Dawkins on Creationism's Knowledge Gap

[Adrian II]

Richard Dawkins has never been short of acerbic comment on critics of evolutionary theory, but this recent little piece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-196-1619264,00.html) is so on the mark I couldn't resist posting it. It deals with the creationists' strategy of selectively quoting real scientists. Most of all it addresses the recurrent argument on this forum that evolutionary theory contains 'gaps', and that their presence somehow proves that evolutionary theory is inferior to wild and unsubstantiated creationary claims.

In Dawkins' words: 'Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”'

I'm just wondering how the proponents of creationism in this forum react when their own strategy is addressed.

And in case anyone inquires after that fish with fingers again...



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/images/l_034_03_m.jpg

FISH WITH FINGERS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_03.html)

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Great read Adrian, thanks for posting it.

[Kraxis]

Bacteria and rats suddenly becoming resistant to our 'weapons' is evolution right before our eyes. But if people want to believe that God changes them now and then, well then it is pretty much the same anyway.

[English assassin]

That fish with fingers is RUBBISH.

Even a dwarf couldn't make a decent sandwich out of fish fingers that small.

[Sir Chauncy]

ROTFLMAO!

Dude, I hurt myself laughing when I read that.

[Big_John]

are there actually proponents of creationism on these boards?

[Adrian II]

are there actually proponents of creationism on these boards?I don't know, but we seem to have a lack of creationists with fingers.

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm just wondering how the proponents of creationism in this forum react when their own strategy is addressed.

Quite a strawman you've set up there.

If believing the sacred theory of evolution doesnt answer all the fundamental questions of how we as humans got to this point is a "strategy" - i suppose im "guilty" of such devilish machinations.. ~:rolleyes:

Its always fun to use a rant itself to make a point..


'Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right!

Maybe, just maybe, there is a theory C? Its ridiculous to me for someone to feel a belief in a creator and evolution are mutually exclusive. The middle ground is actually quite sensible.

Maybe something smart and powerful did create the emmensly intricate elements of life, with evolution as a part of that creation? You see, its not as simple as Adam and Eve vs. Evolution.


No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”'

Well I live in a predominantly southern Baptist community where dancing is frowned upon and ive never got a flyer. This guy obviously likes to demonize and make enemies that dont exist. Just because some people dont agree with his brand of science doesnt mean they have an evil agenda. He needs to get a grip.. or maybe find a woman who will get a grip of him so he'll calm down.. ~;)

[sharrukin]

Well creationism is nonsense but I do think they provide a service in at least pointing out where present evolutionary theories have flaws. What bothers me most is that they were ever in a position to gain credibility by doing so. The current run of individuals in the scientific community should have been the ones to do this. Instead they prefer not to rock the boat, or are afraid of sanctions if they dare to say the emperor has no clothes. Scientists have been subjected to lose of tenure, pressure from scientific journals or publishing houses but this does a disservice to all. So creationists and other such groups unfortunately do play a valuable role in scientific advancement simply because they are not afraid.

[A.Saturnus]

Maybe, just maybe, there is a theory C? Its ridiculous to me for someone to feel a belief in a creator and evolution are mutually exclusive. The middle ground is actually quite sensible.

That's not what this is about. When we speak about creationism, we have it about a theory that is indeed mutual exclusive to biological evolution and not only the believe that God is the creator. Note that creationists lump evolution together with cosmological theories about the origin of the universe. There are many religious biologists who believe that God created earth and is even responsible for the emerging of man who accept evolution. These are not called creationists.


Well creationism is nonsense but I do think they provide a service in at least pointing out where present evolutionary theories have flaws. What bothers me most is that they were ever in a position to gain credibility by doing so. The current run of individuals in the scientific community should have been the ones to do this. Instead they prefer not to rock the boat, or are afraid of sanctions if they dare to say the emperor has no clothes. Scientists have been subjected to lose of tenure, pressure from scientific journals or publishing houses but this does a disservice to all. So creationists and other such groups unfortunately do play a valuable role in scientific advancement simply because they are not afraid.

Not really. They add nothing to the advancement of science. The fact is that in this case the emperor does have clothes, only they deny it. The Theory of Evolution has flaws just like all other scientific theories that are a bit interesting. But if anyone has substantial claimes against darwinism, you can be sure he publishes it in Nature and not some pseudo-scientific books. Creationists never do this. Creationists do not even try to publish in Nature. That is because their arguments are not intended to convince biologists but only laypeople.

[Papewaio]

'Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! '

Creationism fails in many many ways. This of course does not make theory B/evolution right.

Evolution however hasn't been proven wrong. It as a theory has evolved ~D

[sharrukin]

Not really. They add nothing to the advancement of science. The fact is that in this case the emperor does have clothes, only they deny it. The Theory of Evolution has flaws just like all other scientific theories that are a bit interesting. But if anyone has substantial claimes against darwinism, you can be sure he publishes it in Nature and not some pseudo-scientific books. Creationists never do this. Creationists do not even try to publish in Nature. That is because their arguments are not intended to convince biologists but only laypeople.

If someone had substantial claims against darwinism they wouldn't get published in Nature magazine. Pseudo-scientific books and popular magazines would be the only avenue open to them. And after having done so Nature would then use that as a reason for why will not publish such articles. A neat little manmade tautology. The Creationists do not attempt to get published in Nature because the magazine would never even consider publishing any such article even if on the odd chance it did have scientific merit.

[Big_John]

If someone had substantial claims against darwinism they wouldn't get published in Nature magazine [...] even if on the odd chance it did have scientific merit.can you provide evidence for that assertion?

[Papewaio]

If someone had substantial claims against darwinism they wouldn't get published in Nature magazine. Pseudo-scientific books and popular magazines would be the only avenue open to them. And after having done so Nature would then use that as a reason for why will not publish such articles. A neat little manmade tautology. The Creationists do not attempt to get published in Nature because the magazine would never even consider publishing any such article even if on the odd chance it did have scientific merit.

Considering the competitive nature of science a lot of scientists would love to disprove any of the big theories. The funding, fame and fortune alone is reason enough to prove/disprove the big theories.

[sharrukin]

can you provide evidence for that assertion?

Yes!

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040426-090538-2682r.htm

A Washington Times opinion piece is taking the prestigious British nature magazine, Nature, to task this morning for publishing what it describes as "an alarming and completely misleading article predicting the melting of the entire Greenland ice cap in 1,000 years, thanks to pernicious human economic activity, i.e., global warming, using a regional climate projection." The article's author, Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, says it's not the first time it has happened. "Just as scientists 'admitted privately' the models don't work, so have prestigious environmental journalists told me privately they are concerned about Nature's handling of global warming stories, both in terms of increasingly shoddy reviews and timing clearly designed to influence policy. No one has forgotten that in 1996 Nature featured a paper, right before the most important U.N. conference leading to the Kyoto protocol, 'proving' models forecasting disastrous warming were right. The paper was subsequently found to have used data selectively to generate its dire result."

It was also Nature that published, a few weeks ago, a terrifying prediction that between 15% and 37% of all species of life on earth would be extinct by 2050, killed off by global warming. The prediction was written by a group of scientists with strong political connections, and their work was roundly condemned quickly as having ignored the ability of life forms to adapt to higher temperatures, and of having assumed that technologies will not arise to reduce emissions.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:YiYI3CxTbWwJ:www.organicconsumers.org/ge/quist102902.cfm+nature+magazine+refuses+to+publish&hl=en&start=1&lr=lang_en

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:1pZQR416qc4J:www.deanesmay.com/posts/1108742624.shtml+%22nature+magazine%22++political+publish+scientific+-mexico+-mexican&hl=en&start=2&lr=lang_en

"Today's Wall Street Journal has the story of how a researcher used cooked data in the area of climate science.

The Journal reports:
Yet there were doubts about Mr. Mann's methods and analysis from the start. In 1998, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics published a paper in the journal Climate Research, arguing that there really had been a Medieval warm period. The result: Messrs. Soon and Baliunas were treated as heretics and six editors at Climate Research were made to resign.

Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis. Their conclusion: Mr. Mann's work was riddled with "collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects." Once these were corrected, the Medieval warm period showed up again in the data.

This should have produced a healthy scientific debate. Instead, as the Journal's Antonio Regalado reported Monday, Mr. Mann tried to shut down debate by refusing to disclose the mathematical algorithm by which he arrived at his conclusions. All the same, Mr. Mann was forced to publish a retraction of some of his initial data, and doubts about his statistical methods have since grown. Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada (a government agency) notes that Mr. Mann's method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Other reputable scientists such as Berkeley's Richard Muller and Hans von Storch of Germany's GKSS Center essentially agree.

MIT's Technology Review reported on this embarassing revelation for the field of climate science back in October--and what they describe happening is rather disturbing:

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, you'll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).

Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true--but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed--and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitrick's only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.

How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming? It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn't settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.

My contention is simply that the failure of eminent scientific journals and individuals to apply scientific methodology to their own favoured causes has led to the lunatic fringe making advances which would not otherwise have been possible. The kind of tactics that have been used to surpress men such as Dr Immanuel Velikovsky only lend credence to their bizarre theories. It also prevents scientific review of their theories and short circuits anything of value that they might have to offer. And yes even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

In 1963, the magazine American Behavioral Scientist thought the way in which Velikovsky was mugged by the scientific community of sufficient interest to devote a special issue to three papers on the subject, one by Professor Alfred de Grazia of New York University and two others by Ralph Juergens and Livio Stecchini.
"Efforts were made to block the dissemination of Dr Velikovsky's ideas, and even to punish supporters of his investigations. Universities, scientific societies, publishing houses, the popular press were approached and threatened; social pressures and professional sanctions were invoked to control public opinion. "

However, in May, when book sales were at their peak, Velikovsky was summoned to Macmillan's offices and told that professors in certain large universities were refusing to see Macmillan's salesmen. This was a serious threat to the company because a substantial part of its revenue derived from the sale of textbooks to universities. In addition, letters had been received from scientists demanding that Macmillan cease publication. Macmillan told Velikovsky that they had no alternative but to respond to this commercial pressure and that they had worked out a deal under which Doubleday would take over publication of the book. Doubleday had few textbook titles and so was relatively immune to academic blackmail.

Paul Herget said, 'I am one of those who participated in this campaign against Macmillan', while Michigan astronomer Dean McLaughlin wrote, 'Worlds in Collision has just changed hands . . . I am frank to state that this change was the result of pressure that scientists and scholars brought to bear on the Macmillan Company.'

Even after the change of publisher, ripples of the affair continued to be felt. James Putnam, the editor who had been twenty-five years with Macmillan and who had bought Velikovsky's book, was summarily dismissed.

This is not meant as a defence of Velikovsky's theories but rather to illustrate that the scientific community has it's own political agenda's and are not as rational as we might like to believe.


"the University of Illinois’ Evan DeLucia and 10 colleagues placed a landmark study in the journal Science demonstrating that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) makes loblolly pine, perhaps the most important commercially grown tree species in the world, grow like topsy. Specifically, they found that the amount of annual growth will increase by a whopping 25 percent per year by 2050, compared with today, as we continue to put more and more carbon dioxide in the air.

DeLucia’s study was doubly important because it also found that this “carbon dioxide fertilization effect” was more than twice what computer models said it should be. These are the same models that predict climate gloom-and-doom if we don’t dramatically restrict our use of fossil fuels, and the same beasts that provide the scientific cover for the onerous Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Climate Treaty.

DeLucia’s study further implies that the overall scientific hypothesis of skyrocketing atmospheric carbon dioxide is wrong because plants are so adept at absorbing it. If these findings extend globally, then by 2050, the world’s forests will absorb fully half of the CO2 emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels.

DeLucia’s study followed hard on the heels of another, by S. Fan and several others, late in 1998, showing that the forests of North America are growing so rapidly they are actually taking a bit more carbon dioxide out of the air every year than we put in. Which is to say, despite our humongous economic engine, our continent is a net “sink” for dreaded greenhouse gases, rather than a source.

Before that, NASA global warming firebrand James Hansen, writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, speculated that the reason carbon dioxide’s growth rate in the atmosphere has slowed in recent decades is, in his words, that “apparently the rate of uptake by CO2 sinks, either the ocean, or more likely, forests and soils, has increased.”

Bert Bolin, who as the first head of the IPCC is perhaps more responsible than anyone else for the Kyoto Protocol. Recently, Bolin penned a letter to Science stating that, “In the current, post-Kyoto international political climate, scientific statements about the behavior of the terrestrial carbon cycle must be made with care...

To their credit the International Council of Scientific Unions (supporters of the Kyoto accord) responded;

“Your letter on the need to temper scientific findings with political considerations, published in Science today, is a chilling testimonial to the current trend to limit objective reason in deference to political ambitions. . . . The open rebuke of a scientific, peer-reviewed paper on political grounds . . . is unacceptable to the scientific community and serves only to tarnish the scientific reputation [of those who signed the letter]. Your letter confirms . . . the observation that a disturbing amount of politically correct research is being done with little care for scientific accuracy.”

In 1996, the IPCC’s longtime chief scientist, England’s Sir John Houghton, wrote that climate change is a “moral issue.” Before an important 1996 U.N. conference in Geneva, a gathering that greased the skids for the Kyoto Protocol, Houghton wrote of his agreement with the World Council of Churches, “which calls upon the Government to adopt firm, clear policies and targets [read: Kyoto], and the public to accept the necessary consequences.” He further stated that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will “contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind’s greed and indifference.”

Darwinian evolution does have some serious problems that need to be dealt with and circling the wagons because the creationists are taking potshots at it is the wrong response. The correct response would be to help them and in doing so find flaws in their criticism of evolution as well as in the theory itself. If the theory you are defending cannot survive criticism then it should survive at all. If in fact it can survive then you create the illusion of a scientific hoax by acting as scientists are currently doing.

Men such as Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Feduccia and Henry Gee have had the courage to critic the evolutionary theories and to point out deficiencies in the theory.

By Dr Madsen Pirie 2 May 2005 Permalink

Many who favour action to counter global warming cite the December Science paper by Dr Naomi Oreskes, which examined 1,000 papers and concluded that 75% backed the 'consensus' view that the warming is real and is man-made, with none dissenting. Some claim its findings as "unchallenged."

Robert Matthews (Telegraph) tells us why. Dr Benny Peisner of John Moores University at Liverpool conducted his own anlysis of the same 1,000 papers, and concluded that only one third backed the 'consensus' view, while only one per cent did so explicitly. Science refused to publish his paper on the grounds that the points he made had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

This means that the original paper remains “unchallenged.” There is more, though, Matthews tells us.

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity. As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, said that after his team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

This begins to establish a rather disturbing pattern in which only papers conforming to the 'man-made' view of global warming are printed, leaving others to talk of a 'consensus' in the scientific journals. One is left wondering why they should behave like this? It is not as if global warming were a religion with acolytes and heretics; it is supposed to be about science.

[Papewaio]

I agree that all scientific theorys should be tested. They are not very scientific if they are not allowed to be tested.

Too much science is political based. This is not a good thing either. However once a theorem has been disproved it normally will only have a fan club of any significance until another theory replaces it.

I do not like Greenpeaces hyperbole.

What is not being pointed out is that creationism has been disproved.

This does not automatically make evolution right.

Evolution on the other hand has continued to evolve.

[Big_John]

sharrukin

most of your post seems to indicate that science and nature have ocaisionally allowed poor science into their publications. you are claiming that the opposite is true. the peiser case was dealt with in a previous thread and is does not seem to be as clear-cut as many believe.


If someone had substantial claims against darwinism they wouldn't get published in Nature magazine
[....]
Men such as Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Feduccia and Henry Gee have had the courage to critic the evolutionary theories and to point out deficiencies in the theory.so are you contending that scientists such as gould, feduccia, and gee would not be published in science or nature?

[sharrukin]

I agree that all scientific theorys should be tested. They are not very scientific if they are not allowed to be tested.

Too much science is political based. This is not a good thing either. However once a theorem has been disproved it normally will only have a fan club of any significance until another theory replaces it.

I do not like Greenpeaces hyperbole.

What is not being pointed out is that creationism has been disproved.

This does not automatically make evolution right.

Evolution on the other hand has continued to evolve.

I would agree with you and as to creationism I do not hold with the theory myself but if they come forward with proof or what they think is proof I would give them a hearing. It is only by doing so that we can disprove any theory. I like having groups like the Atlantis boys and the Creationists around as it tends to keep scientists thinking rather than resting on their laurels.

Evolution is another theory that has problems. The question that must first be asked is what is evolution? Is it Darwinian evolution or some other theory as they tend to get mixed up as to what is meant exactly and that is a problem in and of itself. There are in fact several different theories of evolution and we need to be clear which ones we mean. Defending a theory without any clear definition of what exactly it is raises the suspicion that no evidence would be accepted that disproves it. The Catastrophism theory and Neo-Catastrophism are alternative theories to Darwinism. Of course even if Darwinism turns out to have been wrong does not mean that it did not perform a valuable service to science by turning scientific thought in the right direction.

[Yun Dog]

God / Science

whatever - its all belief, ever seen an atom, were you alive 65 million years ago

so whatever name people want to put on something , its still all the belief in ideas that have been built on for generations.

and there are fanatics on both sides, what I find amusing is when you cut it to the core the whole argument stems from what names you put to things, as all 'evidences' are mearly different interpretations of observations. Observations which are artefacts of our tools with which we percieve reality and interpretations based on our beliefs in ideas which we have been told by other humans.

In essence whats the difference

~:handball:

WHAT IF

one instant there was this 'idea' it had no physical form it was just an idea, a dream, a thought, a perception

that there was light

and building apon this first thought others came another

that there was time

and then

there was life

and so on and so on until there was a guy sitting at his desk typing on a forum about science v religion

a guy who believed all these things but in reality none of it ever existed it was merely the belief in an idea

~:handball:

edit speeling

[sharrukin]

sharrukin

most of your post seems to indicate that science and nature have ocaisionally allowed poor science into their publications. you are claiming that the opposite is true. the peiser case was dealt with in a previous thread and is does not seem to be as clear-cut as many believe.

so are you contending that scientists such as gould, feduccia, and gee would not be published in science or nature?

The problem is that Nature has published shoddy scientific articles based on political agenda's and refused to publish others for much the same reason.

No one has forgotten that in 1996 Nature featured a paper, right before the most important U.N. conference leading to the Kyoto protocol, 'proving' models forecasting disastrous warming were right. The paper was subsequently found to have used data selectively to generate its dire result."

Using shoddy science to back certain political agenda's.

Still, questions persisted. In 2003, Stephen McIntyre, a Toronto minerals consultant and amateur mathematician, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at Canada's University of Guelph, jointly published a critique of the hockey stick analysis.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected.

Refusing to publish scientific article based on political reasons rather than science.

This begins to establish a rather disturbing pattern in which only papers conforming to the 'man-made' view of global warming are printed, leaving others to talk of a 'consensus' in the scientific journals.

I am not arguing that Nature magazine is a poor magazine but rather that they are letting political considerations influence who gets published and who does not. And if you do not get published in Nature or similar journals you are not taken seriously so they wield considerable power.

so are you contending that scientists such as gould, feduccia, and gee would not be published in science or nature?

None of these men are proponents of creationism so I fail to see why they wouldn't be published by Nature magazine. They have all been criticized by other scientists because their inquiries have been cited by Creationists in advancing the Creationist arguments. The unspoken suggestion being that that they should not make such arguments. These men are very respected in their field. What message is then being sent to someone who lacks such stature?

[Papewaio]

God / Science

whatever - its all belief, ever seen an atom, were you alive 65 million years ago

so whatever name people want to put on something , its still all the belief in ideas that have been built on for generations.




Sorry but some ideas fly others bite the dust.

Our understanding of atoms allows us things like MRI.

While on the other hand understanding of geology of 65 million years ago helps us drill for oil.

Science has the ability to turn ideas that have been around for generations and turn out something different.

[Big_John]

The problem is that Nature has published shoddy scientific articles based on political agenda's and refused to publish others for much the same reason.this may be true, however, what you have shown me doesn't indicate a general syndrome, but a few putative and isolated incidents, in my eyes. unless it can be shown that nature systematically rejects good science, i don't see why one should believe that "If someone had substantial claims against darwinism they wouldn't get published in Nature magazine".


And if you do not get published in Nature or similar journals you are not taken seriously so they wield considerable power.that is not true. i understand what you mean to say, i think. however, while nature, and it's american equivalent science, are generally recognized as ultimate publications, many important and influential papers are published in other journals.


None of these men are proponents of creationism so I fail to see why they wouldn't be published by Nature magazine.oh, i thought the parameter was that no one with a case against 'darwinism' would be published in nature, regardless of data. i will agree that a proponent of creationism will probably not get published in nature, if only because there will probably never be anything approaching evidence for creationist ideas.

[Yun Dog]

our perception of existance is based on the way our senses report to our brains about our physical world

we build tools to measure our physical world based on these senses and therefore prove to ourselves that we exist

we believe in the information that our senses give us, but what of the things we cannot sense.Do they exist


what if an alien lifeform came to earth that was not physical, and beyond our senses, just the way animals are said to posses senses we do not - could we measure it, could we observe it, would it exist

not to us

but if you belived it existed would that make it so

[Papewaio]

If you cannot measure it, it has no effect and it cannot interact at any level then why bother believing in it except to waste time?

[Yun Dog]

if we are a community of cells bound to a set of chemical reactions which degrade overtime then

your perspective that to believe in something beyond the physical world is in your view a waste, but is your existance any less or more than any others?

some would think a life not spent attempting to see beyond the limits of your physical senses a waste

If the chemical reaction that is you ceases and all memory of you and the human race is wiped away, did you exist?

not trying to annoy just putting these questions out there ~:cheers:

edit: and on another tangent how did self awareness evolve, how was it advantageous on a reproductive/survival level for an animal to be aware of itself and its physical existance in the universe?

[sharrukin]

If you cannot measure it, it has no effect and it cannot interact at any level then why bother believing in it except to waste time?

If the learned men of the day in the year 1200 AD thought like that where would we now be? What could they measure of sub-atomic particle, virus's and bacteria. Simply because we cannot measure something does not mean it has no effect. However if indeed it cannot interact at any level with man then it becomes more the field of philosophy.

[Papewaio]

If the learned men of the day in the year 1200 AD thought like that where would we now be? What could they measure of sub-atomic particle, virus's and bacteria. Simply because we cannot measure something does not mean it has no effect. However if indeed it cannot interact at any level with man then it becomes more the field of philosophy.

Strangely enough our level of scientific awareness is tied to our ability to measure things.

I also did specifiy that it could not interact with us at any level. Virus's and bacteria interact with us. Sub-atomic particles do as well, but obviously we are limited to how we can measure them... photons though do make it somewhat easier to see.

[ichi]

how was it advantageous on a reproductive/survival level for an animal to be aware of itself and its physical existance in the universe?

obviously awareness has critical value for survival. At each step towards more complexity, additional awareness was better than less awareness.

so for a single cell the awareness might just be limited to heat, or light, or chemical conditions, but for a mammal the awareness of the change of seasons or the presence of a wildfire might be adaptively beneficial.

at some level the faculties that provide awareness of the physical surroundings enabled self-awareness. This pre-adaptive condition was then exploited to allow the development of a complex social structure.

Clearly self-awareness was useful, as humans, who are capable of a high level of self awareness, are currently the dominant species on earth.

ichi :bow:

[Yun Dog]

and men were in no doubt the world was flat, now we are in no doubt its a shereoid... whats next....


I hope you guys dont mind but I want to roll this idea around for no real reason. Im lending from a few things here, Ontogy (where the human embryo goes through the stages of evolution as it develops) and a bit of big bang.

what if

there was some potential energy, im going to call it, a thought or perhaps a dream would be better as it needs to be a thought with potential.
time is irrelevant
that potential energy releases slowly or quickly like when you have the realisation (wow someones paying me to work and Im sitting on the forum philosophising about the meaning of life)
atoms collide
molecular dust is moving and agglomerating into planets and stars
the same potential is the catalyst which starts a chain of chemical reactions creating the first amino acid chain in the primordal soup (the dream or energy still realising its potential)

that amino acid chain becomes the first DNA strands which begin to replicate themselves

life is created through this replication, and one quadzillionth of our DNA is a copy of that first chain which was the product of that energy

could we be a part (a piece, a step) of a thing realising (dreaming) what it is over billions of years?

~:cheers:

again english - oh that sentence is able to be understood now - much better

[Yun Dog]

at some level the faculties that provide awareness of the physical surroundings enabled self-awareness.
ichi :bow:


this is the leap that I cant get my head around :help:

but nice answer

[Adrian II]

If someone had substantial claims against darwinism they wouldn't get published in Nature magazine.The flying saucer crowd salutes you.

In the global warming debate someone did have (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/papers.html) substantial claims, they were published in peer reviewed magazines and they will be taken into account in the next IPCC conference in Beijing. The Nature and Science editing boards apparently have become politicised on global warming, that is why scientists are protesting their procedures.

In Creationism, there are no substantial claims. There are only people complaining that there would be substantial claims if they weren't censored. You can't complain about censorship if you don't say what it is that is censored.

[Adrian II]

what if

there was some potential energy, im going to call it, a thought or perhaps a dream would be better as it needs to be a thought with potential.
time is irrelevant
that potential energy releases slowly or quickly like when you have the realisation (wow someones paying me to work and Im sitting on the forum philosophising about the meaning of life)
atoms collide
molecular dust is moving and agglomerating into planets and stars
the same potential is the catalyst which starts a chain of chemical reactions creating the first amino acid chain in the primordal soup (the dream or energy still realising its potential)

that amino acid chain becomes the first DNA strands which begin to replicate themselves

life is created through this replication, and one quadzillionth of our DNA is a copy of that first chain which was the product of that energy

could we be a part (a piece, a step) of a thing realising (dreaming) what it is over billions of years?This is a thought experiment. Nothing wrong with that. Physicists, astrophycists, mathematicians and other scientists do it all the time. Only they take into account known observations and formulate their thoughts in hypothetical form so they can be tested (predictability criterion).

'What if' is not science.

[hrvojej]

what if

there was some potential energy, im going to call it, a thought or perhaps a dream would be better as it needs to be a thought with potential.
time is irrelevant
that potential energy releases slowly or quickly like when you have the realisation (wow someones paying me to work and Im sitting on the forum philosophising about the meaning of life)
atoms collide
molecular dust is moving and agglomerating into planets and stars
the same potential is the catalyst which starts a chain of chemical reactions creating the first amino acid chain in the primordal soup (the dream or energy still realising its potential)

that amino acid chain becomes the first DNA strands which begin to replicate themselves

life is created through this replication, and one quadzillionth of our DNA is a copy of that first chain which was the product of that energy

could we be a part (a piece, a step) of a thing realising (dreaming) what it is over billions of years?


Just a quick note: If it is possible for the same thing to occur without any dreaming energy being involved as a driving force, then you don't really need to include that energy in the process in the first place to get the end result.

And I hope you realise that the DNA molecules are not composed of aminoacids.

[A.Saturnus]

Men such as Stephen Jay Gould, Alan Feduccia and Henry Gee have had the courage to critic the evolutionary theories and to point out deficiencies in the theory.

Doesn't that contradict your entire position? Stephen Jay Gould is THE evolutionary biologist and anti-creationist. What he used to criticize - apart from creationism - is neo-darwinism a la Dawkins, but at no time has he been an opponent of the Theory of Evolution. His intention was to improve it, not to refute it. That creationists quote him only means that they don't have an idea what they are talking about.

[Adrian II]

Stephen Jay Gould is THE evolutionary biologist and anti-creationist. What he used to criticize - apart from creationism - is neo-darwinism a la Dawkins, but at no time has he been an opponent of the Theory of Evolution. His intention was to improve it, not to refute it. That creationists quote him only means that they don't have an idea what they are talking about.And by the way, the Henry Gee you mention (of cladistics fame) has been editor of Nature since 1987.


http://www.nature.com/news/about/images/gee.jpg

Henry Gee, Columnist, London

Henry Gee joined Nature in 1987, and is a Senior Editor for biological sciences. He has a Ph.D in Zoology from the University of Cambridge. As well as editing Nature's science fiction stories, he is the author of The Science of Middle-earth, Jacob's Ladder and In Search of Deep Time, and co-author of A Field Guide to Dinosaurs. He has won nothing more exciting than a cake in a raffle, spends as much time as possible on his allotment, and is arguably the second-best blues organist in south Essex.

Link (http://www.nature.com/news/about/aboutus.html)

[A.Saturnus]

Thus, we can conclude that the best critics of the evolutionary tradition are part of the evolutionary tradition. Serves as a good example for other scientific fields.

[sharrukin]

The flying saucer crowd salutes you.

In the global warming debate someone did have (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/papers.html) substantial claims, they were published in peer reviewed magazines and they will be taken into account in the next IPCC conference in Beijing. The Nature and Science editing boards apparently have become politicised on global warming, that is why scientists are protesting their procedures.

In Creationism, there are no substantial claims. There are only people complaining that there would be substantial claims if they weren't censored. You can't complain about censorship if you don't say what it is that is censored.

I am not defending creationism, flying saucers or whatever else it is you might think I said. I made it perfectly clear I did not hold with such things so your point is pointless.

[sharrukin]

Doesn't that contradict your entire position? Stephen Jay Gould is THE evolutionary biologist and anti-creationist. What he used to criticize - apart from creationism - is neo-darwinism a la Dawkins, but at no time has he been an opponent of the Theory of Evolution. His intention was to improve it, not to refute it. That creationists quote him only means that they don't have an idea what they are talking about.

at no time has he been an opponent of the Theory of Evolution.

My point was that someone who was an opponent of the Theory of Evolution would not get published without first going through the popular press. The politicized scientific journals would not even consider publishing such materials even if they did have merit.

Also he has been criticized as have others but as he "Stephen Jay Gould is THE evolutionary biologist" he can shrug it off. Others of lesser stature, or those who do not have tenure, or are hoping for a position at a particular institution cannot be so cavalier. This obviously means that what they might have done will not be done due to them not wanting to commit professional suicide.

[hrvojej]

at no time has he been an opponent of the Theory of Evolution.

My point was that someone who was an opponent of the Theory of Evolution would not get published without first going through the popular press. The politicized scientific journals would not even consider publishing such materials even if they did have merit.
Call me an idealist, but if everything was by the book methodologically, I am pretty dam sure that it would get published somewhere, and somewhere big. I for one would be very excited to read something of that sort (that is scientifically sound yet contradicts the often reiterated), though I'm no bigwig editor (yet ~;) ).

[sharrukin]

Call me an idealist, but if everything was by the book methodologically, I am pretty dam sure that it would get published somewhere, and somewhere big. I for one would be very excited to read something of that sort (that is scientifically sound yet contradicts the often reiterated), though I'm no bigwig editor (yet ~;) ).

Well I agree with you which is why I think the more outlets for information the better. Even the lunatic fringe has a part to play as some of what we call establishment science was considered to be just that at one time.

[Adrian II]

My point was that someone who was an opponent of the Theory of Evolution would not get published without first going through the popular press. As A.Saturnus pointed out, the notion that evolution was created is acceptable (as a private religious view) to countless biologists, and no doubt some of the best. The notion that creation should supplant evolution as the operative principle of species development is not. Creationism can not, for instance, make sense of our fossile record.

And if you don't come up with creationist scientific claims that would be worth publishing, your point about censorship remains moot.

[Navaros]

are there actually proponents of creationism on these boards?


the shocking thing is that so many people are brainwashed into believing the utterly asinine idea that apes turned into men over time etc.

evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is absurd.

evolution is not a scientific theory. it does not conform to the necessary requirements of the scientific method, therefore it never has been and never will be qualified as a scientific theory.

[Kraxis]

Very well...

If Darwin was so wrong, how come his theory is actually so correct when it comes to rats, bacteria and various plants and other pests? We have to continually invent new way of killing these enemies of our lives (now bear with me here) because they suddenly become immune to our weapons.
After having seen resistant bacteria at work on my GF and all kinds of anibiotics that were killing the very same bacteria next door, just didn't do anything. The doctors growing increasingly frustrated and eventually rather afraid because this bactaria hadn't been multi-resistant before... All that is proof of evolution.

Darwin's evolution? I don't know, but some evolution it is.

[hrvojej]

the shocking thing is that so many people are brainwashed into believing the utterly asinine idea that apes turned into men over time etc.
Shocking also that so many people still think of evolution in terms of apes and men, for example ignoring the 150 years of evolving evolutionary thought. If some people still combat the century and a half old ghosts, it doesn't necesssarily mean that other people haven't progressed in the meantime.

Btw, if some people are so adamantly against it, why even bother to think about it? If the evolution is so wrong, why even spend the time to reflect upon it? Why not study something else, and leave the biology be, for example. I certainly don't spend my time thinking about something I find utterly uninteresting or just plain BS, nor do I go around poking my nose into business of those who actually are interested in such things.

[Big_John]

the shocking thing is that so many people are brainwashed into believing the utterly asinine idea that apes turned into men over time etc.haha, ok, so you're an 'anti-evolutionist'.. but are you a creationist?? i wan't to know if i've found one!! :wideeyed:

[sharrukin]

As A.Saturnus pointed out, the notion that evolution was created is acceptable (as a private religious view) to countless biologists, and no doubt some of the best. The notion that creation should supplant evolution as the operative principle of species development is not. Creationism can not, for instance, make sense of our fossile record.

And if you don't come up with creationist scientific claims that would be worth publishing, your point about censorship remains moot.

How could I come up with a creationist scientific claim that is worth publishing when their claims are basically nonsense? Do you honestly believe they make sense?

[Big_John]

How could I come up with a creationist scientific claim that is worth publishing when their claims are basically nonsense? Do you honestly believe they make sense?if you believe that, then why state:

The Creationists do not attempt to get published in Nature because the magazine would never even consider publishing any such article even if on the odd chance it did have scientific merit.

perhaps creationist ideas never make it into scientific journals precisely because those ideas are nonsensical and unscientific. the putative political favoritism of this journal or that journal need not enter the question.

[sharrukin]

Originally Posted by sharrukin
How could I come up with a creationist scientific claim that is worth publishing when their claims are basically nonsense? Do you honestly believe they make sense?
if you believe that, then why state:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
The Creationists do not attempt to get published in Nature because the magazine would never even consider publishing any such article even if on the odd chance it did have scientific merit.

perhaps creationist ideas never make it into scientific journals precisely because those ideas are nonsensical and unscientific. the putative political favoritism of this journal or that journal need not enter the question.

The two statements are perfectly compatible! I don't have too believe the creationist argument to also believe that Nature magazine for political reasons would not treat any claims from them fairly.

[A.Saturnus]

How could I come up with a creationist scientific claim that is worth publishing when their claims are basically nonsense? Do you honestly believe they make sense?

Ok, can you come up with any attack on darwinism that is worth publishing? Right now we have creationist claims which are not worth publishing and not published and people like Gould who criticize specific schools of darwinism that are worth publishing and published. That is all as it is supposed to be. To say that a reasonable critique of evolution theory would not be published if it existed is purely hypothetical and in addition only a concern about the scientific honesty of research journals and not about evolution theory.