JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views
The fact is, a scientific paper should be accepted on the basis of its science, not the personal religious beliefs of the author (In America that is the law in employment) but the fact that this is this is not in fact the case means that if one wants to survive in academia one avoids words that trigger prejudice.
Jerry, are non-falsifiable theories generally accepted as scientific? ID and Creationism, regardless of the detail, are non-falsifiable. If ID is falsifiable (as you claim it is) would you please explain (as in type, not use your standard 'can't answer the question? choke them with references' technique) how I would falsify the existence of the designer that ID postulates?
Sad but true. Look at happened to the jews in Nazi Germany. I know many leading ID supporters that are scientists that are in the closet but became very famous. They recognize the reality and need to support their family so try to avoid prejudice. Some come out only when they become successful. Note the following case.
That is a dishonest argument. Jews were discriminated against in
To anyone who gives a, this claim (ID =SETI) by Jerry is based on the fact that he defines ID as ‘evolution guided by intelligence’, roughly speaking. ID is also referred to by engineers and others to refer to the process of making something that works well for what it does and has been shaped by what it does, or the nature of design obvious in such an object.
But, people unaware of this would assume he was saying that SETI was based on the theory of evolution guided by intelligence. Well it isn’t, and thus if ID was disproved tomorrow, it would carry on.
In the context of SETI and radio signals, ID means “something that works well for what it does and has been shaped by what it does”. A radio signal is a good method of propagating information at high speed, and would carry that information in a fashion that allowed it to be efficiently extracted when received.
Thus receiving 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 etc. in a signal would be a fairly clear sign of an intelligence originating a signal, but not of evolution guided by intelligence.
Jerry, again I feel you have made a careless, sloppily phrased, and easily misinterpreted statement that gives greater weight to ID as you see it (evolution guided by intelligence) by seeming to say SETI is based on it, when in fact SETI is based on common sense, that you don’t get a comprehensible signal from static, but from a sender.
Jerry, are non-falsifiable theories generally accepted as scientific? ID and Creationism, regardless of the detail, are non-falsifiable. If ID is falsifiable (as you claim it is) would you please explain (as in type, not use your standard 'can't answer the question? If Neo-Darwinism is empirically proven, clearly ID and creationism are both falsified (and I would have to switch sides). Many scientists claim not only that it is falsifiable but has been falsified. Read Dawkins, Gould and many others such as Eldridge. This is one of their main points.
That is a dishonest argument. Not at all. I have had articles accepted in writings (with glowing reviews) then my religious views were found out and the journal would not even answer my letters as why the article never appeared. I have been beaten up twice openly because of my views and the American government refused to do anything. Serves me right, they said. Do you know what it is like to get death threats? It is not fun. Shall I go on? I know that the American government is very corrupt and one study found that one out of seven inmates on death row were innocent (mostly exonerated by DNA) and all of this does not endear me to my government much. It may interest you to know that I have interviewed hundreds of creationists for a book that I wrote and, of the out of the closet breed, all but two were denied tenure at state colleges (I am one of those rare birds; I was awarded tenure at a state college of over 4,000 students to teach biology and biochemistry in a science department; Prof. Keith who teaches at a major State University is the other one). Many creationists were also denied tenure at "Christian" colleges (including me although my Witness background probably was part of it). Those creationists in the closet do very well, though. Also, out of the closet ID advocates don't do too much better. This is pure hate.
I think that this whole argument is ultimately pointless - because it started over an issue that did not exist except in the minds of some (whether or not Scientists have the right to be Creationists). It can't be resolved, because the issue is not being discussed.
Do scientists have the right to be creationists? The general consensus of the scientific community is "No!" Because the whole concept of a personal God is so repugnant to most of the set that believes that the Universe, whether God made it or no, is operating by laws that can be comprehended and understood - laws which are not set aside at the whim of some great Beard in the Sky.
Do creationists have the right to be Scientists? They do their damndest not to be - with their prevarications, lies, and half-truths - all of which revolve around a very narrow interpretation of Genesis, written 3500 years ago in the middle of the desert by a guy who was trying to build a national identity out of a group of escaped Egyptian slaves.
Not that science, with Rem's vaunted Internet, is so great. If it is, then why can't I download an illegal copy of Eminem's latest hit? Huh? Answer me, medicine man! What the hell is wrong with morpheus?
Name one disease that religion has cured. One toilet it got to flush. Name one instance when, provably, religion did anything except wake me up early on Sunday.
Neither side can give me the answers I truly need. Only sweet alcohol can do that...
"""Ah, wonderful. Now, Thi-Chi, what are you saying? You can't be complaining about science discovering new things, or refining theories in light of new knowledge. It wouldn't be reasonable. And surely a balanced and reasonable poster like you would not be starting an unprovoked ideological attack on other posters?"""
My points are:
1. If "facts" keep changing from month to month, year to year, then there must be room for counter viewpoints, instead of the condescending remarks I read here.
2. The fact is no one can prove of disprove the other. If someone thinks they can, then that person is a blind idiot.
"""""You can't be complaining about science discovering new things, or refining theories in light of new knowledge"""""
Wow, you sound like the Watchtower! We are getting "New light" so why concentrate on the "fact today is fiction tomorrow" aspect? I am all for debate regarding the matter, but when some here take a "I am above you" because I believe in this as a "fact"(a term used loosely around here), then you can count me out! Who knows?
funny and good post!
hmmmm it seems as if you would not know too much about science and how it works.
science is an iteration process. new data is collected with experiments based on current hypothesis. new theories (or refined theories) are developed based on the results of these experiments. there is no space for faith.
There you go again:
hmmmm it seems as if you would not know too much about science and how it works.
science is an iteration process. new data is collected with experiments based on current hypothesis. new theories (or refined theories) are developed based on the results of these experiments. there is no space for faith. ""
I am not refuting this. However, the fact remains that inconsistency, revisions and constant constriction of the time line has allowed many "theories" to take shape that even fellow evo’s can’t agree on to even form a "majority."
Does that not worry you one bit? Can you stand here and state "I know" to all of us and not twich a little bit about what may be reality or just conjecture? The "fact" is, many Scientists can be found on both sides of this coin......So what? Who knows? I know more than you...is BS when you look at the record.
Plus, you overlooked many good points made by the "other" side...why?
just to clearify this...i am a biologist....so i pretty much know how science works and what evidence there is for evolution.
the scientific debate is not about whether evolution occures or not (since this is certain for many reasons which we can discuss if you want) but for instance what selective forces are at work that cause species to change form. its a discussion about "technical details" not about the fact of evolution.
It is a common perception that Darwin's theory of evolution is as well-supported a scientific theory as Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's theory of relativity. Though evolutionary theory has changed much since Darwin's time, it's fundamental weaknesses, which Darwin himself recognized, remain unexplained today by evolutionary biologists.
Before any of the evidence is discussed, however, it should be noted that evolutionary theory can NEVER be as well-supported as Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's theory of relativity simply because evolutionary theory is a historical science of biological origins. This is not a fault of evolution per se, for historical sciences investigate unrepeatable events of the past. Just like a historian trying to reconstruct the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, evolutionary biologists deal with theories trying to account for past events of evolutionary history. They look at evidence and make inferences about what they hypothesize happened. There can be no experiments, such as those showing that apples always fall to the ground or that the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, which can prove evolution happened.
Many scientists say that although evolution isn't proven, that it's still the "best" theory we have to explain the origins of life-forms on earth. These sorts of statements keep evolution alive and well in secular academia (which the public has typically trusted as objective and unbiased in their methodologies). However, these assertions deny a host of counter-evidences showing that evolution didn't occur, and cover up for a purely philosophical definition of science which excludes the possibility that there was an intelligent designing Creator a priori. Much as we might expect, evolutionary theory shows that theories which don't start with God, don't end with God, and run contrary to the observed data. The following is a brief qualitative discussion of some of the most common types of evidences against the theory of evolution:
Darwin himself realized that there were certain types of biological structures which Darwinian evolution simply couldn't create. Darwinian evolution works by a process called the mutation-selection mechanism. Purely random mutations in the DNA create new types of organisms, and those organisms which are better at surviving and reproducing tend to leave more offspring. Over time, populations of organisms change as those which are best suited to the environment get "selected" (i.e. they survive and reproduce better). The catch to all of this is that changes must occur at a very slow pace, one little mutation at a time. Also, biological systems produced by evolution must be functional (i.e. confer some benefit to the organism) at every little step along their evolutionary path. For this reason, Darwin said:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
(Charles Darwin, Origin of Species)
Molecular biologist Michael Behe recently noted in his book, "Darwin's Black Box", that there are a host of biochemical systems which function much like machines. These machines work only if all the necessary parts are present for if one part is removed, the entire machine breaks down. These systems defy an evolutionary origin, because they cannot be built up in a step-by-step manner. Examples Behe gives include the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting mechanism, and the biochemical processes behind vision. Reverse-engineering of these and other biological structures shows that evolutionary processes weren't at work in creating them.
William Dembski, in "The Design Inference" and "No Free Lunch" shows that Darwinian processes cannot explain much of biological complexity. Biological organisms--both at the macro and micro level--exhibit this sort of "irreducible complexity" and "specified, complex information. These properties of biological systems cannot be explained by evolution.
In the 19 th century, long before the discovery of DNA, Gregory Mendel realized that biological traits are passed down in an orderly manner, which today we know happens through DNA, chromosomes, and genes. Darwin's theory predicts that if all organisms share a common ancestor, then patterns of genes will reflect the line-of-descent and biologists should be able to construct well-ordered family trees going all the way back to a common ancestor for all living organisms simply by looking at the genetic makeup of an organism. However, comparisons of different DNA sequences and gene distributions often yield evolutionary trees which contradict one-another, meaning that there is no grand "tree of life" which can be constructed showing that all organisms are interrelated. In fact, the best explanation for this phenomenon is that there was a common "design" behind these organisms by a "designer", not "common descent." Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells’ in "Icons of Evolution" or molecular biologist Michael Denton in, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" both give good explanations of this problem.
Many who took evolution in school probably heard the phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", meaning that evolutionary history is reflected during the growth and develpoment of an organism. A common evidence for this is the alleged presence of fish gills in human embryos during growth. Though humans do indeed have gill-like structures (very different from gills--they're more like small wrinkles in the neck) this classic evidence for evolution has been debunked as it has been shown that it's originator, Ernst Haeckel, faked the data. In fact, comparisons of embryos of humans, fish, chickens, and amphibians show that organisms develop in a way NOT predicted by evolutionary theory. These embryos begin very different, briefly become somewhat similar at an intermediate stage, and then end very different. If ontogeny really does recapitulate phylogeny, and these organisms have a common ancestry, embryos should be similar from the very beginning and grow more different during development. This, however, is not the case, making this a powerful evidence against common ancestry. Again, Jonathan Wells’ book, "Icons of Evolution" is a good reference for this evidence.
It is a common misperception that "natural selection" or "speciation" (macroevolution) are all there is to evolutionary theory. If "natural selection" or "speciation" are true, then somehow people assume that evolution works fine to explain everything. In fact, natural selection is only half of the mechanism behind evolutionary theory, and evidence for "speciation" often depends only on the definition of terms which biologists use.
Natural selection is a fact, but all it really means is non-random death. In fact, it is a mere mathematical certainty given variation in a species and "selection pressure" fromthe environment. But before natural selection can become important, there first must be variation upon which selection can act. The problem for evolution lies in the mutation-selection mechanism, where random mutations--the ultimate originator of all variation--must somehow account for the origin of the vast and often irreducible complexity (mentioned above) of life on earth. Natural selection would still give us no answer to answer to the question "how did the different shades of moths originate in the first place?"
Speciation is simply a term evolutionary biologists use to describe the processes by which new species evolve in the wild--though it is often equated with "macroevolution". However, when evolutionists claim evidence for "speciation", they have often only witnessed trivial microevolutionary changes in two very similar populations.
A good example is "Darwin's Finches" in the Galapagos Islands. Darwin found that different islands had different finch populations, and concluded that all the finches were descended from a single finch population which migrated to the Islands long ago. Because these finches live on different islands, they are "reproductively isolated" (a typical definition for a species), and we call them separate species. But have we really witnessed any radical evolution here? The differences between the finch "species" are almost trivial--the main difference lies only in slight changes in the size of their finch beaks, and the finches can still interbreed in captivity. Evidences like these do not tell us how important macrevolutionary transitions took place--such as the evolution of beaks, wings, feathers, or humans--in the first place. In fact, these testify that even after many many generations of reproductive isolation, populations tend to change very little, providing evidence against evolution of very different species.
Perhaps the classic argument against evolutionary theory comes from the fossilized remains of organisms found to have existed throughout time. If purely natural evolution has actually occurred in the past and all living organisms share a common ancestor then one ought to find the fossilized transitions between one form and another in the fossil record. However, it has been well known since Darwin's time that plausible "transitional fossils" rarely exist:
"... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Darwin, C. (1859) The Origin of Species (Reprint of the first edition) Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, New York, 1979, p. 292)
Out of tens of thousands of species known from the fossil record, only a few are claimed to be Darwin's missing transitional forms. However, a close analysis of these few fossils (commonly cited ones are Archaeopteryx (a bird), Ambulocetus (a land mammal), and Acanthostega (an amphibian)) reveal that they do not shed any light on the origin of the important features of their respective groups. Harvard paleontologist Stephen J. Gould said,
" The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould, 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)
Gould proposed a theory called "Punctuated Equilibrium" which is meant to account for the lack of transitional forms, saying we don’t find transitional forms because transitions didn’t have a chance to be fossilized. But punctuated equilibrium does not fit with the workings of genetics--too much biological complexity must be built with far too few rolls of the dice. The lack of transitional forms remains unaccounted for and is a strong evidence against evolution. See Phillip Johnson’s, "Darwin on Trial" for a good account of problems with the fossil record.
The point is other Biologists disagree with you.......