I don't think that's the point he's trying to make. The point is that information should not be presented as absolute truth. When you go from Ukraine to USA you realize people have trouble coinciding, in science just as in religion.
There's no such thing as absolute truth so, nothing should ever be taught or treated as such.
But, the Theory of Evolution, just like the Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Gravity, are all Scientific theories in which even though there are holes, they are strong enough to be taught as such.
Intelligent design should not be on the same level, because ID is merely a hypothesis with no data to support it. Hence why I do not support teaching children ID on the same level as Evolution.
Intelligent design should not be on the same level, because ID is merely a hypothesis with no data to support it. Hence why I do not support teaching children ID on the same level as Evolution.
If there was no data to support it it would no exist. Go research it. It mainly hinges on the holes in Evolutionary theory, true, but it draws its conclusions from the data extracted from that research. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but to say there's no data supporting it seems wrong to me.
1. a hypothesis doesn't need data to exist, it needs data to enter the Scientific Method
2. "It mainly hinges on the holes in Evolutionary theory, true, but it draws its conclusions from the data extracted from that research."
Sounds like "god-of-the-gaps"
One of the ideas that I can shoot right out of my head is this:
The flagellum of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells cannot have evolved. In the in-between time, the creature would be unable to attain food, escape other predators on the microbiological level, and thus survive. They would all die out. So, when the creature came in to existence, it had to be instantaneous. Therefore something created them instantly.
That is a series of logical arguments that had its roots in basic research (data), and the resulting thought is a theory.
No spamming (including: unnecessary single-word posts; intentional double posts)
Spamming basically means useless or unwanted posting, such as repeatedly making off-topic replies; posting excessively about the same thing (eg: asking people to visit your site), persistently making short or one-word replies, replying to your own posts or making multiple polls in a single forum in one day. "Rent-a-modding," which means posting in a thread to announce that it is against the rules, or it is going to get locked, etc. is considered spamming and is not allowed. Responding to Ad-Spam is also considered spamming.
It is also wise to check if a thread about a certain topic already exists. Making duplicate threads is considered spamming.
One of the ideas that I can shoot right out of my head is this:
The flagellum of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells cannot have evolved. In the in-between time, the creature would be unable to attain food, escape other predators on the microbiological level, and thus sruvive. They would all die out. So, when the creature came in to existance, it had to be instantaneous. Therefore something created them instantly.
That is a series of logical arguments that had its roots in basic research (data), and the resulting thought is a theory.
Thank you for the link, I was unaware, forgive me.
ok
Your idea is not a theory it is a hypothesis, and yes I know you are referring to Irreducible complexity from Michael Behe. Anyways that is a "god-of-the-gaps" argument. It is the same argument when people didn't know where thunder [Edit: and lightning] came from...so it had to be Thor.
The "god-of-the-gaps" argument is intellectually bankrupt.
[Edit again: misspelled argument 2 out of 3 times lol]
Thank you for the link, I was unaware, forgive me.
I'm not a moderator so I don't really care; I was just saying it in case one happens to chance upon this thread.
ok
Your idea is not a theory it is a hypothesis, and yes I know you are referring to Irreducible complexity from Michael Behe. Anyways that is a "god-of-the-gaps" argument. It is the same arguement when people didn't know where thunder [Edit: and lightning] came from...so it had to be Thor.
The "god-of-the-gaps" arguement is itellectually bankrupt.
It is not my idea- I was just properly explaining a facet of it since you were not. I'm glad you are intelligent enough to put a name to it, I wasn't masquerading to any other affect.
It offers a reasonable argument that Evolutionary theory cannot explain, and it offers a solution. When Charles Darwin originally arrived at the Galapagos Islands and observed the finches, I could say the same thing. He didn't know what was causing it so he surmised that it must be evolution (which he called selective race survival). Evolution was his god- it ruled his life and his life was devoted to it, and from it he derived the conclusion that all of life's problems can be solved by it, which is the definition of a god and devotion to one.
I'm not a moderator so I don't really care; I was just saying it in case one happens to chance upon this thread.
It is not my idea- I was just properly explaining a facet of it since you were not. I'm glad you are intelligent enough to put a name to it, I wasn't masquerading to any other affect.
It offers a reasonable argument that Evolutionary theory cannot explain, and it offers a solution. When Charles Darwin originally arrived at the Galapagos Islands and observed the finches, I could say the same thing. He didn't know what was causing it so he surmised that it must be evolution (which he called selective race survival). Evolution was his god- it ruled his life and his life was devoted to it, and from it he derived the conclusion that all of life's problems can be solved by it, which is the definition of a god and devotion to one.
I know you were giving an example of ID through IC but I was showing why IC is intellectually bankrupt.
If you want a good video explaining the evolution of the Flagellum i suggest this one
You seem to be misunderstanding the circumstances here. I'm not saying it's true or not. I'm saying all ideas have the right to be taught. I'm not debating its validity, only its equal and unbiased representation.
You seem to be misunderstanding the circumstances here. I'm not saying it's true or not. I'm saying all ideas have the right to be taught. I'm not debating its validity, only its equal and unbiased representation.
Which it will when it enters the gauntlet of the Scientific Method and comes out
[Edit: here's the thing though, Science determines what will be taught in Science classes, how is it unbiased if evolution, which was been the extreme scrutiny throughout it's life span and is continually getting stronger with every suspicious eye and has been through the Scientific Method and come out victorious, is taught with Intelligent Design/Creationism, which falls apart at intense scrutiny and has not even passed the first step of the Scientific Method?]
Evolution is getting stronger as religion is getting weaker. If a person doesn't believe in God, they need some other explanation, so they go after evolution. I don't see anything scientific about it.
You seriously think everyone who believes into evolution has a PhD in science and has explored everything that evolution deals with? Most of the people follow it because it's an alternative to religion.
People have trouble living as "I don't know".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But, the Theory of Evolution, just like the Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Gravity, are all Scientific theories in which even though there are holes, they are strong enough to be taught as such.
Intelligent design should not be on the same level, because ID is merely a hypothesis with no data to support it. Hence why I do not support teaching children ID on the same level as Evolution.
2. "It mainly hinges on the holes in Evolutionary theory, true, but it draws its conclusions from the data extracted from that research."
Sounds like "god-of-the-gaps"
One of the ideas that I can shoot right out of my head is this:
The flagellum of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells cannot have evolved. In the in-between time, the creature would be unable to attain food, escape other predators on the microbiological level, and thus survive. They would all die out. So, when the creature came in to existence, it had to be instantaneous. Therefore something created them instantly.
That is a series of logical arguments that had its roots in basic research (data), and the resulting thought is a theory.
Please also be sure to read the Forum Posting Rules and Etiquette located at the top of every thread listing (here: http://www.diablofans.com/forums/announcement.php?f=43.) Multiple-posting is against the rules:
Thank you for the link, I was unaware, forgive me.
ok
Your idea is not a theory it is a hypothesis, and yes I know you are referring to Irreducible complexity from Michael Behe. Anyways that is a "god-of-the-gaps" argument. It is the same argument when people didn't know where thunder [Edit: and lightning] came from...so it had to be Thor.
The "god-of-the-gaps" argument is intellectually bankrupt.
[Edit again: misspelled argument 2 out of 3 times lol]
It is not my idea- I was just properly explaining a facet of it since you were not. I'm glad you are intelligent enough to put a name to it, I wasn't masquerading to any other affect.
It offers a reasonable argument that Evolutionary theory cannot explain, and it offers a solution. When Charles Darwin originally arrived at the Galapagos Islands and observed the finches, I could say the same thing. He didn't know what was causing it so he surmised that it must be evolution (which he called selective race survival). Evolution was his god- it ruled his life and his life was devoted to it, and from it he derived the conclusion that all of life's problems can be solved by it, which is the definition of a god and devotion to one.
I know you were giving an example of ID through IC but I was showing why IC is intellectually bankrupt.
If you want a good video explaining the evolution of the Flagellum i suggest this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
[Edit: you are right it is a explanation, but what evidences can you provide to reinforce it?]
You seem to be misunderstanding the circumstances here. I'm not saying it's true or not. I'm saying all ideas have the right to be taught. I'm not debating its validity, only its equal and unbiased representation.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Where there is truth, he must find.
Where there is destruction, he must rebuild.
Where there is love, he must protect."
World's Fair Exhibit
"God gave us memories, that in life's garden we may have June roses in December."
John Barrie
Which it will when it enters the gauntlet of the Scientific Method and comes out
[Edit: here's the thing though, Science determines what will be taught in Science classes, how is it unbiased if evolution, which was been the extreme scrutiny throughout it's life span and is continually getting stronger with every suspicious eye and has been through the Scientific Method and come out victorious, is taught with Intelligent Design/Creationism, which falls apart at intense scrutiny and has not even passed the first step of the Scientific Method?]
People have trouble living as "I don't know".