Re: Ben Stein's Movie EXPELLED - Could we have been "designed"

Tokay Pino Gris wrote:
> 
> Bill Bonde ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack' )
wrote:
> >
> > "Brian E. Clark" wrote:
> >> In article <481B1670.C91458AD@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Bill Bonde
> >> ( 'the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal
> >> attack' ) said...
> >>
> >>> Creationism "jibes" with known facts.
> >> Alas for you, no. The creationist notion of a kind, to
> >> mention just one problem, is at odds with biological
> >> reality. Likewise the contention made by creationists
> >> that microevolution and macroevolution describe two
> >> very different phenomena is incorrect on both
> >> evidentiary and conceptual grounds.
> >>
> > Really? If it can be shown that polar bears and grizzly bears are
> > types of brown bear, does that proof that bears are related to
> > fish? No, it doesn't. The idea that all the creatures that exist
> > today must be "kinds" is absurd. If "microevolution" were to exist,
> > the various "kinds" could ****ft to accommodate their environs, but
> > still be "kinds".
> 
> Now "micro" evolution is doubted? Besides the thing that "micro" and
> "macro" only differ in timescale.
> 
Let's say that within a creature is the ability to rapidly make
various changes, for example in size, the amount of fur, other
things. Would that be qualitatively different than changing into
another species by some mechanism of actual genetic change?



> And still.... STILL.... no explanation what a "kind" is.
> 
I think I've discussed the concept of "proto-species" enough to
have reasonably established at least one possibility.




> >
> > The fact that life generally uses DNA doesn't prove a common
> > evolutionary ancestry any more than the fact that IBM and Apple
> > both use solder proves that their computers are made by the same
> > company. If space aliens (or God) put Life on earth based on
> > "kinds", why not use the same underlying technology?
> 
> WTF is a kind?
> Can you or can you not answer that question?
> 
I think that it's what I've been calling a proto-species.




> If you can, why don't you do it?
> If you can't, why use that word?
> 
I'm pretty sure that you brought up the terminology "kinds". I've
not read much (or anything) in the creationist literature so I
don't know their terminology. 


> >>> In fact, Creationism has no problem explaining
> >>> everything that we see today.
> >> Creationism explains nothing. "God did it" is not a
> >> scientific explanation.
> >>
> > This is because it isn't falsifiable. But there is no doubt that it
> > is an explanation and it can be ****fted to conform with any
> > observation or experiment.
> 
> Yep. Which - if you come down to it - doesn't explain anything.
> 
Creationism isn't a scientific theory.



>   You might find the ****fts unbelievable,
> > but that doesn't stop string theorists either.
> 
> Because string theory is MATHS.
> 
I think that string theory is an attempt to use some maths to
develop ideas about the physical universe, unifying everything, as
it were..




> >
> >> More elaborate descriptions
> >> amount to the same thing. "God gave squirrels the fur,
> >> fluffy tails and large incisors they need to fill
> >> the niche he created for them" is meaningless from a
> >> scientific point of view.
> >>
> > Keep in mind, you are replying to the following: " Creationism has
> > no problem explaining everything that we see today." Creationism,
> > as you describe it, isn't a scientific theory. But it is an
> > explanation.
> 
> Yes. And an equally satisfactory explanation would be "the great
> buggaboo did it".
> 
I guess it depends on how you define "satisfactory".



> It IS an explanation. But it is USELESS.
> 
A good theory should have predictive power and should be useful.
Creationism has been about as useful as string theory, actually.



> >>>> String theory differs from Creationism in another way:
> >>>> When technology has advanced such that the predictions
> >>>> of string theory can be tested, string theory will
> >>>> stand or fall by the results of the tests.
> >>>>
> >>> Or they'll just change to a new string theory.
> >> So what? That's how science progresses. The new
> >> theory will, like the others, be vulnerable to the
> >> blade of disproof.
> >>
> > If the theory is infinitely malleable, the theory will not submit
> > to falsification.
> 
> String theory is falsifiable in theory. We just don't have the means yet
> to actually test it.
> 
But the problem is, string theory is infinitely malleable,
therefore if you falsify it, it just changes. This is like how "God
did it" can change to include anything that happens. Of course "God
did it" is faith and string theory is supposed to be science.



> Scientific theories (and btw, string theory is not a scientific theory.
> It is a mathematical concept) are ALWAYS vulnerable to evidence. Forever
> and ever, RAMEN.
> 
What we are getting to when we discuss string theory in this
context is what is a scientific theory.




> >> All the while, though, creationists will be insisting
> >> that their own long-disproved ideas be treated as
> >> viable alternative theories.
> >>
> > What makes "God did it" worse than "Let's add in a few more
> > dimensions to fix up this observation or experiment"?
> 
> It's not "to fix up" observation. The observation is there. And if it
> doesn't add up with the theory, the theory needs modification. That's
> the way it is. Observations, you can't change. So, if the observation is
> not in accordance with the theory, the theory is false. Simple as that.
> 
So you "fix it up" by adding a few more dimensions or something.




> M-theory didn't work with ten dimensions. Keep in mind that it is maths.
> So, they added another dimension to the concept. Mathematically it
works.
> 
I actually find this interesting. I think that there are probably
many ways to represent reality that point to another underlying
theory. Later we'll find out they are just ways to express the same
thing. This has happened many times before.



> That IS the way science works. Also, M-theory is not a scientific
> theroy. It is a mathematical concept.
> 
I don't think that's fair. I think that M-theory and string
theories in general are not just maths. They use tools of maths but
they attempt to be more. Within themselves, they only require
consistency, to be within the realm of mathematics.



> >> This is where you get very confused about the
> >> difference between scientific inquiry and creationism,
> >> Bill. Making wrong guesses is not unscientific.
> >> Clinging to wrong guesses is.
> >>
> > There is no scientific evidence against the existence of "God".
> 
> Because it is not falsifiable. Not even in theory.
>
The problem is that you are defining "God" in a special way, that
is not bounded by any rules of science. So within that limited
meaning of "God", there's always some way for "God" to outsmart us.



> We've covered that
> ENDLESSLY. There can be no "evidence against the existence of god"
> because the question doesn't ALLOW for it.
>
I don't think that the question is very well defined. I agree that
this has been discussed before, and a lot.


 
> Falsify "There are black swans". It is the same sort of question. It
> CAN'T be falsified.
> 
> (That's the reason science doesn't USE such questions)
> 
It has to be expressed in a way that you can falsify. If you look
at all the swans and none are black, that's evidence that there
aren't any black ones. But then we get into the question of what
"all" means. So the question "There are black swans" should be
rephrased, not the whole thing just tossed out as not part of
science.



-- 
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people
laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"