Evolution, Science And Education

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray+Feb 4 2005, 11:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Feb 4 2005, 11:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@

Research, hypothesis, experimental design, data and observations, analysis of data and observations and conclusion (theory). If you can't apply those steps before arriving at the conclusion or theory, then you haven't done science, pure and simple.

Research: to find or obtain information from a source. A source may be considered credible when in truth it is not, and conversely, a source may not be considered credible even when in truth it is. A source considered credible may also possess information that is not true, and a source not considered credible may have information that is true. Thus it would help to have some way to be able to find the truth from wherever the truth can be found, and not merely to rely upon a source as knowing the truth in all things simply because it has been found to know the truth in some things, or conversely.

Hypothesis: a reasonable explanation of available information. One hypothesis is often discounted for another when more information is found. It is important to note that a reasonable explanation may not be true, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Experimental design: a design or pattern used to test information, usually to determine whether the source information or hypothesis can be considered credible. As with an hypothesis, this pattern or test may be discounted if new information is found or found to be more credible, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Data and observations: The type of information that is obtained through research. See the definition for research above. It is important to note that data and observations recorded in a book are not necessarily true merely because that data and observations have been recorded in a book, even if that book is very old. Thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Analysis of data: The process of reviewing and organizing or classifying information obtained through research or a personal witness, with the analysis usually resulting in a hypothesis. It is important to note that an analysis may not be true (or honest), so the analysis may be discarded once the information is analyzed again or new information is obtained which leads to a more reasonable explanation (or hypothesis). Thus is would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Conclusion (theory): a reasonable explanation of information which has been tested for credibility. As with the others steps involved in this scientific method concerning information, a conclusion (or theory) may be discounted once the information has been reconsidered or new information has been found, thus it would still help to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Now, in conclusion of my summary of these steps involving the scientific methods concerning information, I testify that our greatest source of information and truth is God, and to know the truth from God we must research information from God by reading the scriptures and everything else people claim has come through revelations from God (an analysis of data using data and observations), study that information and reflect upon it in our minds (experimental design), form a reasonable explanation (hypothesis) about it, and ask God if we correctly understand and interpret the information He has given us, thus providing a conclusion (theory) to our search for the truth. If we do everything but ask God if we correctly understand Him, or fail to wait for a response from Him to assure us (give us faith) that we correctly understand Him, we are merely relying upon what we think is right and thus it would still help to be able to have some way to be able to find and know the truth.

Well, that's just dandy! Since God is the source of all truth, we can do away with all this science stuff and wait for God to reveal it. Personally, I'm sure glad we didn't wait for God to reveal heart by pass surgery and that we humans employed the scientific method instead. Frankly, I've yet seen God reveal anything to scientists where they didn't give it a big dose of the SM first.

BTW, you completely distorted the meaning of experimental design. Read up, friend. What you described has nothing to do with an experiment. And experiment requires controls and awareness of the variables that can affect the outcome. Scientific experiments to be valid must account for dependent and independent variables. How does your definition fit in with that?

For example, when you get a flash of revelation on how to cure diabetes, without doing any legitimate scientifc research, how do you know that information came from God, and not the ability of the human mind to gather facts and solve problems. By the way, when was the last time a cure to a major human disease was found without applying the scientific method, as I described it?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined@Feb 4 2005, 04:21 AM

Intelligent Design is an interesting subject in its newest guise, enough to have involved the scientific world afresh. Cal has told me that we "lay public" members are confused when we refer to it as a theory. Not so.

I've taken the liberty of reading some of the ID proponents' work, and have found about half (so far) to be of a religious nature, the rest are more vague on their "superior being". All have been well-written, by scientists, people with doctorates in scientific endeavors. The earlier mention Dr. Wells being one, with a Ph.D. in molecular biology from UC; hardly a lay person. Proponents are physicists, biologists and other scientists with a different belief, not crackpot fundamentalists. A link or two:

LINK

LINK

LINK

The rebuttals I've read are pretty convincing and non-inflammatory, that is they do not insult or deride proponents of ID, they simply address the material. Several I've read so far refer to ID as a theory, as do several University web sites. I think it is safe to assume that these scientists are "doing science" when they do so. Notably, none of the rebuttals I've read quibble over the definition of a word when discussing ID, they simply show why they do not consider it feasible.

Some good rebuttal: LINK

I don't claim to know everything about ID or evolution, though I did write a paper in college on primate evolution that would have even Cal quivering with joy. I did not choose to specialize in biology; my degree is in Computer Science. I'm working on my Masters now (why not, you're paying for it! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!).

My feelings on ID: I don't really want to see it taught in schools unless it is in passing discussion of alternative beliefs on the origin of man. Evolution is good science and does not preclude one from religious belief. After all, if you believe in the Great Flood, you pretty much have to believe in some degree of evolution as well.

We can say this; ID is at least challenging scientists to defend evolution and examine every approach offered. The evidence is therefore being examined more closely, and more is bound to be learned about the origins of life on Earth.

Outshined--I will agree that the old semantic trueism that "the word is not the thing" requires that we not quible over the definition of theory. If you insist that something with so little factual or scientific evidence supporting it as ID, is a theory, be my guest.

As I understand it, ID is premised on the idea that nothing as complicated as some of the organic or biochemical systems and structures in living things could have come about as the result of the random interactions of atoms and molecules.

That makes ID a supposition. For it to be a theory, there should be some fact that shows that matter is incapable of complex interaction. It requires some evidence of an interveing agency other than the chemical nature of atoms and molecules to form complex patterns and for those patterns to spontaneously evolve into ever more complex forms.

ID proponents have yet to show that such complexity can NOT arize out of lesser complexity. In fact, there are models of matter that show that, indeed, complexity can and does arize from lesser complex systems.

ID proponents rely on structures like the eye to show that a stucture without function seems to violate the rule of natural selection. However, they igore the clear pattern in nature that shows that simple structures, say like a photoreceptor, can and did go thru a natural progression toward the complex eye, that requires no special forces other than mutation and selection.

If ID is a theory, then, before it shows up in Biology books, it needs, at minimum, a reliable set of observed facts, that can't be just as easily explained using evolutionary theory, since the rest of the facts point DIRECTLY to evolution.

[Jenda]

If ID is a theory, then, before it shows up in Biology books, it needs, at minimum, a reliable set of observed facts, that can't be just as easily explained using evolutionary theory, since the rest of the facts point DIRECTLY to evolution.

Which "facts" are you talking about? The "fact" that they cannot show that, short of creating a test tube environment, they cannot prove that life created itself out of the muck in the ground?

Or because of the "fact" that the Cambrian explosion completely devastates the theory as postulated by Darwin and nobody has come up with a replacement theory?

You keep pointing to little intra-species evolutionary changes taking place, but nobody has argued against that. It is the larger evolutionary changes, the ones that change one species into another, that nobody has been able to prove.

If you know of some, by all means, bring them on.

[Cal]

Originally posted by mark44@Feb 4 2005, 05:35 PM

i think LDS doctrine holds that not only is the universe old, but that every element in it had no beginning anyway, but that's it's eternal, and that we are eternal too. in other words, i have always existed, i myself had no beginning. sure i came to earth and had a mortal beginning. LDS who believe big bang may see it as a process of organization (not creation), yet i have heard of evolutionists who believe a big bang beginning scenario to the start of the universe but who refuse to consider the concept of time, matter and energy/light existing "before" the big bang. that's odd considering that that puts them in the same boat as traditional creationists like catholic creationists who teach creation ex nihilo ie time, matter and energy out of nothing but caused by god, whereas the evolutionists argue the same thing ie time, matter and energy out of nothing but with no cause, just some random chance, but that's impossible, that something came out of nothing....it's not even scientific, so why do these evolutionists hold to a beginning theory for the universe which is not supported by the current laws of physics. may be they soend too much time wrapped up in natural science and biology to even consider the implications of the standard laws of physics?

anyway, i we evolved from monkey type creatures and they from the sea, what does god look like - for those who believe in human evolution but still believe LDS doctrine or any religion- ?

coz who's to say we've stopped evolving, maybe in the next 3 million years we will look as follows:

small thin slender bodies because we will have so much technology we don't need even the little muscle power we use today

hairless as we continue evolving away from our primate beginnings

big heads to house super intelligent and large brains

and big big oval eyes

that might explain all the UFO encounters - we are being visited by the angels who are now perfectly evolved and heavenly father looks just the same - ie no long hair and beard, but a close encounter type humanoid.

There was no "before" the big bang. The big bang created the very space-time continuum in which we exist. Second, matter may have existed in some form at the point of the big bang, but, for sure, it did not consist of atoms as they presently exist--the energy level was way to high for atoms to be present.

Also, please, in your writing, make the distinction between the evolution of the universe, which is primarily the province of physics and chemistry, and organic evolution which is the province of Biology. They pretty much have nothing to do with eachother, other than that the big bang made matter (including carbon) form as it did, with its chemical properties that support life.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by curvette+Feb 2 2005, 09:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 2 2005, 09:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 06:17 PM

(got sidetracked with grandson crying).....well I lost track of where I was going.....

You're a grandma? So, what, you got married when you were twelve? (your cyber aura is so young!)

17 .....and thanks.... I needed the ego booster :) Nope....I'm not over-the-hill yet...... I repeat yet.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Cal+Feb 3 2005, 06:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Feb 3 2005, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 04:04 PM

Scientific theorizing isn't just "guessing,"

PD....some people just don't believe a lot of what men find in science theories to be true. Studies, graphs, facts, logic, guesses, conclusions....some people just can't absorb all the data, findings, and such. I find a lot of it interesting, I love learning others viewpoints and findings.....but personally I take some of it with a grain of salt. Nothing against scientists, they are very intelligent people, and I enjoy listening to them talk. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

That you don't agree, not to be insulting, with something that experts in a field say, makes you sound really silly. It would be like me, as a science teacher saying that I disagree with Sandbergs history of the life of Abraham Lincoln. I'm in no position to HAVE an opinion on it since I haven't read it and am not an expert in the history of the life of Abe Lincoln.

Study the subject, then have an opinion. But this is America, have all the opinions you want! Doesn't mean that those who have some background in the subject aren't going to laugh at you. ( ok, with you )

Well Cal, I have been laughed at before.....and I really don't care anymore

Maybe I should just say that I love "hearing" viewpoints and findings. And I was told a long time ago that I never had to agree with what was being said, as long as I listened. If I agreed with everything I read, or watched, or listened to.....I would be in trouble.

There are so many "experts" out there wanting everyone to believe what they have to say. Who is to say that the "experts in a field" couldn't be wrong? I am old enough to form my own opinion without caring if it makes me sound really silly. And if I do sound silly....maybe I'll feel better knowing that I could make someone laugh.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by lindy9556+Feb 5 2005, 01:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lindy9556 @ Feb 5 2005, 01:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 06:48 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 04:04 PM

Scientific theorizing isn't just "guessing,"

PD....some people just don't believe a lot of what men find in science theories to be true. Studies, graphs, facts, logic, guesses, conclusions....some people just can't absorb all the data, findings, and such. I find a lot of it interesting, I love learning others viewpoints and findings.....but personally I take some of it with a grain of salt. Nothing against scientists, they are very intelligent people, and I enjoy listening to them talk. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

That you don't agree, not to be insulting, with something that experts in a field say, makes you sound really silly. It would be like me, as a science teacher saying that I disagree with Sandbergs history of the life of Abraham Lincoln. I'm in no position to HAVE an opinion on it since I haven't read it and am not an expert in the history of the life of Abe Lincoln.

Study the subject, then have an opinion. But this is America, have all the opinions you want! Doesn't mean that those who have some background in the subject aren't going to laugh at you. ( ok, with you )

Well Cal, I have been laughed at before.....and I really don't care anymore

Maybe I should just say that I love "hearing" viewpoints and findings. And I was told a long time ago that I never had to agree with what was being said, as long as I listened. If I agreed with everything I read, or watched, or listened to.....I would be in trouble.

There are so many "experts" out there wanting everyone to believe what they have to say. Who is to say that the "experts in a field" couldn't be wrong? I am old enough to form my own opinion without caring if it makes me sound really silly. And if I do sound silly....maybe I'll feel better knowing that I could make someone laugh.

Absotutly right on Lindy!!!

[Cal]

Originally posted by lindy9556+Feb 5 2005, 12:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lindy9556 @ Feb 5 2005, 12:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Feb 3 2005, 06:48 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--lindy9556@Feb 2 2005, 04:04 PM

Scientific theorizing isn't just "guessing,"

PD....some people just don't believe a lot of what men find in science theories to be true. Studies, graphs, facts, logic, guesses, conclusions....some people just can't absorb all the data, findings, and such. I find a lot of it interesting, I love learning others viewpoints and findings.....but personally I take some of it with a grain of salt. Nothing against scientists, they are very intelligent people, and I enjoy listening to them talk. Doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

That you don't agree, not to be insulting, with something that experts in a field say, makes you sound really silly. It would be like me, as a science teacher saying that I disagree with Sandbergs history of the life of Abraham Lincoln. I'm in no position to HAVE an opinion on it since I haven't read it and am not an expert in the history of the life of Abe Lincoln.

Study the subject, then have an opinion. But this is America, have all the opinions you want! Doesn't mean that those who have some background in the subject aren't going to laugh at you. ( ok, with you )

Well Cal, I have been laughed at before.....and I really don't care anymore

Maybe I should just say that I love "hearing" viewpoints and findings. And I was told a long time ago that I never had to agree with what was being said, as long as I listened. If I agreed with everything I read, or watched, or listened to.....I would be in trouble.

There are so many "experts" out there wanting everyone to believe what they have to say. Who is to say that the "experts in a field" couldn't be wrong? I am old enough to form my own opinion without caring if it makes me sound really silly. And if I do sound silly....maybe I'll feel better knowing that I could make someone laugh.

Well, if you can't evaluate the credibility of the source then you are doomed to being easily conned by every crack pot that comes along. I'm not saying that I am an expert on very many things, but I do limit my opinions to subjects I have studied, rather than spouting off on things I haven't---or at least acknowledge the limitations of my opinion.