as someone who continues to grow all the time. Here's wishing you better fortune as you find your way back home Dinah.
Toph
Oh, are your dogs OK?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 11, 2005, at 0:41:00
In reply to Re: I'm with you some of the way... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on September 10, 2005, at 20:10:19
> My opinion, such as it is, is that statements about what is behind or what is not behind the process of natural selection or evolutionary processes strays from science into belief systems, and shouldn't be taught in school.
> But that goes both ways, not just one.I reckon thats fair :-)
I think I would have liked to have studied philosophy of religion / comparative religion at high school, but I don't think it should be made compulsory.
Posted by Dinah on September 11, 2005, at 8:19:00
In reply to Re: I'm with not knowing, posted by Toph on September 10, 2005, at 21:04:25
My dogs are safe, or I wouldn't be. :) I never could understand why they just didn't send the SPCA or Greenpeace with the rescuers if they were trying to force people out of the city. I'd be one of those people refusing to go if my dogs were left behind.
I have to keep prefacing my remarks by saying that we are lucky in comparison with most other people in the region. But we did receive disturbing news last night about possible plans in the intermediate future that have me seriously depressed again. I have to go home as soon as I can, because that's where my work is. But my husband may be assigned elsewhere for months and months. Which would make me a single mom, possibly with responsibilities for my inlaws. I've never understood how single parents made it, and I sincerely doubt my ability to do it. But I know how fotunate we are that my husband has a job, even if it means intermediate term separation.
Ok, I'll stop being reasonable now. I'm just depressed and upset. And maybe for nothing, because he hasn't been assigned yet. D*mn, I've started being reasonable again.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.