Quote from jem:
What level of confidence do you have to say that human beings exist because of random chance. Would you say greater than 50 percent. Greater than 90%
From the viewpoint of the scientist, whose measuring devices can only investigate natural causes, confidence in human evolution is near 100%.
What level of confidence should the consensus be, before random chance is the only explantion given in a science class room.
Calling evolution random chance suggests a lack of understand of the concept. Evolution is not random, in the sense that change depends upon the environment into which the organism is introduced. Like water in a river, that follows the riverbed, the organism follows the environment.
You can say that the environment is random, but it isn't. The universe ages and entropy increases. Certain environments are caused by certain turbulence in a locale and those environments tend to remain relatively constant for very long periods of time. Within the framework of a localized environment, evolution operates in a less than random fashion, because the organisms that occupy that locale are being molded by the local environmental constraints. For example, in a dry area, the environment selects against mutations that would benefit an organism were it introduced into a wet environment.
Evolution is not "random chance," in the same way that an electron's location is random chance when you are attempting to measure its velocity. That is, the statistical distribution of evolutionary change in an organism is not necessarily binomial, because the distribution is strongly affected by the local environment. That is to say, a dry area will not evolve sea creatures, and visa versa.
Now same two questions go for darwinism.
And then the same two questions go for Evolution.
Pure Darwinism is just the environmental stress placed on the organism. That stress, by itself, does not alter the organism's genetic structure. Evolution requires both environmental stress and mutation. Mutation creates a change that will allow the organism to either benefit or suffer from the environmental stress.
Confidence in mutation/natural selection is nearly 100%, because it has been observed in the laboratory to alter the DNA of biological organisms.
Please give me your explanation for how the universe came to be. What is your level of confidence?
All matter in the universe is expanding outward from the viewpoint of the observer, wherever that observer is located, and the expansion can be modeled mathematically by Hubble's Law.
Background radiation samples suggest that the age of the universe is approximately 14 billion years.
Cosmologists speculate that the expansion suggests that the universe expands outward from a single source, but they don't really know much more than that. However, the aggregate scientific measurements argue against a steady state universe that just appeared in one piece, in its present form.
Should your belief be the only one taught in science classes?
Science should be taught in science class. "Belief" is a personal value judgment. All people have beliefs and some people are scientists, therefore all scientists have beliefs. Those beliefs will filter into science class in exactly the same manner as an English teacher's beliefs will filter into an English class. Cross pollination is an inevitable part of life.
The question is not who's belief should be taught, but whether or not the definition of science should be expanded to include "belief systems." Beliefs will show up whether the definition is changed or not -- but if you expand the definition of science to include beliefs by definition, then there really is no science at all, because the thing that distinguishes science from other human activities is that it is not based on any a priori position or system of values, other than the fundamental view that the universe and its behaviors can be measured and recorded, and that those measurements and recordings of behaviors can be repeated, because the behaviors do not generally change over time.
A scientific conclusion is not the same as a philosophic or theistic conclusion. Example:
The philosopher observes a leaf and believes that it is ordered.
The scientist observes a leaf and measures its ability to convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into plant food.
The philosopher attributes order to a designer.
The scientist doesn't attributes the leaf's abilities to a designer. The scientist just measures the ability, records the results, and concludes as to whether or not the leaf is acting as a converter of energy into plant food.
The philosopher "believes" that teaching the student about the underlying order of the universe, improves the student's ability to understand science.
The scientist just teaches the student about the conversion mechanism and let's the student believe whatever the student wants to believe about the underlying order of the universe.
That scientists are people and they tend to assert their beliefs is unavoidable. But, this does not, in my view, justify redefining science to PERMIT belief, anymore than the fact that a large minority of men get off on looking at pictures of very young children, justifies changing the law to make child pornography legal.
If you apply the above thought process to evolution, you should see why there is a problem, assuming that you have an open mind.
Evolution is merely the measurement and recording of the behavior of DNA under environmental stress over time. That some scientists may attribute this change to random chance, while other scientists may attribute the change to an almighty creator is merely a reflection of the scientists' respective personal beliefs, but those beliefs are not part of the scientific method, nor are they justification for expanding the definition of science to include personal belief systems.
The problem that the scientific community has, is that there is a very large contingent of laypeople who do not wish to accept the fact that evolution occurs, because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, and in the alternative, they propose that a different story be told to science students, i.e., that evolution is a distortion of reality, and that, in fact, life on Earth is the product of the instantaneous transmutation of matter and energy into a fully formed biological organism of whatever characteristic was, at that moment in time, contemplated by the mind of an all powerful supernatural creator.
This second view is not science and it has no scientific support. Those who now hold fast to the concept of "intelligent design" as a means of clinging to their personal beliefs simply don't understand that they are asserting what is impossible without the introduction of magic into the universe on a regular basis.
The production of a bacterial flagellum over time, could in fact be the product of an all mighty creator, who could be systematically slinging gamma rays across the vastness of space time, at a small bacteria, without a flagellum, until after a very long time, the creature's DNA mutates and evolves a flagellum. But, from the scientists' viewpoint, all that is measured is the creature's slow and steady evolution from a bacteria without a flagellum to a bacteria with a flagellum.
The above change could have occurred in 50,000 years, or in 5 minutes, but were a scientist measuring it, all he would see is the change, and he would declare evolution.
HOWEVER, the more shortened that the time period of the evolution becomes, the more difficult it becomes to scientifically explain, because the power requirement begins to rise and as the time period of change closes in on 0, the power requirement rises to infinity.
Imagine the poor little bacteria just sitting there while God slams 5 billion electron volts worth of gamma rays into it so as to specifically reorder the bacteria's DNA to have a flagellum. All of that power focused into one microscopically small location over a period of, shall we say, one nanosecond, and BOOOOOOOOOM...
...nuclear fusion and a star is born!
LOL!!!!!
There may be a designer, and everything in the universe may be designed. But no scientist will ever measure anything other than evolution, or nuclear meltdown.
The curious thing about all of this is, that evolution helps the believer in God, maintain that belief in the face of science, by providing a mechanism by which God can effect biological change without resort to magic.
The only way to stop that bacteria from being blown to kingdom come is for God to use evolutionary processes to implement his design. Otherwise, the change will require the introduction of magic, and magic is reserved in this universe for devotees of Harry Potter and J.R.R. Tolkien (and I am one of those devotees).
So, time to grow up and stop worrying about who did it, because that question is not in play within the scientific community. All science cares about is the measurement and record of the process, and what science measures in all of its myriad experiments is biological evolution, because that's all that science can measure.
God, is outside the scope of science, and neither is a threat to the other, unless you want to believe that magic is reality.
And, that, regrettably, is what the advocate of intelligent design demand -- whether they realize it or not.
What level of confidence do you have to say that human beings exist because of random chance. Would you say greater than 50 percent. Greater than 90%
From the viewpoint of the scientist, whose measuring devices can only investigate natural causes, confidence in human evolution is near 100%.
What level of confidence should the consensus be, before random chance is the only explantion given in a science class room.
Calling evolution random chance suggests a lack of understand of the concept. Evolution is not random, in the sense that change depends upon the environment into which the organism is introduced. Like water in a river, that follows the riverbed, the organism follows the environment.
You can say that the environment is random, but it isn't. The universe ages and entropy increases. Certain environments are caused by certain turbulence in a locale and those environments tend to remain relatively constant for very long periods of time. Within the framework of a localized environment, evolution operates in a less than random fashion, because the organisms that occupy that locale are being molded by the local environmental constraints. For example, in a dry area, the environment selects against mutations that would benefit an organism were it introduced into a wet environment.
Evolution is not "random chance," in the same way that an electron's location is random chance when you are attempting to measure its velocity. That is, the statistical distribution of evolutionary change in an organism is not necessarily binomial, because the distribution is strongly affected by the local environment. That is to say, a dry area will not evolve sea creatures, and visa versa.
Now same two questions go for darwinism.
And then the same two questions go for Evolution.
Pure Darwinism is just the environmental stress placed on the organism. That stress, by itself, does not alter the organism's genetic structure. Evolution requires both environmental stress and mutation. Mutation creates a change that will allow the organism to either benefit or suffer from the environmental stress.
Confidence in mutation/natural selection is nearly 100%, because it has been observed in the laboratory to alter the DNA of biological organisms.
Please give me your explanation for how the universe came to be. What is your level of confidence?
All matter in the universe is expanding outward from the viewpoint of the observer, wherever that observer is located, and the expansion can be modeled mathematically by Hubble's Law.
Background radiation samples suggest that the age of the universe is approximately 14 billion years.
Cosmologists speculate that the expansion suggests that the universe expands outward from a single source, but they don't really know much more than that. However, the aggregate scientific measurements argue against a steady state universe that just appeared in one piece, in its present form.
Should your belief be the only one taught in science classes?
Science should be taught in science class. "Belief" is a personal value judgment. All people have beliefs and some people are scientists, therefore all scientists have beliefs. Those beliefs will filter into science class in exactly the same manner as an English teacher's beliefs will filter into an English class. Cross pollination is an inevitable part of life.
The question is not who's belief should be taught, but whether or not the definition of science should be expanded to include "belief systems." Beliefs will show up whether the definition is changed or not -- but if you expand the definition of science to include beliefs by definition, then there really is no science at all, because the thing that distinguishes science from other human activities is that it is not based on any a priori position or system of values, other than the fundamental view that the universe and its behaviors can be measured and recorded, and that those measurements and recordings of behaviors can be repeated, because the behaviors do not generally change over time.
A scientific conclusion is not the same as a philosophic or theistic conclusion. Example:
The philosopher observes a leaf and believes that it is ordered.
The scientist observes a leaf and measures its ability to convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into plant food.
The philosopher attributes order to a designer.
The scientist doesn't attributes the leaf's abilities to a designer. The scientist just measures the ability, records the results, and concludes as to whether or not the leaf is acting as a converter of energy into plant food.
The philosopher "believes" that teaching the student about the underlying order of the universe, improves the student's ability to understand science.
The scientist just teaches the student about the conversion mechanism and let's the student believe whatever the student wants to believe about the underlying order of the universe.
That scientists are people and they tend to assert their beliefs is unavoidable. But, this does not, in my view, justify redefining science to PERMIT belief, anymore than the fact that a large minority of men get off on looking at pictures of very young children, justifies changing the law to make child pornography legal.
If you apply the above thought process to evolution, you should see why there is a problem, assuming that you have an open mind.
Evolution is merely the measurement and recording of the behavior of DNA under environmental stress over time. That some scientists may attribute this change to random chance, while other scientists may attribute the change to an almighty creator is merely a reflection of the scientists' respective personal beliefs, but those beliefs are not part of the scientific method, nor are they justification for expanding the definition of science to include personal belief systems.
The problem that the scientific community has, is that there is a very large contingent of laypeople who do not wish to accept the fact that evolution occurs, because it conflicts with their personal beliefs, and in the alternative, they propose that a different story be told to science students, i.e., that evolution is a distortion of reality, and that, in fact, life on Earth is the product of the instantaneous transmutation of matter and energy into a fully formed biological organism of whatever characteristic was, at that moment in time, contemplated by the mind of an all powerful supernatural creator.
This second view is not science and it has no scientific support. Those who now hold fast to the concept of "intelligent design" as a means of clinging to their personal beliefs simply don't understand that they are asserting what is impossible without the introduction of magic into the universe on a regular basis.
The production of a bacterial flagellum over time, could in fact be the product of an all mighty creator, who could be systematically slinging gamma rays across the vastness of space time, at a small bacteria, without a flagellum, until after a very long time, the creature's DNA mutates and evolves a flagellum. But, from the scientists' viewpoint, all that is measured is the creature's slow and steady evolution from a bacteria without a flagellum to a bacteria with a flagellum.
The above change could have occurred in 50,000 years, or in 5 minutes, but were a scientist measuring it, all he would see is the change, and he would declare evolution.
HOWEVER, the more shortened that the time period of the evolution becomes, the more difficult it becomes to scientifically explain, because the power requirement begins to rise and as the time period of change closes in on 0, the power requirement rises to infinity.
Imagine the poor little bacteria just sitting there while God slams 5 billion electron volts worth of gamma rays into it so as to specifically reorder the bacteria's DNA to have a flagellum. All of that power focused into one microscopically small location over a period of, shall we say, one nanosecond, and BOOOOOOOOOM...
...nuclear fusion and a star is born!
LOL!!!!!
There may be a designer, and everything in the universe may be designed. But no scientist will ever measure anything other than evolution, or nuclear meltdown.
The curious thing about all of this is, that evolution helps the believer in God, maintain that belief in the face of science, by providing a mechanism by which God can effect biological change without resort to magic.
The only way to stop that bacteria from being blown to kingdom come is for God to use evolutionary processes to implement his design. Otherwise, the change will require the introduction of magic, and magic is reserved in this universe for devotees of Harry Potter and J.R.R. Tolkien (and I am one of those devotees).
So, time to grow up and stop worrying about who did it, because that question is not in play within the scientific community. All science cares about is the measurement and record of the process, and what science measures in all of its myriad experiments is biological evolution, because that's all that science can measure.
God, is outside the scope of science, and neither is a threat to the other, unless you want to believe that magic is reality.
And, that, regrettably, is what the advocate of intelligent design demand -- whether they realize it or not.