BlogHop.com
Evolution, Theory or Science part II
The debate over evolution vs. Intelligent design hinges on the question of ID as science. I don't see evolution as an explanation for the origin of the complexity of life, i.e. macro evolution, as qualifying as science. Rather evolution remains conjecture. As such it should be excluded from science classes as ID has for the same reason, it is a philosophical presupposition for which evidence is yet to be presented other than estimates and presumptions.
Morphologically complex metazoans appear abruptly during the Cambrian explosion. Suggested measures of metazoan complexity include number of cell morphotypes and aspects of the genome such as the amount of DNA, the number of genes, and the information content of the genome or egg. Estimates of gene numbers are now available for metazoan species belonging to five different phyla or subphyla. There is little correlation between gene number and morphological complexity in the invertebrates: relatively complex forms can have fewer genes than relatively simple forms. Presumably, the more complex forms use more gene-expression events during development, implying that, on average, cis-regulatory elements of more complex invertebrates are richer in binding sites than are those of simpler forms.
James W. Valentine. Museum of Paleontology and Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720. Jwv@ucmp1.berkeley.edu
The emphasis is mine. Notice that there is no evidence other than these conjectures. I'm not saying that his analysis is correct or not, but that it holds no conclusive evidence so remains a philosophical issue just as ID. As a philosophy evolution has no more a place in science class than ID. If one is presented in a science class than both should side by side as competeing theories.
Back to Basil's
posted by Xyba | 8:50 AM
3 Comments:
|I see both evolution and intelligent design as viable science topics. Evolution is a theory just as is intelligent design, or creationism. Evolution has scientific evidence to support it. Intelligent design or creationism, althought viable theories, do not have support. But I think both should be taught because both are theories, which could hold the true answers to our origins.
Intelligent design is nothing more than the latest nom de plume for biblical creationism. Its proponents are recycling the same tired falsehoods and cynical distortions they have been using for decades. Even Behe, their current favorite spokesman, puts forth what is at best a weak objection to evolutionary theory.
It is not uncommon in science for competing theories to arise. When the proponents of a theory resort to politics instead of persuasion to advance their argument, it is a sign of a weak argument.
Another sign that creationism is not science is the fact that the vast majority of its proponents are not scientists. By that I mean they have not done the hard study that would lead to actual expertise in the fields they wish to critisize. The few exceptions are usually scientists with expertise in some field other than that in which they push their creationist objections.
Science is a social pursuit in the sense that, to be taken seriously by those who work in a given field, one must develop a reputation for accuracy, honesty, and insight over time. Creationists rarely if ever do this, and as a result they are always the outsiders ranting about things they don't fully understand.
The question of what should be taught in schools, however, is not strictly in the realm of science. I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in schools, so long as we don't confuse the students by pretending that it is science. To call creationism science is dishonest and unnecessary.
COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. A real monkey wrench is about to hit both sides in the ID vs Evolution debate and particularly religion is in for difficult times. For a wholly new interpretation of the teachings of Christ, contained within the first ever religious claim and proof that meets all the criteria of the most rigorous, evidential, testable scientific method, is published and circulating on the web. It is titled The Final Freedoms. An intellectual, religious and political bombshell!
It is described by a single Law and moral principle, offering its own proof, one in which the reality of God confirms and responds to an act of perfect faith, by a direct intervention into the natural world, delivering a correction to human nature, including a change in natural law [biology], consciousness and human ethical perception [proof of the soul], providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition!
So while proponents of ID may have got the God part right, if this development demonstrates itself to be what it claims, and the means exist to do so, all religious teaching, tradition and understanding of ID are wholly in error, while the proponents of evolution who have rightly used that conception to beat down the credibility of religious tradition, but who have also used it to deny the potential for God, are in for a very rude shock.
However improbable, what history and theology have presumed to be impossible is now all too achievable. The implications defy imagination! No joke, no hoax and not spam.
Review copies of the manuscript, prior to paper publication, are a free pdf download from a number of sites including: www.energon.uklinux.net and http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com
Post a Comment
<< Home