Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Gallup survey

I have removed the mention of the Gallup survey claiming only 55% support evolution.

Particularly with regard to the following from elsewhere in the same article

Evolutionary theory is, without question, the dominant point of view among the scientific community. In 1987, Newsweek reported: “By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically literal creationism.

The insertion of the Gallup survey is clearly POV (and extremely POV) as it doesn't tally with the significantly different statistic shown elsewhere in the article, with a much more explicit wider sample base and reference. CheeseDreams 22:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • As to advancing my pov, i PUT the above quote in there -- which is accurate, and clearly states that evolutionISM is the dominant viewpoint among the scientific community. further, the 55% figure does not apply to evolution -- but ATHEISTIC evolution -- two separate issues, as the text clearly indicated. Ungtss 22:33, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The text is in a position and phrasing which reads in a manner implying that Creationism is actually rather a widely held view amongst scientists, percentage wise. Wheras the Newsweek report shows that it is somewhere nearer 1%. Maybe you would like to remove the Gallup survey toward the Newsweek poll, and qualify the sample group (i.e. specify how wide a survey it was, and where, geographically, it covered) CheeseDreams 23:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
the gallup poll is in the section on ABIOGENESIS, not the section on evolution. the two are entirely separate issues, as clearly indicated by the article. while the vast majority of scientists are evolutionISTS, the opinion on naturalistic ABIOGENESIS is 55/45. you have clearly misstated the passage. it is not opinion. it is FACT, and was used in the creationism page to quite a different effect (in an effort to show that creationism is associated with stupidity). in the second edit, i qualified the geographic area. if you'd like to question the study itself, then we can eliminate it from the creationism page, too. does anyone else have an opinion here so we don't keep wasting each other's time here? Ungtss 23:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
in my defense, you are the first person to complain about my pov for any extended period. the vast majority of my changes have been accepted -- even applauded. my changes on THIS page have been applauded by an atheist and an evolutionist, who clearly does not share my POV. Ungtss 23:23, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why are you highlighting ISTS? Are you trying to express a POV? The term evolutionists simply means advocates of evolution. The phrase "the vast majority of scientists are evolution" could hardly be considered to be sensible.
i am referencing your stated interest in eliminating the "evolutionism" page.
Evolutionism is not the same as evolutionist.
The opinion on naturalistic abiogenesis is NOT 55/45, you cannot count those who abstained/declined-to-comment/hold-a-neutral-view/dont-care/havent-decided as being on the opposing side. The whole point about these people is that they can equally be counted on the supporting side. For example, if the number of these people was 20% then there would be 55% pro evolution, 20% uncounted in some sense, 25% evolution. This could be 45% verses 55% but it could equally be 75% verses 25% which is really quite a significant different.
that was the reason the text was originally worded so as to say that opinion was MIXED. that a slight majority believed in atheistic abiogenesis. the remainder either don't believe it, or state no opinion. you erased any reference to the idea that opinion was mixed, which is all that stat conveys, and all it is intended to convey. if you want to reword so that the stat does not mislead, REWORD so the stat does not mislead. but the stat itself is accurate, and portays the facts -- that opinion is mixed.
I erased the poll completely, it has no place in the albiogenesis article if it is to remain NPOV. An opinion poll on validity of views seeks to give the weight of backing of numbers. This article is mean't to be unbiased in such a manner.
In addition your phrasing should not combine the non-pro-evolution people together into the figure 45%. Most people reading the article will scan the text, and consider the 45% to be the size of opposition to pro-evolution, which is not the case. You should use the actual percentage of pro-creation people, or the actual percentage of people not expressing a view countable as either pro-divinity or pro-god, if you wish to obtain NPOV. CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The way you phrased the article suggests that a whole 45% believe in a divinity supported theory in some way, wheras infact this 45% includes votes not countable for either side, and the pro divinity figure could be as low as 1% or less!. This is why the gallup poll should not be used in the manner in which you use it, because suggesting that the whole 45% are pro divinity is extremely POV.
That is not how it was used. it was used to express the NPOV fact that opinion is MIXED. shall we change it to express that more effectively?
That would be achievable either simply by replacing the gallup poll with the phrase "opinion is mixed", or simply deleting the gallup poll alltogether, which is what I have already done (multiple times). CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you look at the editors of this page, you will see that most of them are Creationists. The reason for this is because of the page's history as having been part of a page on Creationism. Creationists have a vested interest in that page and would wish to represent themselves accurately, more so than pro-evolution people would wish to attack them by editing.
whatever. the page was pov, and is now less so. i have no vested interest in creationism. contrary to your accusations, i am not a creationist. i am agnostic on the question, but have a great deal of familiarity with the arguments on both sides. so there's no need to "watch me," except insofar as i commit error. creationism was completely unrepresented on the page. now it is represented.
Again, you are jumping to conclusions about my opinions. I have never stated that you are a creationist. CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am watching you because you have been disregarding wikipedia policy by wholesale creation of rival articles, and creating pages that are pure quotes. Please note, this is what I stated when I stated I was watching you.CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The reason I have picked up on your changes are twofold. Firstly, I am one of the few people editing this series of pages who is not a creationist. Secondly, I am one of the few people online and checking this page at the same time as you are.
you are one of TWO people up right now who is not a creationist. and i am the other one.
There are more than 2 non-creationists involved in this series of pages.CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In addition, I don't really see where people are supporting your changes. Further, if you wish to have an argument with me about picking up on your changes, please do so on my talk page, not here, as it is rather irrelevant to discussions about a text about Creation vs EvolutionCheeseDreams 23:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
i don't have a problem with you, or your picking up my changes. i have a problem with you proposing pages for quick deletion when that act is not appropriate according to policy (because it was not sheer nonsense, and redirected to a more npov title, as you agreed -- why are we fighting over the title of the article when it says account(s) in the PAGE!?!?) i have a problem with you returning the accounts page to its previous status -- which presents one POV, and then states "creationists try to reconcile." the page is EXCRUCIATINGLY pov at the moment, and my only goal is npov.
A page entirely filled with a chapter from the bible is not an encyclopedia article. Neither is it acceptable to Wikipedia to create rival articles. I am not fighting with you about the title of the article, I am "fighting" with you about the manner in which you are trying to make the change. I have not changed the Creation accounts in Genesis page.CheeseDreams 01:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the chapter was created in error ... there's no link to it on the page that i'm aware of, and it's not on my watchlist, so i don't even know HOW to delete it. i apologize for that, and appreciate your aid in getting rid of it. i created no "rival article." because i didn't know how to MOVE articles, i made a new one with an npov name, copied the text over there, edited it, and made the OLD name a redirect. same result. now i've undone it, in accord with your request, and will wait for approval to change the name, in accord with your request. whatever. any other procedures of consummate importance at the moment? Ungtss 01:18, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mendel as creationist

i think it's very important to have that in there. evolution v creation is not science v. ignorance, and mendel is proof of that. Ungtss 22:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

two points (a) I thought it was in there. (b) mendel lived at the same time as darwin, and died at a similar time. He may not have discovered Darwin's work, as he was a monk living outside of society, and he may have changed his opinions later in his life if he had. However point b is irrelevant. Because 1 person who was clever thought creation was the right thing doesnt make the whole of the idea of creation as a non-ignorant thing. Newton was clever but he still believed in Alchemy to the extent of locking himself in his room for 5 years so he could experiment to find the Philosopher's stone.CheeseDreams 23:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Just because Mendel was right about somethings does not mean he was right about everything -- this is illogical. Do you think everyone who believes in evolution should therefore become a Christian monk? Slrubenstein

a) it was in there ... but it was removed and i put it back ... and am just hoping it stays back, with a little kindness:).
b) here's what it boils down to for me, and i'd appreciate your insight in finding a mutually agreeable solution. i think it's pov to say that "science believes one thing" and "religion believes another." i think it's npov (and accurate) to note that some scientists are atheist (darwin ... for a while at least ... hawking, gould)and some scientists are theist (einstein, mendel, gallileo) ... i think it would be most npov to represent both sides ... and i think that one quick way to do it is to show that mendel ... the FATHER of modern genetics ... spent his life in a monastary, praying and studying peas. that's all. not saying that all scientists have to be monks. just saying some monks are scientists. fair:)? is there some way i could qualify it to make everybody happy? Ungtss 02:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Im not sure what relevance it has whether scientists believe in god or not. This isnt the God vs. science debate. Also, it is simply representing fact that the vast majority of scientists support Evolution, this is simply true, and therefore ought to be included in the article. It is also true that Creationism is predominantly a point of view supported by religious groups, this also is fact and ought to be included in the article. There is no statement "Its only the religious nutcases that ignore science and support Creationism rather than Evolution", which would be POV. CheeseDreams 08:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i agree with you ... all those facts are true. evolution is dominant among the scientists, and most creationists are dogmatic and scientifically ignorant. it's also true that mendel, an intelligent and cutting-edge scientist at the same time as darwin ... the father of modern genetics ... who discovered the mechanism of microevolution that darwin didn't even KNOW of when he wrote his book ... was a monk and a creationist. is it okay to make sure the article contains all three pieces of information? Ungtss 12:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

<<just saying some monks are scientists.>>

Suppose I am a high school student looking into the "creation vs. evolution debate"; suppose I am really intrigued by the problem of figuring out whence we all came. What NPOV insight on "whence we all came" could I get from knowing about Mendel's faith? Could the NPOV point be that there is nothing about believing in creation that would hinder exploring how to use evolution. Witness all of the scientists with faith who contributed to the basic research leading to better understandings of evolution. Witness Mendel, his faith, and his contributions to understanding evolution. I bet you could find a biographer of Mendel who made some point like that and you could then quote that biographer in clarifying the relationship of creation to evolution. ;) ---Rednblu | Talk 13:15, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

excellent point ... and good idea about providing concrete research:). i guess what i'm going after is two insights from mendel's faith:

1) the issue of MICROevolution should be stripped from the debate, since nobody is disputing it -- in fact, a creationist DISCOVERED its laws. 2) the scientific method in its purest form is free from value judgments, and is simply composing hypotheses and experiments, testing your experiments, and writing tentative conclusions which are sure to be modified with further research ... and that the high school student should feel free to apply the method to ANY theory of origins that they think might be possible, and follow the evidence wherever it leads ... that science DEPENDS on rebels for its greatest insights ... that NO new idea is accepted right of the bat so it'll take some fighting to win over the world ... that credible scientists have come from both creationistic and naturalistic POVs ... and that people should think and act freely, in line with their honestly held personal beliefs.

the first one is the npov one ... the second one is my religion:). shall we stick with the first one:)? Ungtss 16:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, Thomas Huxley made quotes very much like your second point--and he was the gentleman who invented the term agnostic. Within the Creation vs. evolution debate page you surely should be able to quote any statement by Thomas Huxley that you might find, for example, at this link.  ;)) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
gorgeous:). i guess there are two types of agnostics: those that don't know and don't care, and those that know they don't know, but will die trying:). Ungtss 21:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mendel

Did Mendel identify himself as a creationist? Did any of his contemporaries? This seems anachronistic. Slrubenstein

that's an excellent question ... i'll research that forya to get a quote or whatever. he definitely believed that God created the universe and life, however. by the definition at the top of the page, therefore, that makes him a creationist. as to being anachronistic ... he may not have CALLED himself a creationist ... but he was one for all intents and purposes. Ungtss 02:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


evolutionism as pov

Heya CheeseDreams ... i just wanna thank you for the great collaborative effort today. could you please articulate your concerns about "evolutionism" and how it's different than "creationism" so we can work together toward a mutually agreeable solution? Ungtss 03:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionism is a POV term used by Creationists to describe a percieved philosophy held by "believers in evolution" and is not a term used by non-creationists (except by cultural anthropologists but that story's far too complicated to go into here). Joe D (t) 03:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am perfectly willing for the term "Creation" to be used rather than "Creationism", the only issue with this is that Creation has a less specific meaning, and could refer, for example, to the creation of a cake. Contrastingly Evolution has a specific meaning, and although it can refer to lesser evolution (e.g. of a black moth from a mixture of colours), this is still the same sort of thing, wheras creation of cakes is not in any way really considerable as being related to Creationism. This is why the term "Creationism" rather than "Creation" is used. CheeseDreams 08:44, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
gotcha ... that's the problem i ran into when i was trying to change creationism into "those that ascribe to creation" -- it just got real awkward. i would appreciate it tho if you could explain exactly why evolution"ism" is pov ... ism just seems like a convenient way to describe belief in evolution ... but it's okay. it's a minor point to me anyway -- just semantics -- we can get rid of evolutionism if everyone else concurs:) Ungtss.
Because predominant usage of "evolutionism" is amongst Creationists. The predominant implication they mean by it is that it is a belief and not a theory which holds water scientifically. Almost NO supporter of evolution uses the term "evolutionism" to describe their position. Therefore the term is POV. CheeseDreams 21:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
gotcha ... and that makes a lot of sense. it carries a lot of baggage that's not fair. at the same time, it would be nice to have "parallel terms" -- do you have any suggestions for an npov one-word description of "belief in the theory of evolution" that could stand parallel to an NPOV equivalent for "creationism?" Ungtss 22:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, sorry, if I had thought of a 1-word NPOV replacement for "belief in the theory of evolution", I would already have used it. If I think of one, I will let you know here. CheeseDreams 22:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<<Evolutionism is a POV term used by Creationists to describe a percieved philosophy held by "believers in evolution" and is not a term used by non-creationists (except by cultural anthropologists but that story's far too complicated to go into here).>>
Similarly, Creation myths is a POV term used by bibliosceptics to describe an idea held by "believers in creation" and it not a term used by Christians (except by cultural anthropologists but that story's far too complicated to go into here).

Yes, myths would be POV. CheeseDreams 08:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<<... Creation has a less specific meaning, and could refer, for example, to the creation of a cake. Contrastingly Evolution has a specific meaning, ...>>
Evolution also has a less specific meaning: one of a set of prescribed movements.

Not really with regard to everyday usage. If you say "I believe in evolution" or "evolution states that" everyone knows what is referred to but if you say "I believe in creation" or "creation states that" it could just mean you are a creative person rather than a destructive one etc. CheeseDreams 08:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<<... predominant usage of "evolutionism" is amongst Creationists. The predominant implication they mean by it is that it is a belief and not a theory which holds water scientifically. Almost NO supporter of evolution uses the term "evolutionism" to describe their position. Therefore the term is POV.>>
Similarly, predominant usage of "creation myth" is amongs bibliosceptics. The predominant implication they mean by it is that it is a belief and not a theory which holds water scientificially. Almost NO supporter of creation uses the term "creation myth" to describe their position. Therefore the term is POV.

Yes, myth is POV. Story would be better CheeseDreams 08:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can try calling it creation science, since that sets it apart from any of the other type of creation (And it's what the creation researchers generally call themselves.) Granted, that has possible PoV issues-it implies creation is science, which is disputed.
Assuming we took care to also label macroevolution as science (which is disputed), it might work.
Also, how about we refer to it as Supernatural Creation, and apply it to everything, so belivers in creation would be supernatural creationists, etc.
Might be a bit easier-but is only an idea. Feel free to rip it apart. -Cookiemobsta 02:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Creation science is only a subset of the views of creationists, and therefore not sufficient. CheeseDreams 08:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In the context of this article, what's wrong with just "creation" where it fits? Philip J. Rayment 02:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not specific enough. Creation stories would be better. Or creationist theory or something like that.CheeseDreams 08:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Why not just use the quoted terms that published scholars use? The idea that "evolutionism is a term used only by creationists" is interesting, at least quaint. :)) However, you will find no published reputable scholar who says that. I state that as a falsifiable hypothesis. :)) Do you have access to the JSTOR (Journal STORage) indexing of scholarly publications? Most of the JSTOR journals are on-line which makes word searches easy. Here is the direct link. But you can probably get free access through your university's on-line library site under E-journals and E-indexes. You will find many atheist scholars use "evolutionism" as a term-of-art, including archeologists like William G. Haag. Here is an easy quotation from Haag: "American archeologists are uniquely enabled to turn to evolutionism as a guiding, unifying concept that would order much of what now appears to be unoriented endeavor." (William G. Haag. 1959. "The status of evolutionary theory in American archeology." In Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal. (edited by Betty J. Meggers) pp. 90-105, at p. 104.) ---Rednblu | Talk 06:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Section structure

I was hoping to break creation theory down by topic, with more than one subsection for the flood -- i.e. flood containing flood and myth, flood and geology, flood and lifespan ... then have other BIG sections ... like earth age, etc ... just don't have the other stuff yet. but for now, i'll group age of the earth together so it makes a little more sense. Ungtss 22:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen this link (probably not), at the base of the page. Apparantly, Ecclesiastes (Chapter 3) supports evolution. CheeseDreams 23:06, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
very interesting theory -- never saw it that way before:). when i read it in the context of the theme of the chapter and book, i read him saying, "life is pointless -- it's all in vain -- we're all animals, and we die like animals, so WTF." would you like to put an npov discussion of interpretations of this passage up somewhere? Ungtss 23:21, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I might, I will have to consider how to do it somewhere. I hadn't seen it before either. CheeseDreams 00:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With the structure, I was thinking maybe it ought to be

ARGUMENTS

  • albiogenesis
  • flood

EVIDENCE

  • fossils (in this section mention arguments about what fossils mean, and how they are explained etc.)

or something like that? CheeseDreams 00:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Totally Disputed

I have added a dispute header as Fleacircus is removing large chunks of text that he sees as caricatures.

Fleacircus, this article discusses the debate between evolution and creation, it does not discuss evolution and creation where they do not debate. The section you deleted was a discussion of those evolution supporters and those creation supporters who engage in the debate, not of them generally. CheeseDreams 11:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if they're not only about "evolutionists" (wasn't it decided that that term is POV?) and creationists, they're still usupported, overly general, and most importantly not really "perspectives" since they just rehash the two sides' opinions. Why do you think they belong there? -Fleacircus 22:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Evolution-ism is POV.
People in this article who are described as supporting evolution are people who support belief in evolution against creationists. By this they can justifiably be considered Evolution-ists, in the same way that supporters of George bush against John kerry can be considered Bush-ists. CheeseDreams 23:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, but that doesn't address my comments. It wouldn't be true that all Bush supporters against Kerry thought that Kerry behaved dishonorably after Vietnam, nor would it really be useful to state this as a "perspective" on the 2004 election. -Fleacircus 23:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you make a good point ... do you have any suggestions on how to capture the message without painting with such broad (and probably unfair) strokes? maybe instead of saying "evolutionists think this way" and "creationists think this way" we could just say, "some think this way, some think that?" i definitely appreciate your perspective here ... i just wanna find a way to keep the message out there in a way that would be mutually agreeable? Ungtss 23:51, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Even if it's rephrased for nuance, it's not a perspective; it's a rehashing. -Fleacircus 00:12, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
aren't conclusions intended to rehash? Ungtss 00:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If it's a "conclusion" section, what's the Huxley quote doing there? -Fleacircus 00:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
um ... i thought it summed things up quite nicely. does it not? Ungtss 00:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not a "summary" section. Where is the "evolutionist" excess that is supposed to resonate with Huxley's 1885 quote? Equivalence is a creationist POV. -Fleacircus 01:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the "evolutionist" excess lies in claiming to know things for certain when they don't ... and treading on the ground of the hebrew prophets ... claiming that science proves that there is no God. Ungtss 03:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yet neither of those alleged excesses is necessary to take the evolutionist side in this debate, while to be a creationist against evolution demands that you disagree with the vast majority of scientists about what is good science and what is not, based pretty much on your faith. Creationism must be anti-science, while science can be just pro-science. That's why there isn't equivalence, and why "both sides are equally biased" is a creationist POV in this debate. -Fleacircus 18:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

COUGH

Would both of you immediately read Wikipedia:NPOV.

And note this is not a forum for personal research. This is not an article about Fleacircus vs. Ungtss on the subject of Evolution or Creation.

CheeseDreams 19:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


CheeseDreams: I know Wiki is not a discussion forum. Here's something from the Wiki policy on POV:
"Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties"
I don't think Wikipedia needs treat the probity of the scientific community as POV just because creationsits do. I think my perception of the POV is valid and my removal of it is in line with wiki guidelines on neutrality. If Ungsst wants to add a bit about the excesses of some evolutionists who used evolution to claim there is no God or whatever (are there any quotes of this?), then maybe we could do that. Maybe there should be a section or link that explains to what extent evolution is accepted by scientists or what it means to be a "theory and a fact" and how evolution is sort of an "operative" theory that has withstood a lot of research. The article certainly shouldn't present all aspects of evolution as perfectly absolutely true beyond all doubt, and I don't think it does.
However it's highly POV to paint all evolutionists as guilty of those excesses and hint that automatically impugns the scientific validity of evolution, making evolution on par with creationism as a matter of faith and shakey science. That's part of why I removed the characterizations. And while it's possibly POV to suggest that evolution is beyond the limits of science, if that were Huxley's perspective I would have left the quote alone. Once I read the linked article, though, I saw that it was a misrepresentation. -Fleacircus 20:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aldus

P.s. Dear Ungtss, and Rednblu, would you please stop trying to put essays by one writer into articles. Splitting it up with preceding paragraphs hardly disguises the fact. Only one or two sentances should be quoted. Use SOMEONE ELSE as the quotation for further parts if necessary. Better still, distil what they wrote and don't even quote it. This isn't Wikiquote or Wikisource. CheeseDreams 19:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheesedreams, if you will check the history, you will discover that mr fleacircus has overhauled the section and put in another part of the quote to support his pov, and misrepresents huxley's points. i have attempted to even it out, but i would PREFER that we reverted to the original crop of the quote, which captured his message clearly and concisely. Ungtss 19:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fleacircus, science is not "whatever the majority believes." science is "what the evidence can reasonably support," and can support MULTIPLE tentative conclusions. dogmatism, on the other hand, asserts that things that are not "subject entirely to intellectually comprehension" are absolutely proven. without abiogenesis, missing links, or macroevolution, naturalistic evolution is TENTATIVE, not proven -- that was huxley's warning to the scientists. don't get too big for your britches: creationism may be wrong, but naturalistic evolution could be wrong too. the fact that some evolutionists cannot admit the OBVIOUS ambiguity and doubt in their theories is evidence to me that evolution has become a religion, and i find dogmatic evolutionism to be just as pathological is dogmatic creationism. Ungtss 19:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Do you think the current summary accurately captures Huxley's remarks? It might be a good idea if we could think of a less "agnostic" :) writer to present a "Perspective on the debate" as well. What do you think? Unfortunately, it takes almost a screen of writing to summarize Huxley's delicate point clearly without tilting it one way or the other. :( ---Rednblu | Talk 20:22, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i agree ... maybe quotes by Sagan and some creationist to capture the povs that were there before, without the broad strokes i used before? Ungtss 20:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good work, fellas:). i like it:). Ungtss 20:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT QUOTES FROM GLADSTONE? You can't have a huge section on Huxley which starts "Huxley and Gladstone debated" without presenting Gladstone's POV as well. To just let Huxley's side be expressed is EXTREMELY POV. I may decide to tag the Huxley section out until the Gladstone side is presented with equal weighting. CheeseDreams 20:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Anyway, from the article itself, it wasn't Huxley who was debating with Gladstone, but he did step into it. -Fleacircus 20:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I prefer not to lie. CheeseDreams 21:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear reader, Im growing curious as to why no-one has bothered checking who Mr Smith actually is. CheeseDreams 21:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

very funny, sir:). i wish there were such a man ... because he articulates the truth quite clearly:). Ungtss 21:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Did you get the subtler point about adding that text? That although I wrote the quotes myself from my mind, they are not both my opinion. Likewise it is also possible for this to be true of Huxley. Although he articulates one thing, it is not necessarily his actual POV. CheeseDreams 22:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was about to ask if someone had a description or anything for him. -Fleacircus 22:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You should have clicked the link at his name. It would have taken you to a (now no longer existing) page stating that I made him up. CheeseDreams 22:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The link was red so I didn't bother. Did it go here? -Fleacircus 22:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
yes, cheese, i can definitely see your point. i thought it was good as it was, but apparently it put a bee in people's bonnets. is it possible that this whole section is just more trouble than it's worth, and should be cut out entirely? it doesn't really add any information, after all ... people will come to their own conclusion, regardless. whatcha think? Ungtss 22:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think as it stands now its fine, but the section should be called "Views of the debate from outside it" or something. CheeseDreams 22:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

aside

As an aside, I wonder whether either of you have considered the idea of religion as a virus (particularly Evangelical forms)? CheeseDreams 19:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

some consider religion to be the virus. others consider secularism to be the virus. others (like me) consider both to be viruses insofar as they deliberately choose dogma over a humble quest for the Truth. consider a study of history by arnold toynbee, the longest written work in western history, arguing the third pov. personally, i don't care. i think science makes religion BIGGER, not smaller, because every answer we find opens up a dozen more questions. Ungtss 20:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Urm, no, thats a disease, not a virus. The point is (see Meme) that Evangelical Christianity's prime purpose, activities, and beliefs, are to spread itself to someone else. This is the definition of a virus. Student Christian groups such as OICCU, CICCU, LICCU, DICCU (these are real names - respectively Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Durham inter-collegiate "christian" unions) can be considered the most virulent form, as they generally exist in such a way that they perform absolutely no other function than self-replication. CheeseDreams 20:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
yes, i agree with you. many organized religions have deteriorated into viruses whose only purpose is self-replication. that's why i can't go to church without getting physically ill. i think a religion is completely dead as soon as the CRITERIA FOR SALVATION is that you believe what they say and go to their church (as most evangelical churches do now). At that point, it has absolutely nothing to offer. Jesus agreed with you too, by the way, as he spat on the pharisees and was ultimately killed by them.
That's a POV. It requires
  • Jesus was real
  • He actually said that which the gospels claim he did
  • The pharisees in the gospels actually were pharisees (which by the description of some of the occurances is really rather implausible).
CheeseDreams 21:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
everything is a pov, my friend:) -- you asked for mine and you got it. i don't live in a world of proof. i live in a world of reasonable belief. if you think it's more reasonable to believe scripture's a fabrication, go ahead -- no skin off my neck:). i'll stick with my pov and i'll meet you at the end:). Ungtss 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. I do not think you shall. CheeseDreams 22:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, i hope i will:). Ungtss 02:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here -- organized religion and True Religion are two entirely separate entities. True religion is living justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God. that has nothing to do with organized religion -- it has everything to do with the proper functioning of our souls. with LIFE. with JOY. with FREEDOM. True Religion is, i believe, what makes us Fully Human. That's what Huxley was after. Ungtss 21:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, True Religion is whatever the religion is that is actually True, i.e. correct. Just religion is religion which is fair. Nice religion is that which makes you feel warm inside. They are not, and never have been, the same.CheeseDreams 21:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you missed it, my friend:). i think True Religion is Just, Merciful, and Humbly walking with God -- which leaves me in the company of Moses, Micah, Jesus, Muhammed, Huxley, and Gandhi - none of whom believed things in order to feel "Warm" inside. If they're all fools, then i'm content to be a fool too:). Ungtss 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Their religion was nice, not Just. Gandi's actions were not necessarily Just. Neither were they True. Likewise, Jesus, Muhammed, and Gandhi can't all be correct about the nature of existance and god can they? so not all (if any) of them can be True. They are only nice, and even then, only to some. CheeseDreams 22:20, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you're confusing True Religion with theology and metaphysics. theology concerns itself with the nature of God; metaphysics with the nature of existence. Both are abstractions, and superfluous under huxley's analysis. True Religion concerns itself only with justice, mercy, and humble faith -- no matter what your "theology" is. And if you think Gandhi was unjust ... well ... you go right ahead and think that:). Ungtss 02:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
True religion is about what is the truth. Just religion is concerned with justice, mercy, and humility. They are not the same.
P.s. Read about what Gandhi also did. History isn't always as obvious as the superficial reading. CheeseDreams 21:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe that justice, mercy, and humility of True. and don't confuse religion with perfection. all people, religious and non-religious, sin from time to time. gandhi messed up, david messed up, adam messed up, and i messed up. the religious man picks himself up after his sin, pulls himself together, and walks on. Ungtss 22:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do not confuse religion with truth. They are not the same and never have been. CheeseDreams 22:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Neither are they mutually exclusive. Ungtss 22:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know of only one religion where that is true. And it isn't Christianity. CheeseDreams 23:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
so you'd argue that everything in christianity is false? including, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What about Masochists? CheeseDreams 00:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
are you saying that ALL christians are masochists? Ungtss 02:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Given the glorification of the murder of a man on a crucifix by asphyxiation, Sadists would be more apt. CheeseDreams 13:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you have confused glorification of the crime with admiration of the victim. glorification would say, "wow! that was so great how badly he suffered! do it again! do it again!" by contrast, admiration of the victim would say, "Wow ... what an extraordinary man to undergo such horrendous trial for a Greater purpose -- perhaps i can learn from his example." Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I take it you have never met a Roman Catholic?
provide one example of a roman catholic who glorifies the sufferings of christ rather than admiring the victim of a horrendous crime. just one. Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My boyfriend. CheeseDreams 22:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i submit that anyone who glorifies the death of christ does not side with christ, but with his murderers. Ungtss 22:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(not quite indented as much as it should be for readability) Then you clearly do not comprehend why he chose death.CheeseDreams 23:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Virus

Evangelism does seem viral. The question is, does it benefit the host? -Fleacircus 21:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO, the question is, does it care if it doesn't? CheeseDreams 21:18, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
sadly ... in most cases ... the answer to both is "No." Ungtss 21:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A vaccine doesn't care either. -Fleacircus 21:29, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a vaccine is just an impotent form of the virus it seeks to counteract. useful for fighting viral infection, but no substitute for the Bread of Life. Ungtss 02:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Try soya bread. CheeseDreams 21:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Whatever works for you:). Ungtss 22:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

paraphrasing huxley

why are you afraid of what he said, fleacircus? do you find yourself wishing he said something else? Ungtss 02:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ungsst, your quote does not reflect the point of Huxley's article. When I originally put in another quote from the conlusion of the article to show what Huxley was saying, you (and somehwat RedNBlue) kept adding things until the whole thing got too bloated. Do you find yourself wishing Huxley only said what you like? Read Huxley's article and tell me if my summary of it is wrong; I included lots of quoted words of his and even your favorite "short sighted scientific people" comment. The point of Huxley's article is not that both sides are equally to blame.

You're quoting Huxley selectively to demonstrate your POV. Stop reverting to your unacceptable version unless you can demonstrate that accurately it reflects Huxley's actual perspective as shown in that article. -Fleacircus 18:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sir, you're misparaphrasing him:). he said that scientists were to blame insofar as they made claims beyond their "clear intellectual comprehension" -- implying that some were doing so. he never EVER said he believed naturalistic evolution to be undisputable fact, as your "paraphrase" implies. he merely said he thought evolutionism is more reasonable than young earth creationism, based on his knowledge and analysis of the evidence. Ungtss 18:32, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Except Huxley also says "The antagonism of science is not to religion, but to the heathen survivals and the bad philosophy under which religion herself is often well-nigh crushed...". Science is antagonistic against something. The reasoning that lets Huxley say "not to religion" is by his definition of "true religion" as the quote from Micah. The rest of stuff that Huxley believes is mistakenly called "religion", we should be glad to see the back of, and not think of it as science being against religion per se. Using the first quote without acknowledging that Huxley has a specific definition of "religion" in mind is misrepresentation. At least as I read it. -Fleacircus 19:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. shall we add a second sentence that hits both points then? something like, "True religion, according to Huxley, is embodied by justice, mercy, and a humble walk with God, and benefits from the propensity of True Science to strip it of false philosophy? At the same time, science is limited to the realm of that which is clearly understood by the intellect, and cannot make claims beyond that realm?" Ungtss 19:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hull & Butler

Er, they both look pretty Con to me. Which one is supposed to be "pro evolution"? -Fleacircus 18:34, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hull was pro evolution -- "who can believe in God in the face of the evidence for darwinism?" Ungtss
that leaves evolution one ahead, for your pleasure:). Ungtss 18:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Using a quote from a pro-evolution guy that says "evolution disproves God" isn't really a pro-evolution quote, and in fact serves your creationist POV. If I found a quote from some creationist guy that said "facts be damned, faith is the answer!" that wouldn't be a "pro creationist" quote. -Fleacircus 18:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
shall we find a quote from a creationist to show that creationism proves God exists? How about Saint Paul in romans? the FACT is that many evolutionists believe evolution disproves God, and many creationists believe creation proves God; if you remove those POVs from the list, you have promoted your own pov, that evolution is purely scientific and has no implication for religion -- which is -- according to mr hull anyway, poppycock. Ungtss 18:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Evolution is scientific. Heliocentrism was a scientific idea that had religious implications at the time, and it might even be the case that some advocates of it liked the angle that it went against the church, and maybe they made claims that it proved God wasn't real and felt it resonated with their atheism or whatever. None of this is really the fault of heliocentrism or heliocentrists. Saying "heliocentrism is religion because some heliocentrists are atheists and that's a FACT!" is just a silly ad hominem attack.
It's not so much that I object to the quotes, Ungsst, except that your descriptions of them as "pro and con" makes me doubt your honesty when they both are clearly "pro"-Ungsst-POV. -Fleacircus 19:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I love that bwap-on-the-head quote! :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 19:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • i didn't say evolution was a religion. i believe it IS scientific. i said evolutionism has BECOME a religion for certain individuals who hold to it with dogmatic ferver, and refuse to let any doubt their thought process, for fear that naturalism might come under fire. further, analogies to old scientific errors are faulty. just because one theory that challenged orthodoxy is true does not mean that the next theory to challenge orthodoxy is true -- each theory stands on its own merits, and the discussion here in on the merits of evolution. Ungtss 22:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Boy would it be nice to stick to the merits of evolution itself instead of the merits of evolutionists, wouldn't it? -Fleacircus 23:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd love that. then, as soon as evolutionists stop calling creaionists "those unscientific, superstitious, religious kooks," we might be able to get somewhere:). Ungtss 23:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Have you seen any such accusations being put into the article that justifies this campaign you're waging to defame evolutionists? -Fleacircus 23:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The NAS quote pretty much sums it up:). Ungtss 23:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why'd you add it then? -Fleacircus 23:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because this is a section on "perspectives on the debate," and that is the stated perspective of the NAS:). Ungtss 00:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You have been working to defame evolutionists because you think that evolutionists defame creationists. When I ask you to produce an example of this in the article, you point to something you inserted yourself after you'd already begun attacking evolutionists. Somehow this doesn't seem to jibe with your statment that you're really after the Truth and wish we could just discuss the merits of evolution. -Fleacircus 00:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1) i have worked to defame no one. i wrote a brief and summary of the summary of the points of view which you summarily deleted without discussion or compromise. i subsequently quoted a number of individuals from a number of points of view regarding their views on the creation/evolution contraversy. any "campaign" your perceive is just the unpleasant Truth sinking in: evolutionists are just as human as creationists. Ungtss 00:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When you make a claim to know capital-T truth, you realize what you sound like, right?
I deleted both characterizations because they were ridiculous. You say you'd love to discuss only the merits of evolution but you've done your best to try to make the "perspectives" section the "evolutionists are bad" section. I don't think you're really helping the article, Ungsst. -Fleacircus 00:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Using a capital T puts me somewhere between Sagan and Morris, i would think:). you are the only one who thought they were ridiculous. Cheesedreams put them back, and he's certainly not on my "side," generally:). They were concise, sympathetic, and fair. the current section quotes moronic creationists like morris along with genius evolutionists like huxley, plus gould, the pope, and darwin ... and all the rest of them. pro-evolution even outnumbers pro-creation by one, for your pleasure. It's fair and accurate. get over it. Ungtss 00:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please, the characterizations that were there were like comic book descriptions of both sides. The section is more interesting now, at least; although I would rather see the quotes be a bit shorter. Now it has nuance, chronology, and actual quotes! I was hoping that they would be more like detached perspectives on the debate instead of actual elements in the debate, but oh well. It sounds like you're done spinning the section, Ungsst, is that right? I don't think there need to be any more quotes. -Fleacircus 01:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
to see a creationist spin in that section now, sir, would require paranoia:). Ungtss 02:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah yes, the old "if you disagree with me you're crazy" argument. -Fleacircus 18:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A nice complement to the old "i don't like the facts so you're biased" argument:). Ungtss 19:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I like the facts just fine, I just don't think your "FACT"s are as factual or important as you seem to think. Your claims to know what I think and believe are quite amusing. -Fleacircus 19:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
as are yours:). Ungtss 19:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Serengeti

  • In my opinion, the quotes from Butler and Hull are pretty neutral--not caring which rapacious species, creationist or evolutionist, wins the battle on the Serengeti. But both sound like they are wise enough to keep their hands and feet on this side of the barred windows in the jeep and to keep their elephant guns at the ready.  :))) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
lol:). well said, sir:). Ungtss 18:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ungtss, you clearly haven't worked out that Rednblu is a Creationist. He is just a very very clever one, who twists articles by putting in superficially neutral edits, or apparantly pro-evolution edits, but which subtly are one sided. He was pointed out a long time ago by another user, who recognised him from his behaviour on UseNet. Note how keen he is to keep the existence of the article Evolutionism, a term which is only used by Creationists, and is considered by everyone else as extremely derogatory. CheeseDreams 21:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
RednBlue has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he is a creationist. he has consistently represented himself as a reasonable and openminded naturalistic atheist, a position with which i respectfully disagree, although i can completely understand and respect his point of view. like me, however, i believe he recognizes that evolutionists are just as apt to become "viral" as the most empty-headed evangelicals. the fact that some people cannot recognize an intellectually honest evolutionist when they see one is more evidence to me that evolutionism has become a religion. Ungtss 22:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Completely separate from the derogatory uses of the word, evolutionism is used by secular anthropologists as a term-of-art to classify all the related theories of origins from atoms, void, and natural laws. Here is a quote from the abstract of a sample paper. "Most important, [this paper] shows that his [ Herbert Spencer's ] evolutionism was originally stimulated by his association with the Derby philosophical community, for it was through this group--of which his father, who also appears to have espoused a deistic evolutionary theory, was a member--that he was first exposed to progressive Enlightenment social and educational philosophies and to the evolutionary worldview of Erasmus Darwin, the first president of the Derby Philosophical Society.") (emphasis added) (abstract p. 1) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Name 10 "evolutionists" who use "evolutionism" to describe themselves. Think about how difficult it is to find them. CheeseDreams 23:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The majority always has the luxury of calling itself "objective" ... until the Next Big Thing comes around and turns them into another Ism:). Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The majority consider "evolutionism" to be an extremely POV term. CheeseDreams 01:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the majority voted on your multiple efforts to delete it ... and determined that it was not. Ungtss 02:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO. The majority determined that the page should be split up. The majority voted to delete it until I suggested supporting splitting it up instead. CheeseDreams 13:51, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, P.s. you ought to see - User talk:Rednblu#Good Faith_policy (adjourned): Dispute about whether good faith policy would allow a theist to operate an atheistic Wikipedia personality. (copied from the RfC page) (RednBlu has moved the part of the page somewhere, so Im not sure where you should look, but Im sure he will have the honesty to admit the discussion exists). CheeseDreams 00:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency

According to the article, Creationists believe the following two claims:

moths may randomly develop white and black variants

Creationists assert that while research overwhelmingly supports microevolution, there is neither a coherent mechanism nor empirical evidence for macroevolution.

If the moths develop randomly more than one variation, such as antenna on one, not the other (e.g. a manx cat which is naturally tailless), these two claims are completely inconsistent. There is no stage at which sudden change has happened, and yet the groups of moths could go in completely different directions - one ending up with thinner shorter more furry wings, the other with more colourful ones. I.e. one turning into a bee the other into a butterfly.

CheeseDreams 21:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.s. There is an intermediate form between humans and amphibians. If you look at ultrasound scan's of foetus' (human and other mammals) you will notice that at early stages they have webbed hands and feet, a genetic defect some are born with. We still have the genes for this stage, its just that we have genes that move us past it as well. CheeseDreams 21:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

you have just illustrated your profound misunderstanding of the creationist critique. i see no inconsistency:). Ungtss 22:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ive just thought-"as a single demonstration of life arising from non-life would disprove the hypothesis"-adam from the earth is the counter example. Youll have to abandom the whole theory now. CheeseDreams 01:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

excellent point. i will reword to, "life arising from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent being." Ungtss 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work either.
(a) God doesn't have to be sentient. (its a POV to assume so).
(b) If I by hand with a long needle, and pliers, moved particles together to create, for example, an ant (it would take ages and a lot of forward planning). I would have just created life, from non-life. How does that make me God?
look, you're throwing out red herrings everywhere. this is a falsifiability argument for intelligent design. if life were shown to be capable of arising from non-life without intelligent intervention, then belief in the proposition: "life can only arise through the intervention of an intelligent designer" would be false, and creationism would violate occam's razor. until that day, creationism does not violate occam's razor any more than naturalism does, and it is therefore intellectually justifiable.

Between

  • "life can only arise through the intervention of an intelligent designer"
  • "life can only arise through intervention"
  • "life can always arise"

Ockham's razor always chooses the third.

Ergo, Naturalism wins.

(ockham is a place in oxfordshire, and the razor is named after William of Ockham) CheeseDreams 22:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

your analysis of occam's razor is again flawed. occam's razor does not instruct us to "choose the simplest law." it instructs us to choose the simplest law to explain the evidence.
Your analysis of my analysis of occam's razor is again flawed. I know that

"it instructs us to choose the simplest law to explain the evidence". The 3rd (naturalism) is the simplest.

therefore, between:
  • Life arose through some mechanism which we don't understand but due to our philosophical assumption that there can be no divine agency we presume to have occured, and
  • Somebody Made it,
ID wins.
Erm, no.
I could equally write
  • Life arose through a simple process we think we understand
  • Somebody Made it, by a mechanism which we don't understand, but think was a divine agency due to our philosopical assumptions.
ID loses.
Occam was a Christian. Ungtss 23:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ockham was no more a Christian than anyone else at that time. CheeseDreams 19:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
he was a friar, on a continent that contained atheists, and was therefore more "christian" than other people. Ungtss 02:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Being a friar was the ONLY way to get a decent education. Most academics chose the path - it was a good life. It had very little to do with religious devotion. And he was not on the continent, he was in the UK. CheeseDreams 13:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
all your presumptions regarding his motives for becoming a friar. just as likely he found the razor to be entirely consistent with his faith ... as i do. Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
He was a Roman Catholic. CheeseDreams 21:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do I have to spell everything out to you? CheeseDreams 22:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
the issue here is, "does occam's razor preclude belief in god?" occam didn't think so. i don't think so. on the contrary, i think occam's razor makes theism the most reasonable belief available. how is denomination relevent to this issue? Ungtss 22:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
We are discussing William, not theism. CheeseDreams 23:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let me put this a simpler way for you. Creationism does NOT violate occam's razor if the proposed law "life cannot arise from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent being" is true,
The proposed law violates Ockham's razor. CheeseDreams


because that is an ESSENTIAL natural law which occam's razor may not cut away
It is NOT a natural law. It includes the non-natural "intelligent being". CheeseDreams 19:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hydrostatic Equilibrium

... requiring us to assume a Creator in order to explain life. However, if life CAN be shown to arise from non-life, THEN the law "life cannot arise from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent being" is FALSE ... making the assumption of a creator EXTRANEOUS, and therefore unreasonable under occam's razor. If you can show abiogenesis, macroevolution, a mechanism that started the big bang, a reason the "natural laws" arose, a cause for star-birth, the origin of subatomic particles, and on and on and on ... belief in God will be unreasonable. Until you do ALL THAT, it's more reasonable to presume that somebody created the universe than to presume that it all came about by happenstance.Ungtss 13:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(a) You don't need a mechanism to start the big bang. That's something that most people don't seem to comprehend. "Starting" the big bang has NO meaning. Read Path integral formulation, String theory, Quantum field theory, D-brane, and Special relativity, and you might vaguely begin to comprehend why (though some of these topics are so advanced that only about 8000 people in the world remotely understand them, and only about 12 actually understand it properly - one of whom is thought to have been Richard Feynmann).
(b) origin of subatomic particles - see above articles. They do not have an origin. The concept has NO meaning.
(c) Path integral formulation is the REASON "natural laws" of physics arise. Its a very simple concept to comprehend. IF (and only if) you have a truly open mind.
(d) Cause of star birth is collapse of hydrogen/helium cloud under its own gravity - see Hydrostatic equilibrium (i.e. collapsing/not collapsing under such pressure) and Nebula
(e) Abiogenesis - see Miller Experiment (or whatever the correct spelling is) - its simply the accumulation of random accretions of amino acids over many many hundreds of thousands of years - roughly the first 1 billion years - producing the occasional RNA molecule in the vicinity of a molecule which transcribes it in some manner.
(f) The concept of Macroevolution is a (potentially deliberate) Creationist fallacy. There is a smooth change of scale between moths changing colour, moths gaining antenna, moths getting furry, moths turning into bees, bees getting fatter, bees growing more legs, bees shrinking their wings spending more time not in the air, bees turning into spiders, spiders getting bigger, spiders becoming more solid, etc. At no point is there not a smooth change, yet we have speciation and "Macroevolution" within it.
God would have to do all these individual things, making each individual bit of RNA, each individual species, each individual particle, etc. Thats far more things than simple natural processes which require no intervention. Ergo, Ockham's Razor implies naturalistic processes CheeseDreams 19:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you have framed each of the above in non-falsifiable terms. no honest astronomer in the world will say that stars start under the gravity of their own hydrogen. gases spread in a vaccuum, and can only reach the density necessary for fusion under the influence of an outside force like the supernova of another star. nobody has a CLUE how stars start. and on and on and on. Ungtss 21:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is because no astronomer does anything other than name ("nome") stars ("astra"), wheras all astropysicists do. No, it doesn't need supernova. Its a basic equation. Indeed gases spread in a vacuum. BUT, you fail to realise the importance of gravity. A cloud has an edge, and thus a centre. Thus there is more gravity toward the centre than to the edge. Of course the gas spreads and expands - this is why it has a temperature. The temperature of the gas is -271.73 degrees Centigrade (2.73 degrees Kelvin). This is increadibly cold, and thus the gas does not move much. The expansion of the gas (which can only be due to its kinetic motion, thus temperature (which is really only a description of how much motion it has)) vs. gravity is the issue of Hydrostatic equilibrium. You will see that gas DOES collapse under its own weight to form stars (see the article if you do not believe me). AND this is the view of almost 100% of mainstream astropysicists. I am one. CheeseDreams 23:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
1) will a gas cloud at 2.73 degrees kelvin undergo fusion? Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO. BUT, a gas could which WAS at 2.73 degrees and is collapsing under gravity will eventually coalesce. Various things cause this to heat up whilst doing so (it should be discussed more fully at Hydrostatic equilibrium) to substantially huge temperatures sufficient to cause fusion. In some cases it fails to start fusion significantly producing a "brown dwarf". CheeseDreams 01:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
what is that mechanism, sir? as it draws closer together by gravity, its temperature will increase, leading to a tendency to spread out again. all i know of hydrostatic equilibrium is that it applies to stars already in fusion -- how was gravity sufficiently strong to get the hydrogen to fusion temperature without spreading back out again? Ungtss 01:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As above. Basically, it has momentum which keeps it going for a while. It is this momentum which pushes it past the tendency to spread out. If you check the equations, you will find that it actually needs to get quite hot to stop collapsing, specifically a heat dependent on the mass of the cloud - for most clouds this is actually more than hot enough to be sufficient for fusion. For it to spread out in resistance to gravity, it needs to be VERY hot, its natural temperature is VERY cold, thus it collapses, which causes more momentum to drive the collapse. The heat genererated by fusion is what prevents collapse, without the fusion it would keep going for a bit in most cases - which is why when fusion stops the star collapses into a white dwarf/neutron star/black hole.CheeseDreams 14:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[1], indicating that nebula begin fusion when a heavy body passes by.
[2], indicating that "for some reason, gravity collapse begins].
[3], indicating that "shock waves" MAY lead to dense cores, beginning star birth.
Give me one single citation that says that the way you're describing is functional, and explains how it works. Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am not denying that shock waves work as well. Oh, you ought to see Large scale structure as to where such shock waves could come from in the FIRST (i.e. before stars) place.
you have failed to provide one single citation explaining how stars are born without the intervention of an outside force. that surprises me, as you claim to be an astrophysist. Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am citing me, and my colleagues. I have (a) explained how they can be born without intervention and (b) done so twice a different possibility each time - the second is in Large scale structure. CheeseDreams 22:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are making a bald assertion, without providing me with any reputable or credible source that would show your belief to be held by anyone other than you. Ungtss 22:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and you are not? (emphasise the words "reputable" and "credible") CheeseDreams 23:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, I notice that some creationists (such as you and Rednblu) have been editing the Stellar Evolution article to assert your pov that this is not the case.CheeseDreams 23:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you'll check the history, the article said, "Stars start when supernovas from nearby stars cause fusion to begin." my research has repeatedly indicated that "you would receive a nobel prize if you knew where the gravity wells in the cloud came from that cause it collapse." that is why i made the change.
Your research is violation of "no personal research", and thus hardly counts as standard scientific view. CheeseDreams 01:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ahhh literalism:). so i am never permitted to look up ideas and recount them on wikipedia? Ungtss 01:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Macro and microevolution

It is inaccurate to state that creationists "coined" the term macro and microevolution. see this article.

Oops my bad. --Yath 01:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Birch and Ehrlich Quote

Is pretty misrepresentative. First of all, they're sort of saying what Popper said. Second of all, it's taken way out of context. What B&E are talking about is whether to guess first from evolution or to do more studies. [4]. It should be taken in light of this later in the article:

"The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets. In population biology, more work is needed in elucidating the general properties of populations, both those made up of one species of organism, and those made up of two or more species, without reference to dogmas or guesses about how they may have evolved." Birch and Ehrlich then list seven types of studies which should be done, and end with the statement: "Then we can see how the answers fit into the modern synthesis" [of evolutionary theory].

Since this was a POV misquote, it's removed. -Fleacircus 17:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

let's put both of them in there!!! that second quote is great and very fair!!! Ungtss 18:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The first quote is misleading; it's a creationist favorite misquote. I'm not going to let it in, sorry. Do you honestly think that Ehrlich and Birch mean what you are trying to get them to say? -Fleacircus 19:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are not in charge here, so don't pull power trips. this is a team effort and we will come to consensus on decisions. i am not trying to get them to say anything -- i thank you for adding the context that makes their statement ENTIRELY reasonable and consistent with belief in evolution ... but they said it, it represents a POV that is not otherwise represented by the section, and it belongs there. just like huxley, which you persisted in misrepresenting by cutting out any criticism of scientific methodology. further, the section is TOTALLY incomplete without morris -- he defines a LARGE spectrum of the debate: "Genesis at any cost -- even at the cost of reality." Ungtss 19:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The Ehrlich and Birch quote seems to me to be fairly made and NPOV. But I don't see that the quote is relevant. The quote seems to be directed to improving the falsifiability of some parts of evolutionary theory. That is, the quote does not seem to be a perspective on the "Creation vs. evolution debate." For example, what does the quote--or the quoted article for that matter--say about creation? All the other quotes, including that Morris gem, say something directly about the "creation vs. evolution debate." ---Rednblu | Talk 20:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • the way i read it, E+B addresses the falsifiability of evolution -- and falsifiability is an essential component of any meaningful debate. when evolution is left in the status of being non-falsifiable, it is IMMUNE from debate (just as the evolutionists assert that ID is non-falsifiable, immune from debate, and therefore pseudoscience). the quote recognizes the potential error of allowing evolution to stand in a non-falsifiable, "pseudoscientific" status, where it is "immune from debate," and the authors intelligently and constructively propose several means for bringing evolution back into the realm of the falsifiable and scientific. what do you think? Ungtss 20:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe. But I use "falsifiability" in my own work much like I think Ehrlich and Birch used it in their quote. Improvement to a conventional wisdom comes from stating conventional wisdom in an insightful way that suggests where to falsify the conventional wisdom--that is, find the data that will improve the conventional wisdom. I don't see stating the conventional wisdom of evolutionary theory in a more falsifiable form would make it more vulnerable in the "creation vs. evolution debate." Maybe we could work through what falsifiability would mean for something like F=ma to illustrate the point? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since B&E suggest some courses of action and lines of research, I don't see how that can jibe with the interpretation that they believe the entire theory of evolution is pseudoscience. They themselves are evolutionists. I think the first part of the quote misrepresents what they actually believe, even if it does express someone (else)'s POV. -Fleacircus 20:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i appreciate the substantive dialogue:). as i understand it, falsifiability serves two purposes: it serves to aid improvement, and it serves to aid criticism. that is why falsifiability is important for BOTH sides of the debate. Evolutionists want ID to present itself in falsifiable terms so it can be criticized, and ID people want it presented in falsifiable terms so it can be improved. similarly, evolutionists want evolution framed in falsifiable terms so it can be improved, and creationists want it stated in falsifiable terms so it can be criticized. what makes this quote so immensely valuable is it serves BOTH points of view ... it states a REALLY necessary component of improving dialogue (and hence debate) between creationists and evolutionists. What do you think? Ungtss 20:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I would challenge ID to present itself in 1) falsifiable terms that 2) satisfy Occam's razor to show that it really is trying to improve itself--as any decent theory development should. I would not view a falsifiable form of ID as making itself more vulnerable to criticism. I don't view falsifiability as "throwing out the baby and the bath water."  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 20:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • i agree with you that ID has failed miserably to make falsifiable claims. but i'd also argue that evolution has failed just as badly. i believe that's why evolutionists and creationists keep banging each other over the head with mallets -- because NEITHER theory can predict anything, so people on BOTH sides cling to the science that supports their bias, with religious ferver. if evolutionists ever want to persuade morris and his ilk, they're gonna need to come up with a theory that makes predictions that come true. If they can't do that, they're pseudoscience. same thing goes for ID. falsifiability is the cure to demogoguery:). Ungtss 21:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see falsifiability as really about prediction. In my view, stating a hypothesis in falsifiable form points to where a counter-example to the hypothesis can be found. May I illustrate with F=ma? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • please do -- i'm no expert on falsifiability:). Ungtss 21:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Er, I think what E&B were saying is something like: "We can't just assume we know [specific things in context of article]. That would be like what Popper says! We still have to do the research and see if that matches up with what synthetic evolution says should be there." Evolution is falsifiable: the fossil record might cough something up tomorrow that would stand evolution on its head. -Fleacircus 22:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i don't think that's falsifiability. read the discussion below. Ungtss 22:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

falsifiability

As I see it F=ma means that if you apply a constant force to a mass, you will keep getting the same acceleration. Right? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

as long as the mass stays constant and it's in a vaccuum without outside forces, yes sir:). Ungtss 21:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • So let us think about the various falsifiable forms of F=ma we might make. We might make a falsifiable form like the following. To falsify F=ma, find a situation where the color of the mass determines whether or not F=ma. That would be a falsifiable form of F=ma, would it not?  :)) But I don't think we would have a very useful falsifiable form.  :(( While it is true that the two of us would win a Nobel Prize 8)) if we could find a situation where the color determined whether or not F=ma, we would not even devote a day to looking for such a situation, would we? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • so just to clarify (i find myself having to piece together some logical deductions i think you take for granted but i'm missing), you're saying:
in order to falsify whether f=ma, you come up with things from outside the equation and see if they disprove it?
i agree that that is one way to falsify the equation. but another (and i think more useful) way to falsify it is to predict that "every time you apply a force of 6 to a mass of 2, you will get an acceleration of 3" -- and then every scientist in the world can say, "well ... i did it 100 times and if the theory were wrong it would have come out wrong at least once ... i guess it's right."
i think that your method of falsification does not actually falsify the theory -- it ASSUMES the theory is true, and then takes factors outside the equation (like color) to see if they make the theory false -- i.e. it is a test to see if an assumed theory is UNIVERSAL, but not a test to see if the theory is TRUE.
personally, i think the best form of falsification would be to predict: "F will equal MA in every case ... go ahead and prove me wrong." what do you think? Ungtss 22:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Bingo! Good for you! In my experience, using falsifiable forms of hypotheses attempts to make the most general statement we can! We want to test the limit of generalizability. But we want to state our falsifiable hypothesis in a way that suggests where the gold nugget is. For example, if after hours of toil and back and forth discussions, you and I came up with the following falsifiable form, at one time in history, you and I would have the Nobel Prize by now. 8) Suppose you and I in 1900 had published the following falsifiable form of F=ma. To falsify F=ma, find the situation in which, applying a constant force to an object over time will produce a steadily decreasing acceleration. We would be giving ourselves a great hint! All we would have to do is keep applying that constant force until the mass got close to the speed of light and, sure enough, the acceleration from that constant force would steadily decrease--as the mass got closer and closer to the speed of light. By sweating to come up with a good falsifiable form of F=ma, you and I in 1900 would have discovered the whole new area of relativistic mass, and if you and I played our politics right, :)) you and I would have our Nobel Prize by now. Congratulations! Thus, the key to advance in the theory is insightful restatement of conventional wisdom in the suggestive falsifiable form that points us to where to find the data that will make it possible for us to state our hypothesis in an even more generalizable form! Or something like that. :) Does that make sense? Do we get a Nobel Prize?  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely! that is the "improving" side of falsification. but i think there is another side of falsification which is just as important. what if somebody proposed the law that F=M/A, and started teaching it is schools. would you not say, "now wait a second, i just applied a force of 10 to a mass of 5 and i got an acceleration of 2, not 1/2 -- there is something wrong with this theory?" that is, i'm proposing, the "criticizing" side of falsifiability which concerns creationists so much. Essentially, "cummon! predict something so i can test it and try to prove it wrong!" Ungtss 22:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ok. Since we are looking for our second Nobel Prize, :) let us examine this situation more closely. I suggest that we distinguish between verifiability and falsifiability. At least the bloke who said "F=M/A" made a verifiable statement did he not? All someone has to do is measure the Fs and As for a given mass M and then plot F versus 1/A and see if he gets a straight line with the slope equal to M. That would be verification. Falsifiability, as I see it, deals with a completely different problem entirely--namely, the problem of stretching the countable set of experiments you already have done so that you can make generalizable statements that you assert are true everywhere--to test in new areas. So falsifiability is the means of pushing outward the envelope of your knowledge in an efficient manner. That is, if you and I work well together in developing and testing falsifiable hypotheses, then we will keep making more and more general statements that have been verified on an ever expanding set of experiments and observations. Does that distinction between verifiability and falsifiability make sense in our quest for our second Nobel Prize?  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
lol:). I see the distinction ... and i see the usefulness of falsifiability for refinement ... but i still think that falsifiability is ESSENTIAL for criticism as well, as i don't see how ANY theory can be criticized without its making falsifiable predictions. "Macroevolution occurs naturalistically." Well ... what does macroevolution predict? "God created the universe." Well ... what does ID predict? Am i missing something? Ungtss 23:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, falsifiability is one of those terms like NPOV that can be used by men in fighting turf battles. :)) But falsifiability and NPOV have serious uses also, do they not? :) In my opinion, a theory has essential flaws if it does not state its hypotheses in falsifiable form--because that theory cannot grow to actually encompass reality. But I would not myself find the falsifiable forms of the hypotheses in a theory very useful in criticizing the theory--because the falsifiable forms, for me, are always about pushing outward the envelope of what the theory can explain. "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees." That is a hypothesis. And in stating that hypothesis in a succession of falsifiable forms, people have discovered whole realms of new data that, in my opinion, support that hypothesis. For example, a whole host of falsifiable forms of that hypothesis led to discovery that humans have more genes similar to chimpanzees than to any other life form. I would not really look at that as prediction. I would look at that as searching for a counter-example--searching for some real piece of data that would contradict the hypothesis. For example, if the experiment had turned out that humans had genes totally different from every other species, that would point to a whole new and better hypothesis to replace "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees" would it not? ---Rednblu | Talk 00:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • alRIGHT ... i'm beginning to understand now:). okay ... you spoke of how "falsifiability" pushes the envelope of what a theory can explain. now that i see your point in a broader perspective, let me word the creationist objection in different terms. Every theory can be described as scientific insofar as it is falsifiable. Creationists assert that evolution is falsifiable (and verifiable for that matter) to the extent that it claims microevolution. However, what we're looking for is a falsifiable articulation of macroevolution and abiogenesis to the EXCLUSION of ID. what i mean is ... some prediction of evolution that is INCONSISTENT with creation.Ungtss 02:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. What would be the benefit of a "prediction of evolution that is inconsistent with creation"? ---Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I guess i worded that badly, because ultimately that's just a falsifiable statement against creationism ... so the fact that nothing can prove evolution to the exclusion of creation is CREATIONISM'S "fault," and i withdraw my comment with apologies:). Ungtss 02:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Similarity in genes is compatible with both, because it is equally possible that the Creator made us similar (just like a painter can make two paintings very similar ... it doesn't mean they came from each other).Ungtss 02:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. Ok. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • fetal development is compatible with both, because it is equally possible that the Creator designed it that way (just because we LOOK like amphibians at one point does not necessarily mean we came from them).Ungtss 02:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. Ok. ---Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • those are just two examples that don't work in my mind, because they are predictions that are consistent with BOTH ID and evolution. the only kinds of inconsistent prediction i can think of would be the missing links. can you give me one phenomenon that is consistent with evolution but not consistent with ID? Ungtss 02:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the "Duck Billed Platypus".CheeseDreams
  1. No. My only problem with Intelligent design that accepts all the empirical evidence is that the "designer" is not necessary, in my opinion. In my experience, Occam's razor is very, very important--because otherwise I myself would have missed the real cause by being satisfied with a variable that wasn't necessary. Does that make sense? None of this has to do with faith, which as I understand it, would stand against any physical evidence. :) And of course, Occam's razor is therefore completely irrelevant for faith. Right? ---Rednblu | Talk 02:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • i can totally hear where you're coming from -- seeing belief in God as making an unneccessary assumption. here's why i don't think occam's razor shaves God:) -- it seems to me that every answer we find brings up 100 new questions ... so our "God of the gaps" keeps getting bigger. For instance, the God of the Gaps that created the geocentric universe with the firmament was NOT a very impressive God -- but the God of the Gaps that created the universe as we NOW understand it is unBELIEVABLY powerful. similarly, the god of the gaps who created us all at the beginning and we all lived in sperm until our time to be born came was pretty simplistic in comparison to the god of the gaps who devised dna and enzymes and hormones etc ... to me ... with each step of our knowledge ... we turn out with ten times MORE incomprehensible pheneomena ... and it doesn't seem likely to end anytime soon. In my use of occam's razor (be it ever so faulty) the most rational way to close off all the "unexplained"'s is to say, "y'know, Somebody made this thing." And if science kept making my God SMALLER i would think he was a God of the Gaps, and unreasonable. But it DOESN'T. Science keeps making him BIGGER. Please don't worry about "deconstructing" my analysis + hurting my feelings -- i look forward to your insight, even if it pops some of my pet bubbles:). Ungtss 02:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that any God that created this grand chaos and grand order of things would be quite a "designer"!! No deconstruction there. ---Rednblu | Talk 05:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


INFINITE cascade of assumptions

The point

i guess the point i was trying to make, tho, is that, given the course of science, naturalistic explanations require a CASCADE of assumptions to explain existence -- and from where we stand, an apparently INFINITE cascade ... but deny us aristole's "unmmoved mover" to start it. Deism, in the other hand, allows us to make one simple, elegent assumption: somebody Created order. That's 1 assumption instead of an infinite cascade of assumptions we can't even FATHOM yet. in the same of minimizing assumptions, i think it's just as reasonable, if not MORE reasonable, to make the single assumption that some unknown Person created all the intricate order than to assume all the intricate order (with all its future infinite complexities we don't understand) arose through mechanisms we don't understand. what do you think? Ungtss 13:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, they only require the Zermilo-Frenkel axioms and the Path integral formulation of M-theory, and of course the axioms of Logic. Everything requires some assumptions (as Godel's incompleteness theorem shows), these are the ones of the naturalistic explanation, there is NO cascade, it stops here. CheeseDreams 19:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Whenever I give a talk on the "INFINITE cascade" of assumptions, after laying out the problem very much along both the lines that you and I have done here, I pose the question like this. "Let us suppose that the Intelligent Designer would finally make an appearance after all these years :) and descend in His spaceship right here onto the village green. Note that the Intelligent Designer is a man, a He. What would you do if the Intelligent Designer asked you to bow before Him and swear allegiance? Would you 1) bow to Him or would you 2) rethink your politics quickly and assemble your weapons to take out the Big Bully? If you would not bow to Osama bin Laden, Josef Stalin, or Hitler, why would you bow to the Intelligent Designer? It is a personal decision. In the meantime, until you meet Him, let me ask you this. Would you rather 1) settle the question quickly now by assuming the Intelligent Designer or would you rather 2) keep looking for the answer, keep your options and your eyes open, let the physical evidence lead where it leads--toward either a) Intelligent Designer or toward just b) eternal atoms and the void. It is your choice. :)) If in the future, the physical evidence leads toward the Intelligent Designer, you can decide at that time what to do about Him when you meet Him."  :) I think it is very much your choice. Would you agree that, given all available physical evidence, each person has a choice? And either choice serves the same end--namely take personal responsibility for a world in which there is no God to trust? ---Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • excellent thought:). i will attempt to rephrase your comments just to make sure we stay on the right track.
1) If there is a God, he is not very nice, due to the problem of evil.
Nice is a human concept. Not one of God. CheeseDreams 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Am i mistaken in asserting that in your world, God is a human concept too? What, then, is the difference in your world? Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I own neither the nor a world. CheeseDreams 01:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ah ... literalism:). you have managed to evade the point while making a meaningless remark. in your POINT OF VIEW, what is the difference between a concept of man and a concept of God, if God is just a concept of Man? Ungtss 01:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If God is a concept of Man then Ockham's razor demand we reject it!!!! CheeseDreams 14:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
making your earlier statement that "nice is a concept of man, not of God" utterly meaningless and self-contradictory. Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And irrelevant, since we have already rejected God, using ockham's razor. CheeseDreams 21:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
yes, your statement was irrelevent as well. Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As is your statement above of irrelevance (And this one of mine). CheeseDreams 22:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
on the contrary, i find your recognition of your own irrelevence to be quite telling. Ungtss 23:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2) In the meantime, we ought not to ascribe docgmatically either to theism or atheism, and keep ourselves in a healthy state of agnosticism.
On point 2, i agree with you entirely -- i think a healthy agnosticism must underly anyone's intellectual life -- at the same time, i think it is fair to be "provisionally persuaded" by one or the other ... and i find myself to be provisionally persuaded by deism, theism, and (what i consider to be) the teachings of Christ.
On point 1, i think the problem of evil rests on the assumptions of omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence, to which i do not ascribe -- i am an Open Theist, because i believe it is the most supportable belief system from reason and scripture. Again, however, this is provisional assent.
my only objection to the use of occam's razor to rule out ID is that i don't think it does, necessarily -- i think that razor cuts both ways -- and i think that it can cut FOR ID as easily as it can cut against it. Ungtss 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nice is a human concept. Not one of God. CheeseDreams 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Would you agree that it is a matter of choice? And would you agree that: To include the "intelligent designer" requires more than just attending to the physical evidence? ---Rednblu | Talk 22:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I would definitely agree that it's a matter of choice. And i would agree that it requires more than just attending to physical evidence. But i would argue that naturalism requires more than just attending to physical evidence, too. Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Lemme word it a little bit differently: is there a way to articulate evolution as a falsifiable assertion to prove that something BESIDES macroevolution + naturalistic abiogenesis occured? Ungtss 02:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I wouldn't think in terms of "trying to prove" something. I would think of DISproving something. Given all the accepted wisdom, the worthwhile discovery will always come from DISproving some part of the accepted wisdom. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 05:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theory claiming to KNOW more than it can FALSIFY

agreed. i guess i'm still looking at this thru a different lens somehow. i think of falsifiability is being the "outer border" of our scientific knowledge. that is, whatever theories we have that are falsifiable (like F=ma) are our "knowledge," until new evidence comes in to falsify that theory (like extreme speeds or subatomic particles), where we refine and deepen our theory, to EXPAND the realm of our scientific knowledge by creating a theory that explains more phenomena. Is that a fair assessment?

What the creationists are saying is that, "evolution is only falsifiable to the point of microevolution -- you can't falsify macro because the only falsifiable argument you've given us is 'find life that can't be explained through stepwise development,' but every example of irreducible complexity we show you -- the eye, the heart, the mammary glands, sexual reproduction, gets explained away as, 'well ... we don't understand that one yet -- give us time.' we HAVE falsified your theory as best as your theory allows ... but obviously that's not REAL falsification, or you'd recognize that your theory of evolution claims to KNOW more than it can FALSIFY, and is therefore making pseudoscientific claims. does that make sense? Ungtss 13:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"This sentence is false" (the Russel paradox) is not falsifiable. CheeseDreams 19:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They do NOT get explained as "well, we don't understand that...". They DO understand them, and have for absolutely ages.
The eye - developed from pockets of light sensitive skin cells which slowly took on a more important role once predators had them too. Some more primative animals still have this (and later) forms of eye, this is also how it develops in embryos.
ontogeny recapilates phylogeny is the weakst argument imaginable. you have failed to show how the cornea, lens, retina, iris, and connection to the brain (which somehow had to know what to do with it all) came to be. find me an animal that has a cornea without a lens, or a retina without some connection to the brain. You've got light-sensitive cells in the brain, and eyes. you have no mechanism or evidence that anything came between them. Ungtss 20:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The lens is simply a bit of thin skin, that got pulled by muscles. It later developed as the ones where the muscle dominated had advantage.
The iris is simply a result of that same process - the muscles in the skin which pull horizontally.
all skin has a connection to the brain - the area was NEVER unconnected. all that happens is that when the area in question started becoming more specialised and important, it increased the amount of connection, eventually becoming a specialised nerve bundle.CheeseDreams
1) insects have eyes too, without "muscles pulling skin," as do reptiles, amphibians, and birds. When did the eye develop? Before we split off from them, or after? Did we develop into mammals, amphibians, and reptiles FIRST, without eyes, and then develop the same mechanism in completely independent ways? or did we develop eyes FIRST, and then develop radically different mechanisms for USING them? Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The eye of insects developed independantly (but by similar mechanism). As for reptiles, amphibians, birds, of course they do. They are NOT the creatures we evolved from. They are also DESCENDED. There are very few creatures of identical or similar species to those around 50 million years ago. However, the missing link between fish and amphibians does survive (though until recently it was thought not to have done) - the "lungfish" (it has partial limbs rather than just flat fins, and it can breath air).
you said above that the eye developed from a flap of skin pulled by muscles. but insects do not have SKIN to pull by muscle. so either the eye developed before mammals differentiated from insects (and therefore did not yet have skin), or it developed AFTER mammals had differentiated from insects (and where therefore eyeless until well after the differentiation took place). which one was it? Ungtss 01:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also as I said before, insect eyes developed independantly. The principle is still the same - its a light sensitive patch of their exoskeleton. In the case of insects, they do not actually have an eye, they have a large collection of "eyes" each of which is very little more than a light sensitive bit of exoskeleton. CheeseDreams 14:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you're still evading my question. did our common ancestors with the insects have eyes before the differentiation, or not? and if so, how did they evolve, what did they look like, and how did they work? you have asserted that OUR eyes evolved from muscle pulling a patch of skin. did we have eyes before we had skin, or after? Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Before we had skin. That should be obvious - fish have eyes. We don't really have a common ancestor with insects, unless you count phytoplankton (which do not have eyes). When there were no eyes, animals were rather dull/translucent - this is still the case in the ocean depths - there was no need for colour, and no point. No, I asserted that LENSES evolved from muscle pulling a patch of skin/skin surface. It would be more accurate to state "scales" than skin, but you should get the general idea. It strikes me you are clutching at straws. CheeseDreams 21:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
so now you are stating that our lenses developed from muscles pulling scales on fish, instead of our skin as you stated earlier? are you aware of any fish whose muscles pull their scales? and how did our eyes function before they had lenses? you have yet to present the "general idea" in any coherent way. Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ezekiel

(To those wondering about the section title, its a reference to the most forbidden thing in early Jewish discussions on the bible - the thing "full of eyes" mentioned by Ezekiel CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) )

Yet at one point the embryo has no eyes, and later it has full, complex eyes. Whether or not you believe that a human embryo is designed by God to grow eyes, do you accept that human embryos develop eyes by a naturalistic process from some comparatively simple, eyeless starting point? Do ID people have evidence that supports the idea that--while God is capable of creating eyes from an initial set of genes using only naturalistic processes--God did not (do they assert could not?) create that set of genes from simpler, "eyeless genes", through some mechanism of say gene transferrence and selection using naturalistic processes?
As a Christian who observes the world around you and sees God, which seems to be more God's style: hidden naturalistic mechanisms for wonderous and everyday things slowly revealed, or inexplicable miraculousness at every turn? If you approve of Occam's razor and want to go with the most likely explanation without bogging yourself down considering the unlikely and unnecessary (and un-useful), what hypothesis of the development of the eye do you think you might provisionally accept, if with reservations?
I'm not one to tear myself up in epistemology; ID doesn't pass the laugh test with me. -Fleacircus 23:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(NB it was not proper to chop up my comment and place into separate sections -Fleacircus 00:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC))
I did that - due to extended replies that were getting otherwise unmanagable. CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You've confused an individual with the type. the individual has a particular "recipe" or "computer program" in its genes, which it follows, from start to finish. but you are arguing that because one computer program runs one way, the computer program ITSELF must have developed according to the same line? Show me how the GENES changed from eyeless to eyed, not how an individual's GENES make the INDIVIDUAL go from eyeless to eyed.
Basically the new genes are just stuck on top of the old - this is why the "computer program"me runs the way it does, and why we go through a stage of having webbed hands and such like. I have described above how the genes SLOWLY change. (p.s. the above unsigned block was by fleacircus) CheeseDreams 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
if ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, then where are the radically different genetic mechanisms for sexual reproduction in the early "amphibious" fetus. Ungtss 01:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since when was there something radically different in sexual reproduction? Its exactly the same as it was in fish, just that the eggs are now internal, and the reproduction method has gradually become more intimate. CheeseDreams 14:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are still evading my question. how did asexual reproduction evolve into sexual reproduction? Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A COPYING ERROR. CheeseDreams 21:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and how did that "copying error" occur? did it occur in complementary ways in both male and female cells simultaneously and near each other, so they were able to mate successfully? you can talk about copying errors all day, but until you can explain what the copying error WAS, you're speaking jibberish. Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Male and female is an artificial definition. Some animals are X and Y with XY=male, XX=female, others are Z and W with ZW=female and ZZ=male. It is more that they are A and B. "Sexual reproduction" merely means the fusing of 2 cells into a new creature rather than the budding off of 1. In most animals (i.e. bacteria etc.) that exhibit sexual reproduction, there is very little difference between the genders, if any. In those where there is, this is merely the gradual evolution of one cell becoming more the delivery method and one being more the source of nourishment (having the advantage that one cell can be in a safe place). Mating of sexually reproducing bacteria and the like = phagocytosis. If the cells do not match, then it simply won't do anything. Its just a matter of trial and error until one works, not a "occurs amazingly close and simultaneously" CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re: "which seems to be more God's style: hidden naturalistic mechanisms for wonderous and everyday things slowly revealed, or inexplicable miraculousness at every turn?"
i don't dispute the possibility that God created things slowly over time. what i dispute is the idea that the things created themselves. Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Have you heard of a virus?CheeseDreams 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
have we ever seen one arise naturalistically ... or have we only seen them reproduce? Ungtss 01:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes. HIV didn't exist before. SIV did. HIV naturalistically arose from SIV. And then there are prions, which are very scary things indeed. CheeseDreams 14:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are still evading my question. SIV evolved into HIV. but has there ever been ANY instance of a virus -- ANY virus -- coming into being from non-life.
you are missing the point. you are effectively asking "have we ever seen life spontaneously appear from nowhere". to which the answer is "those of us that are old enough". CheeseDreams 21:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are asserting that something happened without seeing it or having any idea how it happened. that is not science. that is bald conjecture. Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, now we are back to the non-science and bald conjecture that is creationism. CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Re:"I'm not one to tear myself up in epistemology; ID doesn't pass the laugh test with me."
that's your prerogative. may i suggest, however, that a string of proofs by assertion is not as persuasive as evidence that directly addresses your opposition's challenges? Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Trick questions are not worth answering. CheeseDreams 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, there's this: [5]
I thought I would try an argument of reasonable assertions without facts because it seemed more likely to be something you would read without kneejerk denial, but you misunderstood what I was saying. -Fleacircus 01:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
all i'm interested in is facts:). it's an interesting article -- thanks for putting it up.
1) they failed to explain why the "dimple" improved visual acuity -- the "eyespot" of the planaria cannot determine shapes -- it can only tell light and non-light -- so the dimple is only going to separate the light-sensitive cells from the surface, REDUCING visual acuity.
Well, a dimple can provide more surface area and wider range of vision. For example, in a flashlight the bulb is not placed in front of a flat mirror but a "dimpled" one.
the bulb is placed in front of a dimpled mirror to REFLECT and FOCUS the light: reducing the field over which it shines -- the same way that a satellite dish works. both of them NARROW the field of reception. dimpled eyespots have the same effect. Ungtss 18:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
just to put this more clearly, a CONVEX eyespot would increase light acuity -- grabbing light from different angles -- but a CONCAVE eyespot would grab LESS light -- reducing eyespot acuity. Ungtss 18:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO, that is not how physics works. A Convex eye is inaccurate (see the image on the back of a spoon), a concave one produces a virtual image (look at a silvered hemisphere and you can shake a 3D reflection of your own hand - this is why these, rather than convex, are used in telescopes). CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2) "Next, the rim of the pit begins to constrict. In camera terms, the eye begins to have an "aperture"." what is the evolutionary advantage of the pit constricting? a smaller hole, once again, will REDUCE the acuity of the "light-spot" -- working AGAINST evolution.
A smaller apeture can focus on single objects more easily. If you're nearsighted, you know that squinting helps you see better.
but they're not focusing on OBJECTS yet -- it's still a light-spot that can't differentiate shape or color -- there's no use in focusing light unless you're trying to distinguish shape. Ungtss 18:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
YEs there is, when there is an advantage to seeing ANYTHING, there is a massive advantage in focusing light whether or not you can distinguish shape. Talk to a blind person. CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3) the article didn't provide ANY explanation of the development of the retina -- that is ... the ability to see SHAPES and COLORS as opposed to mere light -- it just skipped that part entirely.
This wouldn't be something that makes a whole house of cards come down. There are animals out there with proto-retinas. Science is not doing well at explaining development of brains yet so probably not many theories venture there.
oh for goodness sake, stop being so obstinate. Science has already produced computer programs via neural nets which can recognise faces. CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4) the article doesn't explain when all this happened -- did it happen independently among mammals, fish, amphibians, insects, arachnids, reptiles, and birds? or did the eye develop before all of them, and then develop radically different functioning in every phylum? Ungtss 16:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article, and articles like it that suggest pathways, indicate a line of research that can be done. This is what separates evolution from ID. Evolution has always suggested research and put patterns together. Many times the theories have played out, while there's never been anything that's derailed the issue. This has happened so many times in the last 140 years that evolution has become accepted as a scientific fact. Intelligent design suggests nothing about the origin of the eye except the rather absurd idea that each element of the eye would have to have appeared fully formed, separately and therefore the eye was created by some God-like being. Why bother looking for or trying to make sense of fossils at all?
right: a line of research that can be done in an attempt to prove or disprove the hypothesis (or falsify and refine the theory). but it's not a FACT until it's been observed or explained ... and that hasn't been done yet.
Nor is god. Therefore since there is 0% (rounded to the nearest whole number) change of observing god, and there is significantly higher chance of observing the development of the eye, occam's razor demands you reject clinging on to god. CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Creationists have demanded complete proof at every step. Creationists demand intermediate forms and then when scientists show some, they seem not to notice, or they switch to other things and demand those be shown. The "intermediate whale" for example. [6]. There are plenty of examples of modern speciation, which an ID person must either classify as not true speciation or invoke supernatural powers.
that is NOT an intermediate whale. at best, it's the common ancestor of manatees and dugongs, neither of which are whales. at worst, it's unrelated to either. that is what i'm trying to tell you. examples like that are consistent with BOTH creation and evolution -- and until you have the common ancestor of cetacea and sirenia, you have NOT proven macro -- just micro, at best. Ungtss 20:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
that article is a perfect example of the PERSISTENT misrepresentation of creationists. we are not saying that "one animal cannot evolve into another," as they say we are. we are saying that MANATEES cannot evolve into WHALES. Ungtss 20:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
have a look at your "transitional whale." notice how the artist "invented" the real transitional form without any fossil for basis -- and that they have asserted that the "wolf-life creature" they found is the ancestor of the whale without providing any REASON to believe so. [7] Ungtss 20:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
finally ... notice how their line of argument goes like this: "we found whales with bone structures that resemble the ankles of another species -- so they must be related." one single attribute among thousands of fundamentally different structures means they're related. it's a non-sequiter. Where is the "wolf-like-creature" that had the foresight to develop breatheholes in the top of his head? Ungtss 20:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Creationists can keep demanding more and more proof until someone designs a way to monitor an entire genome, but I think most scientists have seen F = MA enough times to think it counterproductive and even "perverse" to keep demanding tedious, complete demonstrations, and are more interested in finding the limits of the theory.
what we're demanding, we believe to be the only fundamental difference between creation and evolution. nobody will deny that horses evolved from earlier equines through variation and selection. that is obvious according to the fossil record, consistent with both creation and evolution, explainable through ordinary genetic mutation, and proves nothing. that's what the evolutionists keep pointing to: "look how the horse evolved!" and we're like, "of COURSE -- that doesn't prove evolution against creation!" what we're demanding is the "primal mammal" -- the "way the eye came to be" -- the first protocell -- the BIG STUFF -- the phenomena that separate creation from evolution, and will prove US wrong. Until we see THAT, we think that our theory is JUST as valid as any other.
No it isn't since when have you provided a similar amount of proof?
Proove how god created the eye
Proove how god exists
Proove how god functions
Proove that god exists
Proove a mechanism for god to exist
Proove a mechanism for god's functioning
CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i know evolutionists think creationists are being unfairly critical -- but what we're saying is, "f=ma does NOT explain everything -- look at what happens when you get close to the speed of life -- f=ma is FALSE, then! so what's the bigger theory? in the same way, mutation and natural selection explains something things ... but it DOESN'T explain others -- what accounts for the others? we think it's God. do you have a more reasonable alternative?" Ungtss 18:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think most scientists have noticed a pattern of endless specific demands from creationists and have concluded that no level of realistic proof will satisfy them.
that's the thing -- most creationists have noticed consistent evasions on the part of evolutionists in explaining the phenomena that support evolution to the EXCLUSION of creation. and we'll only give up when evolution explains things BETTER than creation. Ungtss 18:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know you disagree with abiogenesis, and plenty of people do. My sister, for example, believes God created life but that naturalistic evolution certainly happened, and furthermore she'd agree the world works in naturalistic ways (or at least it is useless if not dangerous to assume otherwise), and always has. Maybe God intervenes, but why should we be so arrogant to expect to find miraculous fingerprints? Abiogensis isn't evolution, though.
all the creationists are saying is, "it's just as arrogant to deny the miraculous fingerprints when they're right in front of your nose." Ungtss 18:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some more links: [8] [9]. I'm sure there are others. -Fleacircus 17:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thanks for discussing this with me -- i really appreciate the open dialogue:). Ungtss 18:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
See above demands (by me) on creationists to provide even remotely as much proof/evidence/explanation as supporters of evolution already have. CheeseDreams 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The heart

The heart - developed as a bend in the aorta which gradually came to pump harder than the remainder of the arterial system - this is demonstrable by more primative animals - e.g. frogs who have a heart that has a passage between oxygenated and unoxygenated blood, and by the way it develops in an embryo.
you have nothing to show how chambers developed, genetically. Ungtss 20:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
they are just sections of the artery - the arteries, and especially the veins have MASSES of chambers - its why the blood actually gets back to the heart - the veins have loads of chambers with one way valves, so the weak pressure doesn't cause blood to go the wrong way - ask a doctor.
and frogs have an intermediate stage of development - they have 2 complete chambers and 1 joint not 4 complete ones. CheeseDreams 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
so did the heart develop before mammals split off from amphibians and birds, or before? Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Before, in a way. It was partially "developed". It was of the amphibian kind, it became human/mammal/bird much later. The heart originates as an organ in much more primative species of fish and such like. It is just like "Lymph Nodes" - these are predominantly just swellings of lymph glands, except that one swelling (in an area of the body where there is room) grew much larger - the spleen. CheeseDreams 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
so how many chambers did it have when we split off? Ungtss 01:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The frog has 3ish chambers, we have 4. The spleen doesn't have chambers, its just a mass of cells, like most glands.CheeseDreams 14:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are still evading my question. how many chambers did our common ancestor with the frogs have? Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you seem to be missing the point. Frogs are part of the ancestral chain. The common ancestor had 3 chambers (like most amphibians). Earlier ancestors had just 2, which were really just bulgy tubes.CheeseDreams 21:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i'm seeing your point and it is not answering my question. so if our common ancestor had 3 chambers, how did we gain a fourth? Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are still evading the answer. The fourth arose from the 3rd splitting in two by the gradual growth of an intermediate wall, and associated alterations in shape - (providing the evolutionary advantage of less mixed blood and more purely oxygenated blood passing back into the body) CheeseDreams 23:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blue Tits

Mammary glands - skin cells which release secretions (e.g. sweat glands, scent glands (particularly scent glands)) that the young started to take an interest in as they were otherwise malnourished, becoming more specialised, and more isolated to fulful this purpose.
you have nothing to show how it developed all the intricate and interdependent parts to make it work at all. Ungtss 20:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Intricate? Its not intricate at all. Its just a mass of cells producing milk, in a fat like body, which has a particularly sensitive and hardened area of skin at the tip, which has more cross glands than elsewhere on the skin - allowing it to seep the milk. CheeseDreams 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
is that really all you see in it? Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is really all as it is. CheeseDreams 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spqrs

Sexual reproduction - this one is obvious - bacterial spores being re-engulfed for digestion by other bacteria of the same species, for certain species, having the viral-like ability to write DNA back into the host (see Retrovirus).
you have nothing to show how it developed within a species, leading to meiosis + REproduction. Ungtss 20:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
meiosis = fault in duplication that proved to be beneficial thus surviving. Increadibly rare to start with, but after millions of years, the fact that 2 occurance being in proximity produces a successor causes it to survive. The benefits of sexual over asexual reproduction (faster gene mutation thus faster adaptation) means it becomes the dominant form. Its really obvious. CheeseDreams 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
fault in duplication? explain. Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The duplication process (asexual reproduction) went wrong. CheeseDreams 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
explain it for me, if you would. Ungtss 01:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why? Are you refusing to accept that it can go wrong?CheeseDreams 14:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are evading my question. i am asking you to explain how asexual reproduction went wrong in such a way as to lead to sexual reproduction.
you are evading my answer. Look, basically during cell splitting (for asexual reproduction), the chromosomes line up and pair off, sometimes swapping bits of DNA between the pairs. Then the chromosome pairs duplicate and then the cell splits taking one set into each new bit. The error simply occurs if they fail to duplicate and then the cell splits - thus taking one of each pair rather than one of each pair of pairs (producing the cells which form gametes). Phagocytosis by one cell of another similar enough not to be rejected will produce a new cell with the original number of chromosomes - thus sexually reproducing. CheeseDreams 21:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
phagocytosis is one cell EATING another, sir. you are telling me one cell failed to duplicate its chromosomes, split, then one ate the other, and that is sexual reproduction? sir, you have failed to make any sense. if you're not finished wasting each other's time, i am. Ungtss 21:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV of a creationist (who won't admit he is one)

  • It makes sense to me. :) I apologize for all the ways that the anti-creationists have thrown this word falsifiable at you--much like they throw NPOV at you with little understanding of what the word means. :) Know what I mean? At the present time, in my opinion, it is impossible to perform an experiment that would "verify" in one grand demonstration the descent of humans from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. But it is possible to state falsifiable hypotheses that would "verify" mechanisms by which "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees." We discussed earlier the similarity of the human gene pool to the chimpanzee gene pool. In my opinion, all of those genetic comparisons of the migrations of 1) human gene pools and the migrations of 2) chimpanzee gene pools proceeded by what I would call falsifiable hypotheses--but none of those experiments would "verify" in one grand demonstration, in my opinion, the descent of humans from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely. and that's why ... while i find those gene migrations to be BRILLIANT explorations of the functioning of our bodies ... i find it to be intellectually dishonest to assert that it is FACT that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor ... without any way to falsify that statement. That's why i want ID represented as an equally "unfalsifiable," ergo, "religious" theory of origins.
  • I agree that it is a somewhat distorted use of the word "fact" to say that "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees" is a fact. There are a lot of facts, like the similarities in the human and chimpanzee gene pools, that have been observed and can be repeatedly observed as facts. The real question it seems to me is this: Where would you place your bets? And I would say that humans had better wake up and deal with that there is no "intelligent designer." Hence, humans had better take responsibility for their situation in a world in which there is no God to trust. In particular, all the empirical evidence indicates that human instinct, conscience, and desire for an intelligent designer--the great alpha-- are destructive in modern settings--because human instinct, conscience, and desire for an intelligent designer were constructed by evolutionary forces to be appropriate to Africa as it was 100,000 years ago when there was a scarcity of nuclear weapons and little benefit from win-win solutions.  :)) Do you think the "intelligent designer" will help us out in our day of trial? 8(( ---Rednblu | Talk 22:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • i agree with you about the problem -- it is deadly when man turns to God instead of solving his own problems -- that is one of the many abuses of religion which i believe has crept in over time (much to God's dismay in the old testament, in fact). obviously we need to take care of ourselves. however, that does not necessarily mean we should NEVER ask God for aid. By analogy, a child and his father. it would be terrible for the child to neglect himself and wait for his father to do it. but it would be equally terrible for the child to reject his father's aid in learning to do new things, or doing things he cannot yet do -- either denying himself the opportunity to grow, or putting himself in real danger. i believe it is error to depend on God alone -- but i ALSO believe it is error to depend on Man alone. Man WITH God, however ... i find to be very agreeable:). Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Designer ID

Intelligent design can be represented as all of evolution except with the addition of a designer. The god of evolution. Which is a violation of ockham's razor since it clearly adds something unnecessary. CheeseDreams 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you've missed it:). intelligent design introduces the one element that is missing from naturalistic evolution: a mechanism for the proposed change.
Evolution doesn't have a mechanism missing. The addition of the need for a mechanism is a violation of ockham's razor. CheeseDreams 01:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
it violates occam's razor to require you to explain how the unobserved events you are proposing took place? Ungtss 01:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Naturalistic evolution does not require any additional mechanism. The perception that it is lacking in some mechanism is only held by creationists, who refuse to accept that it is a complete theory. CheeseDreams 14:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
naturalistic evolution is a mechanism in itself ... one you steadfastly refuse to explain to me. Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. things vary (naturally - e.g. the moths)
  2. some survive better (e.g. the moths)
  3. the surviver's variation is preserved more than those which survive less (because the surviver survives more)
  4. the net change is toward the better variation
  5. it has "evolved" into the kind with the newer variation
  6. it has another different variation
  7. less than 100% of the versions of which survive better
  8. only some of the new versions propagate
  9. the net change is towards the preferred version of this 2nd variation
  10. ditto, for a 3rd variation
  11. ditto, for a 4th variation
  12. ditto, for a 5th variation
  13. ditto, for a 6th variation
  14. ditto, for a 7th variation
  15. ditto, for a 8th variation
  16. ditto, for a 9th variation
  17. ditto, for a 10th variation
  18. ditto, for a 11th variation
  19. ditto, for a 12th variation
  20. ditto, for a 13th variation
  21. ditto, for a 14th variation
  22. ditto, for a 15th variation
  23. it is now beyond similarity of the original state
  24. repeat for 1000,000,000 years
that is microevolution -- something which even stephen gould recognizes cannot explain reality. Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As if "Stephen gould" was the world authority on this. Stop hiding behind Spin. Most scientists and indeed non-scientists, the world over, consider that the above description can and DOES explain reality. CheeseDreams 23:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

  • The pseudoscience accusation against ID, in my opinion, comes from the unnecessary element of the Intelligent Designer. Accordingly, you and I have a little different understanding of the concept unnecessary. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I am saying that you and I have made different choices about unnecessary. For example, I don't find it necessary to include the question of abiogenesis within my falsifiable hypotheses--simply because I don't see "life arising." I have done my share of test-tube experiments and computer simulations, but I still don't see "life arising." That is, within the whole set of what I can see happening, I see no clue that there is anything other than uncreated matter, energy, and void; I see no clue that there is an Intelligent Designer. I understand that you might interpret the abiogenesis problem as a clue that there is an Intelligent Designer. In my opinion, as I said before, you and I have a choice in approaching abiogenesis. We might choose to settle the question right now by assuming an Intelligent Designer. Or we might keep an open mind, keep our options open, and follow the trail of the physical evidence. We can decide how we want to handle the Intelligent Designer when we meet him.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • once again, i find myself agreeing with you entirely ... with the proviso that the ID theory and the naturalistic theory find themselves on equal evidentiary ground at the moment. Ungtss 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe.  :) I haven't seen that first shred of evidence for an intelligent designer myself, but I have heard it said that there is one.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 22:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • lol:). that's the way i feel about naturalism. maybe it's just my "genetic psychological predisposition," but i see God everytime i look at the sky. Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
verifiability can be used to check EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS, but it cannot be used to check an abstract theory. Verifiability in evolution is, "well ... when we nuke fruit flies, they do this." THAT is verifiable, falsifiable, and not at issue. but the claim at ISSUE is, "Life arose and speciated naturalistically." And the creationists claim, "You can't verify that because you weren't there, and you won't even give us any falsifiable predictions ... you've claimed it but haven't exposed it to experimental rigor." Is this making sense? Ungtss 23:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO. When you nuke THOSE fruit flies, they do that. How do you know it will ever happen like that again? If you looked out of a train and saw a black cow, what would you say of the observation?
  • Cows around here are black
  • Some cows around here are black
  • A cow around here is black
  • One half of one cow around here is black
  • One half of one cow around here looks black from the train
  • My brain is claiming that one half of one cow around here looks black from the train
CheeseDreams 23:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me.  :) "Life speciated naturalistically." I would say there are several falsifiable forms of that hypothesis. For example, To falsify the hypothesis 'life speciated naturalistically,' find a form of animal life for which the DNA cannot be explained as stepwise changes from the DNA at the junction with stepwise changes backward in time from the DNA of some other existing animal today, given observed rates and mechanisms of stepwise change. People are still making advanced falsifiable forms of that hypothesis--looking for exotic animal forms on the ocean floor, for example. But "Life arose naturalistically." That is a tough one. In my opinion, nobody has made good falsifiable forms of that hypothesis. The problem in making good falsifiable hypotheses is that you have to make falsifiable hypotheses in the area that you can really observe. Nobody has yet observed "life arising" either naturalistically or non-naturalistically. However, many of the space probes are attempting to capture traces of "life arising."  :) Somebody may be surprised.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 00:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • i think that ID is trying to show "animal life for which the DNA cannot be explained as stepwise changes from the DNA at the junction with stepwise changes backward in time from the DNA of some other existing animal today, given observed rates and mechanisms of stepwise change" with its irreducible complexity. but the scientific community's response seems to be, "Well, we just haven't figured it out yet." And that's a valid response. It seems to me you can't really falsify from a negative inference, because we may not have figured it out yet. I want a POSITIVE falsifiable prediction -- something we can see that would PROVE it didn't happen. (i don't think i can tell you how exhilarating i find conversation like this:). Ungtss 02:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Let us reserve the word falsify only for the process of improving a theory, if we can. :)) Let me see if you would be satisfied with the following. Suppose you and I could come up with a theory that would explain all known empirical evidence plus provide a 1) falsifiable hypothesis for irreducible complexity that also 2) satisfied Occam's razor? Would that be good enough? Where we are headed is coming up with a good framework for presenting the Creation vs. evolution debate. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)




Falsify macroevolution

indeed we are:)! i'd also like a falsifiable claim for the "theory of macroevolution" -- if we can find one for naturalistic evolution but not one for ID, i'll convert:). Ungtss 13:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Let us take the grand hypothesis "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees." I will describe what I think are falsifiable forms of that hypothesis. And then let's see if we could come up with some falsifiable forms of the ID hypothesis.  :)) Sound fair? Remember we are using the word falsifiable only in the sense of "find counter-examples to the current hypothesis to indicate how to improve the generalizability of the hypothesis." I suggest that one falsifiable form of that grand hypothesis would be To falsify the grand hypothesis, find a set of humans whose gene pool more closely resembles some species other than chimpanzee. Another falsifiable form ot that grand hypothesis would be To falsify the grand hypothesis, find a Human fossil that is older than the oldest chimpanzee fossil. Now let's see if we could come up with two similar falsifiable forms of the ID hypothesis. Shall we? :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 18:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Critique of macroevolutionary falsifiers

    • this is good logic:). makes me feel all tingly inside:).
    • alright ... first my critique of the macroevolutionary falsifiers.

"find a set of humans whose gene pool more closely resembles some species other than chimpanzees" only falsifies the more NARROW theory that "Humans and chimpanzees have very similar gene pools" -- a theory which is consistent with creationism ... but does not reach the generalized nature of the "grand theory" in dispute, because it fails to falsify the theory that "humans and chimps have a common ancestor." Ungtss 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, sir, a falsifiable hypothesis is always a NARROW hypothesis cut from the grand hypothesis. Let us consider the grand hypothesis of F=ma. One NARROW hypothesis cut from the grand hypothesis might be To falsify F=ma, find a situation where whether or not F=ma depends on the color of the mass. That is surely a NARROW hypothesis cut specifically to look for a counter-example situation in which for a particular color of mass F is not equal to ma. That particular falsifiable form of the hypothesis F=ma is unlikely to get us a Nobel Prize because it looks in the wrong direction for a counter-example. Another NARROW hypothesis cut from the grand hypothesis might be To falsify F=ma, find a situation where a constant force on the mass produces an ever decreasing acceleration. That particular falsifiable form of the hypothesis F=ma hits paydirt, does it not? It finds for us the counter-example of relativity when the velocity of the mass reaches the velowicy of light, is that not true? Both falsifiable forms of the grand hypothesis are NARROW examinations of all possibilities. If you examine the falsifiable article you will find that the falsifiable concept is necessary precisely because you can never for any important hypothesis examine all of the possible combinations of everything that are necessary to prove it. Would you agree? ---Rednblu | Talk 22:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • SEE NEW SECTION BELOW

"find me a human fossil that is older than the oldest chimpanzee fossil" only falsifies the more NARROW theory that "humans and chimpanzees have only existed as long or for a shorter time that chimpanzees" -- a theory which is consistent with creationism ... but does not reach the generalized nature of the "grant theory" in dispute, because it fails to falsify the theory that "humans and chimps have a common ancestor." Ungtss 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Again, the falsifiable form of a hypothesis always states a NARROW area of the grand hypothesis--because the falsifiable form of a hypothesis looks for a counter-example in a specific sub-set of physical evidence. If you look at the falsifiable article, would you agreee? ---Rednblu | Talk 22:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


ID falsifiability? I don't have any ideas:). i just think that evolutionism is just as unfalsifiable as ID, and therefore just as a priori and religious. Ungtss 19:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • And the reason I would say that the Intelligent design theory is pseudoscience is because I have never seen the intelligent design theorists making falsifiable hypotheses that they can "verify" against empirical evidence. Let us keep in mind that a falsifiable form of the hypothesis in intelligent design theory would always be a NARROW hypothesis looking for a counter-example in the physical evidence as a means to improve the generalizability of the grand hypothesis of ID. Does that make sense? You and I would not want to convince each other--or the reader of the Creation vs. evolution debate page. We would want only to present the documented and cited quotations and paraphrases of the distinguished scholars who have considered these issues very seriously. In that regard, I congratulate you for the current closing section--"Perspectives . . ." and I appreciate your intelligent and humane dealings with all of the unthinking interference you have had. In my opinion, you have defended high-quality NPOV there--though some excellent editor may wish at a later time to come through and smooth over or maybe cull the quotations. Actually, I find the totality of raw quotations more telling than any commentary that you or I could add to knit them together. Those raw quotations are stellar, in my opinion. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • why thank you, sir:). that means a lot, coming from you:). Ungtss 01:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I find that, when the question "How did life begin" is asked, that the answer "I don't know, but I'm trying to figure it out" is far simpler (and more honest) than "An undetectable, ultra-powerful being with an unknowable plan did it." --Yath 01:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
well said. i would add that your way (which i share with you) is also simpler (and more honest) than, "i know it happened purely naturalistically and without God, even though i don't know how it happened." Ungtss 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

F=MA

No. It won't equal ma in any case. See Path integral formulation. 81.157.11.245 22:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
that's the point. F=MA makes a falsifiable claim, which can be criticized on its merits (excluding all other factors, does it hold true), and improved to take into account other variables (such as drag and whatever else). it serves two purposes. Ungtss 22:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is NEVER true. It can't be. (See Path integral formulation). Its only an averaging. Its like saying well from a distance the earth is clearly bright green (blatently not true close up). CheeseDreams 22:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I bet that's still wrong. I think God is moving the objects around. I'm just as right as you are! -Fleacircus 22:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i don't know why you guys insist on this. If F=MA is never true, why is it taught in schools? cheesedreams, you are using an irrelevent red herring to obscure a fact taught in every high school physics class and used for illustration. fleacircus, you are using useless ad hominem attacks which do not reflect well on your objectivity. Ungtss 22:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not useless ad hominem at all, it's the ID version of physics, in a nutshell. I wasn't attacking you; no reason to be snide. -Fleacircus 22:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
i apologize for overreacting:). the point of this discussion is, creationists feel the same way about evolutionists. They feel you are saying "Well, we don't know how it happened, but God can't have had anything to do with it, so we believe it happened naturally." And noone is getting anywhere. THAT is the problem of falsifiability. Ungtss 22:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is taught in schools because the truth is too complicated (see the maths on Path integral formulation, and indeed the concepts). F=ma is a nice little lie. Like the laws of thermodynamics. They are not true either. Heat can move from the colder to the hotter (and has been demonstrated), and absolute zero can be reached, and entropy can in total decrease. Its just that the Poincarre recurrance time for these events is phenominally huge, so it is not observed much. Relativistic mass was known about by Lorentz before 1900. Also see Ehrenfest's Theorem (this may be mis-spelt) which explains why things appear to obey classical mechanics even though actually they do nothing of the sort.
Path integral formulation is all about taking into account EVERY possibility (including God moving the objects around) simultaneously being true. The appearance of the truth of F=ma is merely a consequence of the Path integral formulation. CheeseDreams 22:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's a closer look at the same phenomena. doesn't invalidate the law (as you claim) ... just refines it to account for different behavior in extreme circumstances. Ungtss 22:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ive got a degree in the subject. It completely replaces the law. It is nothing like the law. CheeseDreams 00:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is the philosophical difference we have been revolving around in all our discussions, my friend. To you, the old law is false because it does not completely reflect the Truth. To me, the old law is partially true, but incomplete, as it explains reality on one level ... but must be understood on a deeper level to fully explain phenomena. You have told me that "F will NEVER equal MA." so are you telling me that if i apply F 10 to M 5 in a vaccuum with no other forces, i will NEVER get an acceleration of 2? Of course not. you're telling me it's not PRECISELY 2, it's just an average. and i won't dispute that. but that's a whole other scale of detail. By analogy, a human is not really a "human," he is just a collection of cells which used to be his dinner, and will someday be wormfood. But to me ... he is a man on one level ... but much much more complex on closer inspection. i don't dispute your strictly literalist approach to thought. i just prefer to analyze in "layers," because i think the Big Picture can be lost in literalism. That's the same reason i consider scripture to be True and valuable, despite the discrepancies which, to you, make it valueless. Ungtss 02:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • As a sidenote, your degrees and the fact that you live in the UK do not impress me, sir. i have a doctorate myself, a good number of doctoral math credits to my name, and have spent 3/4 of my life living outside the us. Here's what i've learned: Degrees only prove that you can memorize what people told you, and they're only useful insofar as your teachers were right. and it's ALL for naught if you lack common sense and a basic knowledge of epistemology. And as for living in the UK ... from my experience in the UK, you have just as many fools there as we have here ... you just have sexier accents:). Ungtss 13:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have a UK degree. The US physics degree is only the first year of the UK physics degree, and as such is not regarded very highly by the UK. The Russian degree, on the other hand, is instant lectureship. CheeseDreams 19:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
None of them impress me without common sense. Ungtss 19:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Common sense is often wrong. See Special relativity. CheeseDreams 20:00, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
common sense KNOWS it is often wrong, and so it keeps an open mind. Ungtss 20:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Common sense does not have a mind. CheeseDreams 01:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Neither do those who lack it. Ungtss 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes they do. They are not in comas. CheeseDreams 14:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
there are many different kinds of comas. some are physical ... some are intellectual. Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is no such thing. Unless you are in one. CheeseDreams 21:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tibet

Rednblue ... when will the voice of reason return? Ungtss 22:33, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whenever china lets him back into Tibet without the threat of arrest. CheeseDreams 22:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
some atheists do have a tendency to torment the religious for no reason ... fortunately others are willing to see reason. Ungtss 22:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Dalai Lama, like most buddhists, is an atheist. CheeseDreams 19:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are two branches of buddhism, the mahayana and the theravaada. the theravaada is NONtheistic, neither claiming nor denying the existence of God, and the mahayana contains strong strains of pantheism. Neither strain is atheistic. That is why the chinese modernist, atheist, materialistic communists hate him -- he does not suit their POV any more than the thousands of christians they have slaughtered. Ungtss 19:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
They believe in spirits, not God. Indeed Buddhism itself is strictly NON-theistic, and one branch is NON-anything-divine-issues. However, it remains a fact that most buddhists are Atheists. CheeseDreams 19:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Religious atheists, much to the dismay of their secular atheist oppressors. Ungtss 20:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say "irreligious oppressors" CheeseDreams 01:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and why is that? Ungtss 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Try a dictionary CheeseDreams 14:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
so it is more accurate to describe things in the negative? you are a "non-monkey?" the sun is a "non-tree?" i am an "antievolutionist?" Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"It hangs in the air in exactly the same way as bricks don't" - significantly more accurate than you could ever describe in a positive manner. P.s. "irreligious" does not mean "anti-religious", so I would advise you to get a better dictionary. CheeseDreams 21:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
perhaps the more accurate description would be, "it flies." Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. That doesn't explain the quality of flight. A bee flies (badly), a bird flies, a jet flies, a flying squirrel flies, Da Vinci's flying machine flies. Picture a brick not hanging in the air, and imagine the opposite - its a much better description than simply stating "it flies". CheeseDreams 23:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NO. F=ma means that the difference between the amount of information in the universe, and the amount you can possibly ever get out, is as small as possible. Well actually, the OTHER solution is that it is as big as possible, which is even more profound. But you probably didn't know this. Most people don't realise how deep F=ma is (see if you can work out why - i will give you a clue - Lagrangian). CheeseDreams 21:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "cleanup" tag should be removed

I suggest that the "cleanup" tag is completely nonsense on this page. This page is under active development and hence the "cleanup" tag is nonsense. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm okay with it there; a reader should be prepared for messiness. -Fleacircus 20:37, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • But that is not the way that the "cleanup" tag is used in Wikipedia. The "cleanup" tag is used only on pages that are not being edited! Do you have in mind changing what words mean? ---Rednblu | Talk 21:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Cleanup means, "somebody get over here and fix this." here we are, trying:). why do we need the tag? Ungtss 21:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Right. :) Here we are. ---Rednblu | Talk 21:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You need the tag because you have not wikified the text you have added. For example, links. The structure of the article is a mess, and it is not clear what is going on in each section. CheeseDreams 21:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Sure. But that is not what the "cleanup" tag is used for, is it.  :) ---Rednblu | Talk 21:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes it is. It is for "see wikipedia manual of style". It even has the link in it. CheeseDreams 22:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • You are ignoring reality. Look at the Wikipedia:Cleanup page. None of those pages are pages under development, are they. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are ignoring the text of Template:Cleanup. It CLEARLY states that This article needs to be edited to conform to a higher standard of article quality. After the article has been cleaned up, you may remove this message. For help, see How to Edit a Page and the style and How-to Directory CheeseDreams 23:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • If you are correct in your interpretation, then you should be able to find another page on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page where there are already four editors working on it. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, Pages for cleanup are listed at [[Category:Cleanup]]. SOME are listed on the Wikipedia:Cleanup page as well. CheeseDreams 23:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • From my observation, the Wikipedia:Cleanup page is what people use. The "cleanup" category is not useful--because there are several frivolous editors that put the "cleanup" tag on pages as a POV statement :(( or as a Holiday decoration :)) instead of for what the "cleanup" tag actually means. Have you seen that happen? ---Rednblu | Talk 23:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deism and Naturalism as falsifiable

alright ... now y'all have got my brain working so hard i can't study:). i had a thought while i was sitting in the waffle house, and i'd like your thoughts on it.

  • Occam's razor dictates that the theory that makes the smallest number of assumptions to explain the evidence is the most reasonable.
Evidence is NOT proof. It only affects opinions as to the truth of the thing in question. The Reimann hypothesis has masses of evidence to back it up, but it is still considered the greatest unproven statement in mathematics. CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Occam's razor is dependent entirely on the evidence available at any one time -- assumptions it shaves off at one point may become NECESSARY when other evidence comes to the fore.
NO, it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence. It is to do with theories and facts. CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
whatever. fewest assumptions to explain the facts. Ungtss 20:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • So while occam's razor can be used with present evidence, it can ALSO be used to predict the direction of FUTURE evidence, based on the course of past and present evidence.
Again, NO. CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Argument by assertion. Good. Ungtss 20:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doctor Who

  • There are two broad possibilities for the origin of the universe:
a) Naturalism, that is, that everything came into being entirely by natural causes
b) Deism (in its broadest sense, incorporating theism, pantheism, and everything else that asserts some sort of an AGENCY in bringing the universe into existence), that is, that everything came into being through the act of some agency.
No, you forgot (c) The universe has only existed for the last second.
and (d) You are imagining the universe, and reality is completely different (e.g. The Matrix).
both of your "theories" flagrantly violate occam's razor. Ungtss 20:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No. (d) is the simplest of all. "Its my imagination". It is just the least satisfactory. P.s. they are not my theories. (d) in particular is the subject of a very famous mathematics paper called Ancestor simulation. CheeseDreams 20:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is a misuse of occam's razor, and the basis of the nonsense that has become western philosophy. occam's razor does NOT require the simplest theory -- it requires the simplest theory to explain the FACTS -- and your "imagination" hypothesis leaves me with the entire universe still in existence, with all its complexities and assumptions, still in my mind, plus the assumption that it is not real, but only imaginary. Ungtss 20:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it is MINUS the assumption that it is real. Are you going to try to deny that your initial position is to assume it is real? CheeseDreams 00:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
so your stated opinion is that occam's razor leads necessarily to the conclusion that "life is but a dream?" Ungtss 01:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. However, that is not a very useful thing to take as the answer as it implies that nothing is predictable. Therefore it is better to consider "what if, on this issue, Ockham's Razor was wrong".CheeseDreams 01:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah. so occam's razor is inviolable insofar as it rules out theism, but is "allowed to be wrong" when it comes to believing we're not in the matrix? Ungtss 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO. It is UNvAlUable in the issue of the matrix. It leads to an unhelpful starting point as predictability gets thrown away, whether or not it is the correct starting point. Therefore it is better to ignore its conclusions and start from an assumption that on this issue it is wrong. CheeseDreams 14:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
is it not then equally possible to determine that it is wrong on the issue that there is no God, because i do not find that conclusion to be particularly helpful in explaining an inordinate number of phenomena? Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It is possible to consider it wrong on the issue of God, but that is cowardice. CheeseDreams 21:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and isn't it cowardice to deny the most reasonable belief in your pov -- that we're all in the matrix? Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, assuming that belief is cowardice. See Escapism. CheeseDreams 23:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now, for the falsifiable propositions

a) If all things originated from purely natural causes, one would expect further research into the causation of natural things to lead to FEWER assumptions and unknowns, because that "original cause" under occam's razor would be simple.
NO. See Chaos theory and Mandlebrot set. Z->ZZ+1 is a simple assumption, but it is profound - it produces the entire Mandlebrot set, which led to MORE unknowns and MORE research.CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
that's the point. Z->ZZ+1 was more complex that what came before, and the implications of the mandelbrot set were more complex still. Ungtss 20:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NO. Z->ZZ+1 is the starting point. Its consequences are MORE complicated, even though it is itself a simple thing. But see Chaos theory, the Butterfly effect is a much better example. CheeseDreams 20:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What was there before Z->ZZ+1 was there? Ungtss 20:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is meaningless. It has always been there. Just because no-one wrote it down, or thought about it, it still existed. It would be like saying that "nothing" didn't exist until someone considered the possibility. CheeseDreams 23:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
that's right. it was always there. and as soon as we discovered it, we realized that it led to 1000 other things to discover. Ungtss 01:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I.e. MORE not LESS. QED.CheeseDreams 01:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
b) If all things originated from AGENCY, one would expect further exploration into the causation of natural things to lead to MORE assumptions and unknowns, because that "original cause" we are assuming under occam's razor would be MORE complex than the universe -- possibly even infinitely complex.
NO. Not if the exploration is by those who have a philosophical axe to grind in the first place (such as for example, those trying to proove there is a god). CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
which could equally apply to those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of divine agency. Ungtss 20:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But not to those who do not see why the addition is necessary. CheeseDreams 20:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are dodging the issue. bias arguments slice both directions, and go nowhere. Ungtss 20:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Only when there are only 2 directions. CheeseDreams 23:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
as there are, when there are only two people in a debate and hence only two biases involved. Ungtss 01:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Two people can have more than 2 biases. I don't know about you, but Im actually capable of thinking about more than one thing at once. CheeseDreams 01:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
let's start with one, and work our way up. Ungtss 04:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, lets start with all of them, and discount the impossible combinations. CheeseDreams 14:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

in sum ... if the cause of the universe is LESS complex than the universe, one would expect research to lead to FEWER unknowns, but if it is MORE complex than the universe, one would expect research to lead to MORE unknowns.

my conclusion is that ... since simple causes always seem to lead to more COMPLEX causes ... the ULTIMATE cause is most reasonably conceived to be more complex than the universe itself.

To put it one other way, naturalism seems to me to lead to an infinite number of discrete assumptions, where each one is infinitesimally simple. Deism, on the other hand, seems to me to lead to one single Assumption that is infinitely complex.

This thought is probably full of holes ... but i can't get it outta my head:). i'm not saying this is a proof of any sort -- mostly, i just think i've articulated the personal a priori intuition that leads me to believe in God without any firsthand evidence whatsoever. what do you think? Ungtss 16:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See my response above in this and the falsifiability section.
You already believe in God. So it is not intuition.
  • The number of people who were (or were brought up as) Christian but are now Atheist is X
  • The number of people who were (or were brought up as) Atheist but are now Christian is Y
X>>>>>>Y
If a-priori intution justified God, then we would expect the opposite.
CheeseDreams 19:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you amaze me with your logical fallacies. you have just asserted that popularity proves Truth. Just because more healthy become sick than sick people become healthy does not mean that sickness is Truth. Ungtss 20:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, I have just asserted that popularity proves what it is that intuition (and intuitive behaviour) implies. This is not necessarily the same as what truth is. Just because you are sick doesn't mean you know the truth. CheeseDreams 20:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are assuming that there is only one type of human intuition. I obviously have one, you obviously have the other. just because your intuition takes you one way and mine takes me another does not mean that "human intuition" necessarily leads anywhere. Ungtss 20:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, I am considering the sum total result of all human intuition. CheeseDreams 23:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
right. just like 3 oranges plus 2 apples equals 5 ... um ... orangeapples? Ungtss 01:05, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, 5 pieces of fruit, I should have thought that was obvious. CheeseDreams 01:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you've overgeneralized. you can't say sum "human intuition" like you can sum digits of the same type. it comes in different types in different individuals. Ungtss 02:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes you can. People are less individual than you think/hope. Statistical analysis of human behaviour produces nice normal distributions, not a series of evenly distributed spikes. CheeseDreams 14:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
you are making the same logical error as the person who asserts that F=MA invalidates Path integral formulation, overgeneralizing. behavioral analysis is a set of averages ... not a simplistic equation. follow your own rules. Ungtss 18:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are making the same grammatical error. Statistical analysis of human behaviour is behavioural analysis. CheeseDreams 21:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
and it acknowledges that different individuals have different intuititions, resulting in averages, but not a "sum total of human nature" as you argued above. Ungtss 00:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What do you think the sum total is? Average=sum total/total number. CheeseDreams 23:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ID and falsification -- fresh start!

hmm ... i'm sorry for my denseness on this one ... thank you for your patience and i hope i have not become annoying:). let me try again. creationism makes the following falsifiable claims:

Falsifiable claims of creationism

no human fossil will be found that is older than a chimpanzee fossil

this falsifiable assertion is consistent with evolution--Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I will attempt to limit my use of falsifiable forms to finding some new set of data that would permit stating the creationism hypothesis in a more generalizable form. :)) This is a tough exercise. :(( I find I keep trying to turn these into DISproving creationism rather than improving it.  :) Interesting. ---Rednblu | Talk 08:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In my terms: To falsify creationism, find a human fossil that is older than the oldest chimpanzee ancestor fossil ever found. Ok. I would say we would be wasting our time to look for that counter-example. How about the following: To falsify creationism, find a chimpanzee ancestor fossil that is millions of years older than the oldest human fossil ever found. :)) This would certainly force creationism theory to go in a particular direction, would it not? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • i guess i just threw that in there because you used it for macro, and i found that that PARTICULAR falsifiable form is consistent with BOTH creation AND evolution -- which is why it appears to be wasting our time -- and why most creationists look at all the evidence for evolution and say, "but all that is consistent with creation! the only thing we're disputing is MACRO!!!"
    • but onto your excellent analysis.
      • "find a chimpanzee ancestor fossil that is millions of years older than the oldest human fossil ever found." that would definitely force creationism into a certain direction. it would rule out young earth creationism ... but not day-age, theistic evolution, or ID. HOWEVER, young earth people will cry, "your dating methods are based on HUGE assumptions about halflives -- how much uranium would have been in the earth a billion years ago to account for how much is there now? we would have FRIED!" also ... your rock strata are skewed, because they could have been laid down in a flood -- what evidence do we have of sediments being laid down on continents today? on the contrary ... sediments are WASHING into the OCEAN!" so i think young earth creationists will hang on by challenging the dating methods. but we're on our way:).

---

2) the genes of all forms of life will be similar in many, many ways, as many of the fundamental components of the functioning of life are similar, but some genetic blueprints will be more similar than others. hence, the genes of chimps MAY or MAY NOT be the most similar to man's, it matters not. -- Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • This one is difficult, but I will try to construct a falsifiable form. To falsify creationism, find lots of NON-functional similarities between the chimpanzee and human DNA. Does that work? Couldn't the theory of creationism adapt enough to include explanations for lots of NON-functional similarities between the DNAs of humans and chimpanzees? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • it definitely could -- by saying that God made the dna of different kinds very similar ... even tho they didn't HAVE to be similar. good one:). Ungtss 18:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Here is something I just learned on reviewing what is known about the NON-functionial similarities between the DNAs of humans and chimpanzees. There are a whole host of NON-functional similarities, for example pseudogenes--faulty or non-functioning copies of genes, between the DNAs of humans and chimpanzees. These non-functional similarites resemble the non-functional oddities in the formats of the succession of documents in the History file of this Page--like the misspellings and the indentations in and out that have nothing to do with what is being said but are just accidents like typos that are passed along from version to version of the documents in the History file of this page. Probably paying attention to all those NON-functional similarities would force creationism to say something about how the "intelligent designer" constructed the first humans and first chimpanzees, would it not? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • it would indeed ... it requires both sides to explain how it came to be there. the creationists would respond that, according to this article at least, 97% of the dna in the human genome has no known function. so that means that we have a great deal of information in our genes that doesn't NEED to be there, at least as far as we know. evolutionists interpret that is accumulated error + pseudogenes (like in the talk pages) ... however, creationists interpret it as evidence that MOST of our dna was PUT there as "placeholders:" ... because how is it that the species preserved 30x as much DNA as it needed through mutation and natural selection alone?
    • indeed -- that's my only intent too. i guess what i'm noticing is the "it's all in your paradigm" critique of falsifiability, Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions -- falsifiability depends on your definition of "conventional wisdom." but what happens when people have different conventional wisdoms ... so they look at the exact same evidence in radically different ways? falsifiability then helps EACH side sharpen their OWN paradigm ... but doesn't help them COMMUNICATE or challenge each OTHER'S paradigm. Mainstream science starts with the PARADIGM of naturalism ... and its theories falsify themselves to the current theory of evolution -- which (although there are gaps in our knowledge) is the "Best we've got." But creationists start with the PARADIGM of supernaturalism ... and its theories falsify themselves to the current array of creationist views. Perhaps in addition to exploring falsification, we ALSO need to explore our paradigms? Is this making any sense? Ungtss 18:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

mutation and natural selection will have boundaries, beyond which no mutation and natural selection is observable or explanable (falsifiable by showing mutation + natural selection across boundaries such as dog/cat + mechanisms for naturalistic development of IC)

this falsifiable assertion could be used to improve the theory in that the theory desperately needs to identify its "kinds" -- the basic forms of life across which macroevolution may not occur -- and something ID has failed painfully to do. it is also INCONSISTENT with evolution -- that is ... if there are boundaries, then creation remains reasonable while evolution fails.--Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is a grand hypothesis that would have to be broken down into much smaller pieces to get falsifiable forms. But here is an attempted falsifiable form: To falsify creationism, find a series of mutations between ancestors of the chimpanzees and 1) humans and 2) modern chimpanzees. Could the theory of creationism adapt enough to include speciation? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Theistic evolution could (because God could direct the change) ... however ... it would falsify all other forms of creationism.

---

life will never be observed arising from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent designer (falsifiable by showing abiogenesis).

this falsifiable statement would kill all the forms for creationism, and make theism logically untenable under occam's razor.

is that a start? Ungtss 00:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Good start, in my opinion--yes. :) Can we find pubished authors who analyze some of the options we have discussed here? ---Rednblu | Talk 09:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Here is my attempt at a falsifiable form: To falsify creationism, find a non-life mixture of chemicals, sequences of temperatures, and sequences of lighting conditions which sometimes generate primitive lifeforms. Couldn't the theory of creationism adapt enough to include abiogenesis? ---Rednblu | Talk 08:48, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I put back in your number two from which I learned the most. I had copied your original statements into my laptop and had it in the library. I hope that was all right that I put back in your #2 statement.  ;)) ---Rednblu | Talk 09:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

  • i guess i'm still struggling with our different views of falsification -- perhaps because i've heard it misused so much. is your objection to creationism that it is not SOPHISTICATED enough? that it has not been falsified, so it is just a bare-breasted claim for God's intervention? If THAT'S the issue we've been spinning around, i think you've made an EXCELLENT point. but creationists DO have a sophisticated theory of creationism -- ALL of them do -- i can't think of a SINGLE piece of evidence that i cannot fit into my paradigm -- all the genetics + history etc that i know ALL fit into it -- but what creationists are most CONCERNED about is the PARADIGM difference -- the fact that evolutionists think that their theory works to the EXCLUSION of creationism -- and THAT is why they keep pounding away at Macro, Abiogenesis, and Irreducible complexity -- because those are the issues that (in our paradigm anyway -- a paradigm permitting supernaturalism) make creationism SUPERIOR to evolution in explaining ALL the evidence. is that making sense? Ungtss 18:56, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the reason some scientists "keep pounding away at Macro, Abiogenesis, and Irreducible complexity" is because they feel that it is morally wrong to teach children that God did it--because it is simply not true. My personal objection to creationism is that it is wrong: morally wrong and factually wrong. But I also recognize that many people in good faith see creationism as right: morally right and factually right. In my opinion, men fight each other with the most convenient tool at hand, and in fighting with tools, men usually misuse them whether that tool is the word NPOV or the word falsifiable. Given all that, I see the Wikipedia experience as a chance to collect data on people dealing with critical issues about which they have highly polarized points-of-view. You and I cannot resolve the issues, but we can report on them in a way that we 1) learn about those issues and 2) provide NPOV summaries about what people say on these issues.  :) I appreciate your patience with your and my learning process. ---Rednblu | Talk 20:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • that's exactly it, i think. it's a paradigm difference. some people see creationism as morally and factually wrong because of their PARADIGM, and others see it as morally and factually right because of THEIR paradigm. and they're throwing falsifiability and bias and everything else at each other ... but when it comes down to it, it's a PARADIGM difference. At the same time, however, one, the other, or something else IS factually true. And so what SCIENCE needs to do is keep as BROAD a paradigm as possible in allowing itself to go through the process of falsification. A scientific community that ASSUMES Genesis is true will be limited in its ability to falsify itself ... because it will always say, "well ... we just haven't figuredn out how to justify that assumption yet -- but we will!" Similarly, a scientific community that ASSUMES God does not exist will say the same thing. I think what science needs to do is take a position of NEUTRALITY regarding the hypotheses of a creator -- and allow falsification to take its course.
  • where this leads me is this. the falsifiable assertions of evolution are: "Evolution is false where there are clear and distinct boundaries between "kinds," across which macroevolution cannot occur" and "evolution is false where life, by its very nature, can never arise from non-life." In my opinion, IF the theory is falsified in that way, ID becomes the "improved theory" -- because it takes ALL the contemporary evidence that is explained by evolution, AND explains abiogenesis and macroevolution -- making it that new path integral formulation to F=ma.

However, ID requires the PARADIGM shift that there IS a creator.

not trying to convince you ... just trying to articulate the ID POV for page development -- do you have a corresponding evo pov or a critique of this one? Ungtss 20:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I would say that we have to be careful how we report the scholars' usage of the word falsifiable--keeping in mind that men generally misuse terms to fight their symbolic turf battles. I think we could find many evolutionary biologists who have written some form or another of the following statment, "If it is true that natural processes did not cross the boundary between non-human ancestor and human without divine intervention, then evolution is false." And we could use a quote like that without misusing the term-of-art "falsifiable." Specifically, I suggest the following.

  1. In light of all of the above discussion, let us cut the Birch & Ehrlich (1967) quotation to this TalkPage for storage--because it does not criticize evolutionary theory and has no relevance to the Creation vs. evolution debate page.
  2. We might consider including quotations of creation and evolution scholars who think that the other side is immoral and wrong. :) In some scholars' opinions from both sides, the fire under the Creation vs. evolution debate is the certainty that the other side is immoral. Does that make sense? ---Rednblu | Talk 22:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
it all makes sense to me ... except the conclusion:). i think the perspectives section demonstrates that the fight takes place on TWO fronts -- with both sides thinking the other is both immoral AND irrational -- paul's quote showing the immorality argument against naturalism, johnson showing the irrationality argument -- gould's argument showing the irrationality argument against creation, and lucretious showing the immorality argument.

immorality may fuel the fire, but the battle is being FOUGHT with the weapons of reason.

there's a reason creationists always quote E+B -- and it's NOT what theodosius thought it was. creationists are not saying that evolutionists don't really believe what they're saying -- creationists are saying that evolutionists have framed the theory in such a way that it CANNOT be criticized by any "BETTER" theory seeking to take prominence (like ID). It just sucks up all the new evidence in vagueries that leave us saying, "well ... we know it happened naturalistically ... we just don't know how." creationists are upset because of PRECISELY what E+B said -- it IS outside the realm of empirical science -- and yet it is being TAUGHT as science, which equally "outside the realm of empirical science" theories -- like ID -- are being excluded.
i think that quote is ESSENTIAL -- because (as crazy as we may be) it encapsulates the creationists' "evolution is irrational" argument -- and given the brilliant theodosius quote mr fleacircus added, i think any potential misrepresentation in the quote as been eliminated. what do you think? Ungtss 23:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The problem with putting the Birch & Ehrlich (1967) quote on the Creation vs. evolution debate page is that it does not say what you say it says. For example, Birch & Ehrlich are NOT saying that the hypothesis "Humans descended from the ancestors of the chimpanzees without divine intervention" CANNOT be criticized by any "BETTER" theory seeking to take prominence (like ID). That is an unfair distortion of the plain English in the quotation. I suggest that the Birch & Ehrlich quotation should be removed from this page. There are plenty of better quotes that don't depend on distortion of the plain English in the quotation, I suggest. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

alright ... since i'm not confident enough in my understanding of falsifiability to dispute it, i'll consent -- on the condition that the theodosius quote goes too, to keep things relatively even. deal? Ungtss 01:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Maybe. Does it clarify for the reader the underlying issues to have the two sides 1) distort or 2) accuse the other side of distorting what the other side says? Probably not.  :)) If you remove the Theodosius quote, the remaining quotations, in my opinion, don't 1) distort or 2) accuse the other side of distortion. Is that true? ---Rednblu | Talk 01:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

point well made and taken:). Ungtss 01:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dobzhansky

I don't have the time to read all of the discussion about falsifiability. But the Dobzhansky quote is a perspective on the debate, and the tactic of "quote mining" is certainly one that the creationist side has used and continues to use. The section is "perspectives on the debate", not necessarily "the debate itself as told by quotations" (but Dobzhansky's quote has some merit in the latter area too). I thnk the quote is highly valuable to anyone who is going to look into the debate. -Fleacircus 07:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

First of all, I agree with what Dobzhansky says. :)) How well I know that both sides of the argument do exactly what Dobzhansky says. "Their favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context . . . . Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin." 8)) Oh yes. That is exactly what both evolutionists and creationist do; I can swear to it. :(( However, that quote obscures the debate. That quote has nothing to do with the debate but rather with the unfair tactics that either side uses when they have lost ground and have not the intelligence to string together good English to say anything in the debate. Thus, the Dobzhansky quote should not be in the "Perspectives on the debate" section. If you insist that the quote be on the page, it should be in a separate section with a title like "Dirty tactics used by both sides in the debate."  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 08:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"This debate is full of distortions" is a perspective on the debate. The Dobzhansky quote belongs where it is more than most of the other quotes in the section which are more like snippets on the subject of "evolution and atheism". Find a balancing quote, that is if you don't think the Johnson quote counts as an accusation of distortion. And really isn't a lot of the creationist argument a giant accusation of distortion against the scientific community? -Fleacircus 10:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • For a few days, :) let's try a new section "Distortions and accusations" in which we can present the distortions and accusations that each side accuses the other of making. That way we can keep the "Perspectives on the debate" about the substance of the debate and clean of the dirty tactics that we can present in "Distortions and accusations." Maybe we could collect some quotations again and perhaps later think about smoothing out the transition between the quotes with a little prose.  :)) What do you think? ---Rednblu | Talk 10:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do you think it is accurate that evolutionists never mention macroevolution? I don't think it is. Whereas I think recent discussion of this article is strong evidence that Dobzhansky was not misstating things :) I consider the Perspectives section to be okay with the Dobzhansky quote, and I reject the "deal" you cut with Ungsst to remove it.
Also I notice that the quote mining has moved into the main article itself, hurrah! -Fleacircus 21:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tidy up Lucretius's English

Let's see if we can, in the words of Mr. Dreams, "tidy up" Lucretius's English. Here is the original that Lucretius wrote.

Only because, seeing in land and sky
So much the cause whereof no wise they know,
Men think Divinities are working there.
Meantime, when once we know from nothing still
Nothing can be create, we shall divine
More clearly what we seek: those elements
From which alone all things created are,
And how accomplished by no tool of Gods.
--Lucretius, " De rerum natura," written about 60 BC

And here, let us "tidy it up."

Lucretius wrote On the nature of things around 60 BC: "Only because the people see so much in land and sky for which they do not know the cause, they think Divinities are working there. But if they could see that nothing can be created from nothing, then they would advance one more step toward the answer that they seek: Those eternal elements became everything that is, without interference from Gods."

Feel free to edit the above to "tidy up" Lucretius's English which was about as good as our Latin. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 11:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Macroevolution Refactoring

I have attempted to refactor the macroevolution section to be to-the-point and more accurate than it was -- I don't think that it portrayed the science of macroevolution very clearly, and it was sort of long and meandering. For example, Schmalhausen got way too much attention for a theory that is essentially just a refinement of natural selection along the lines of punctuated equilibrium (once you read the PDF). I have taken pains to include all of the relevant points of contention and both sides' accounts of this. If I've made any technical mistakes or just unclear writing then let's fix that.

BUT

I would like to keep this section concise. I would especially not like for people to turn accurate two-sentence portrayals of an opinion into two-paragraph long bloatings that say essentially the same thing. And also let's avoid turning

"A says X, B says Y"

into

"A says X, B says Y despite the fact that A says X. In contrast, B says Y. Meanwhile, X is true, according to A. However A-ist scholar Q said something that sounded like 'Y', note B, thus boosting their claim that, in fact, Y."

-Fleacircus 23:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Issues in "Perspectives on the debate"

I just reread the end of the current page, and here are my observations.

  • In my opinion, the quotes eventually might be smoothed with some connecting prose. However, NPOV, I think, is better served at this stage in page development if we stay with just the quotes--because they are real NPOV.
either way is fine with me -- i just don't want to have to duke out agendas at this point. i'm tired of it:).
The quotes are like part of Wikiquote not an encyclopedia article. Do you want me to flood the page with over a 1000 quotes from random commentators happening to be vaguely related to the article to proove the point, or will you please integrate this into the text before I remove it?CheeseDreams 23:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that it would be best to start the "Perspectives on the debate" with the Psalms quote which somehow got dropped in the recent edits.
i agree. IMO, no reasonable justification has been given for removing that quote. it speaks directly to the issue in a simple way, puts the lucretious quote in context (who are these creationists he was responding to!?) and CERTAINLY does no harm. Ungtss 14:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The psalms quote is not about the debate. CheeseDreams 23:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Though personally I would like to make fun of Paul of Tarsus for his bigotry, it does not seem fair to say that his writings are merely "alleged" while saying that Lucretius actually "wrote."
agreed. the text SAYS it was written by paul and there is absolutely no debate among scholars as to the authorship. if we say he is "alleged" to have written it, NPOV requires we say ALL the authors on the page were "alleged" to have written their quotes. Ungtss 14:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some of pauls letters were first alleged not to have been written by paul by Origen in the 2nd/3rd century, based on an analysis of the hebrew and greek content compared to the other letters, modern scholars predominantly agree - some of pauls letters were not by the same author as the remainder. Therefore "alleged". CheeseDreams 23:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The section titled "The debate and the religious community" is not needed and confusing. This material should be in "Perspectives on the debate"--because all of the "perspectives" are about "The debate and the religious community"--starting from Psalms and Lucretius to the American National Academy of Sciences.
agreed. there is no fundamental difference between those quotes and the rest -- i believe they were just separated out to make a pov point.
Well I disagree. Before you and Ungsst can reach a false consensus ;), I think that the way religion and evolution interact on non-scientific terms deserves its own section and some explaining text instead of just some random quotes. This would have the benefit of cutting down the size of the Perspectives section. -Fleacircus 16:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the pope should be moved into the "religious community" - to keep his quote out is POV. CheeseDreams 23:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • my point was ... ALL of the quotes in that section are about the interface of science and religion. We've got two bible quotes, an ancient atheist, the NAS saying, "creationists are all conservative christians," darwin saying, "believing god created evolution ennobles creation" ... they are ALL about science + religion. define the dichotomy for me, if you would. Ungtss 17:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The bible is not commenting on the debate. It should not be quoted. CheeseDreams 23:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Huxley's quote is a perspective on the evolutionary debate itself. It DOES contain implications for religion but not exclusively you will admit; whereas Hull's quote invokes evolution but in the service of the broader question of the problem of Evil. Sagan's quote really doesn't say much. Johnson and Gould present points of argument. The Pope's comment mirrors Huxley and is historical. Butler's quote is sort of a dud.
I picked out the quotes I did to move out because they were the most tangential to the subject of evolution itself.
The accusation of POV is silly. I noticed that some of the quotes seemed like they were trying to say something, but maybe something that should be developed in a separate section in a descriptive form rather than with a small handful of quotes (or, less readably, a large handful of quotes). A section on the role of faith in the debate gives the issue higher visibility. -Fleacircus 17:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • What are other opinions on this section? ---Rednblu | Talk 10:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the section needs to be very long. It wasn't license to open up another quote section but a place for a short description of the salient points, although I didn't mean to give it the broad notion of "evolution's role in philosophy". -Fleacircus 17:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

how do you like it as is? i still think they're all best put in one section ... but if it makes you happy, i'm cool with it as is. Ungtss 18:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

>stating that it is an unscientific dogmatic belief and then concluding that it is justifiable is an oxymoron, by the way, though I won't cut it as it demonstrates the stupidity of creationists -- written by mr cheesedreams and removed from the text.

(written in a hidden tag CheeseDreams 23:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC))
you just don't get it, do you? any belief that has not been made unreasonable by science or logic may be legitimately and justifiable held. Ungtss
No you don't get it. "it is an unscientific dogmatic belief" and "it is a justifiable belief" are mutually exclusive according to the rules of english language. CheeseDreams 23:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/e/Talk%7ECreation-evolution_controversy_archive_1_943a.html"