[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 3 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

really? i was unaware of that... what do his critics say about the flagellum in a cell? iow, what do they say about the chance that it simply evolved?

http://www.talkdesig...background.html
http://www.talkdesig.../flagellum.html

The first link contains some links to professional papers

thanks for the links... in the first, mr. matzke admits he might not be up to the task (since he's an undergraduate and mr. behe is an acknowledged leader in the field of biochemistry)... but i'll read all tree links in it... i couldn't get the 2nd link to open

[mgoetze]

kenrexford, on Aug 3 2006, 01:37 AM, said:

The concept of "God," or of a god or gods, often is reacted to by those who "believe" and those who are skeptics, by pre-determined definitions of those terms.  "God" is deemed a mystical idea, defined by prior religious understandings, even if not shared by the person discussing his belief, views, and the like.

Indeed, the word "God" is so ill-defined that it is essentially meaningless, and on a good day, if asked whether I believe in "God", my answer will be "Sorry, I don't understand you." (You don't want to know about the bad days. )

Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus said:

6.53   The right method of philosophy would be this: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method.

(Then there is always his later work, Philosophical Investigations, for a more complicated view of the matter...)

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Aug 3 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 3 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

really? i was unaware of that... what do his critics say about the flagellum in a cell? iow, what do they say about the chance that it simply evolved?

http://www.talkdesig...background.html
http://www.talkdesig.../flagellum.html

The first link contains some links to professional papers

thanks for the links... in the first, mr. matzke admits he might not be up to the task (since he's an undergraduate and mr. behe is an acknowledged leader in the field of biochemistry)... but i'll read all tree links in it... i couldn't get the 2nd link to open

Have you now read the various links? Including those links in which the irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been 'reduced'??

I love (and agree with) the description of the Intelligent Design argument as an argument based on personal incredulity.

Clarke said it long ago, in a different context: any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguisghable from magic. The point is that evolutionary science does not purport to have detailed step by step genetic or bio-chemical answers for every structure that exists in the natural world: why not? Because we haven't got there yet! The scientific tools and pre-cursor knowledge haven't been around long enough. That is no reason to resort to 'magic' or ID as an explanation.

Arguing that ID is the explanation because evolution cannot yet explain the problem under consideration is like cartographers of old writing 'Here be Monsters' on their maps.. to reflect that no-one had yet explored and reported back on the blank areas. It didn't mean that the blank areas were filled with monsters... and a logical person would have known that in all likelihood the maps would eventually be filled with rivers, lakes, mountains, forests etc... once exploration was sufficiently advanced.

Eventually, if our society lasts long enough and does not lapse into mystical avoidance of truth, it appears inevitable that the underlying biochemical origin of all structures found in life will be known.

Why can I say this with confidence? Because evolutionists have yet to fail at any of these tasks... every time a creationist or ID proponent makes another argument from incredulity, it seems that the argument is disproven.

We all suffer from an inability to grasp large numbers and the depths of time. One of the articles linked discusses the mutation rate of e coli: I can't write it here accurately, but it was one mutation every 10 to the 7th power of replication. That is a huge number.. mutation is very, very rare. Yet, there are truly huge numbers of e coli in the world, and they reproduce every 20 minutes in the presence of abundant food... so there are mutations occuring every second in your gut alone! (please note that I may be out a trifle on this, I am stating the 'fact' to prove a point.. mutation may be individually rare, but collectively it is frequent)

And this has been going on for millions of years.

So time has given the e coli innumerable opportunity to evolve to its current state.. including the mutations that resulted in the development of the flagellum.

Our inability to intuit the staggering number of iterations available is, I am sure, one reason why some of us feel repulsed by evolution.

And perhaps more importantly, there are those of us who, from a fear of death, need to believe that we, as individuals and as a species, have some right or purpose for existence. Evolutionary theory reveals that we are the extraordinarily unlikely product of eons of random change, mediated by the winnowing effect of natural selection.... and, moreover, that there is neither direction nor purpose to our coming into being. Finally, evolution shows us that there is a virtual certainty that, on a geological time scale, we are going to become extinct and that the world, some unknown number of millions of years from now, will contain no trace of that we ever existed, other than as fossils.

Kind of makes us realize our insignificance... reminds me of the device in one of the later series of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which the Vortex forces us to perceive our true significance in the Universe... it is a torture machine.. altho the character, Zaphod Beeblebrox, survives because it reveals to him what he already knew.. .that he was the most important being in the Universe...

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed. Throw a handfull of sand up in the air......only one grain of the many thousands, if it lands in your eye, will cause discomfort but that is enough.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Aug 4 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

Have you now read the various links? Including those links in which the irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been 'reduced'??

some of them, and some others from authors who critique both behe's 1st book and the 'revisited' article later written... but i repeat what i said above, behe has a doctorate from u of pa. in biochemistry while the author is an undergrad... behe is a recognized, highly honored scientist (even by those who disagree with him)

Quote

The point is that evolutionary science does not purport to have detailed step by step genetic or bio-chemical answers for every structure that exists in the natural world: why not? Because we haven't got there yet! The scientific tools and pre-cursor knowledge haven't been around long enough. That is no reason to resort to 'magic' or ID as an explanation.

what is your personal definition of "science?" ... does the term 'evolutionary science' fit that definition? or should it perhaps be referred to as 'evolutionary theory'? if we can't falsify a thing, can that thing be considered 'science'?

Quote

Arguing that ID is the explanation because evolution cannot yet explain the problem under consideration is like cartographers of old writing 'Here be Monsters' on their maps.. to reflect that no-one had yet explored and reported back on the blank areas.

fine, but then don't argue that because evolution can't yet explain the problem proves it to be true...

time to go home

[hrothgar]

>what is your personal definition of "science?" ... does the term 'evolutionary
>science' fit that definition? or should it perhaps be referred to as 'evolutionary
>theory'? if we can't falsify a thing, can that thing be considered 'science'?

Behe himself admits that his theories about intelligent design came after his religious conversion; Indeed, some form of religious faith almost seems to be a pre-requisite accept intelligent design.

>but i repeat what i said above, behe has a doctorate from u of pa. in biochemistry
>while the author is an undergrad... behe is a recognized, highly honored scientist
>(even by those who disagree with him)

Behe may have started out as a respected scientist. These days, he's viewed as a crank. His own Department refuses to support his work and forces him to put a disclaimer on his University web site stating "My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them."

No peer reviewed Journals are willing to publish Behe's "scientific" work. Behe's web site contains a selected biography. http://www.lehigh.ed...culty/behe.html

Please note the absence of publications in anything resembling a scientific journal. (It should be noted that the publication in Natural History was in issue describing the controversy over evolution)

I just did a slight deeper dive into Behe's publishing history and came across the followig web site which provides a much more detailed analysis, while reaching much the same conclusion. http://www.home.duq....pe/BeheCV2.html

This web site does identify one professional publication in recent years

Behe M.J., Snoke D.W. 2004. Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Sci 13:2651-2664.

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Aug 4 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 4 2006, 02:31 PM, said:

Have you now read the various links? Including those links in which the irreducible complexity of the flagellum has been 'reduced'??

some of them, and some others from authors who critique both behe's 1st book and the 'revisited' article later written... but i repeat what i said above, behe has a doctorate from u of pa. in biochemistry while the author is an undergrad... behe is a recognized, highly honored scientist (even by those who disagree with him)

Quote

The point is that evolutionary science does not purport to have detailed step by step genetic or bio-chemical answers for every structure that exists in the natural world: why not? Because we haven't got there yet! The scientific tools and pre-cursor knowledge haven't been around long enough. That is no reason to resort to 'magic' or ID as an explanation.

what is your personal definition of "science?" ... does the term 'evolutionary science' fit that definition? or should it perhaps be referred to as 'evolutionary theory'? if we can't falsify a thing, can that thing be considered 'science'?

Quote

Arguing that ID is the explanation because evolution cannot yet explain the problem under consideration is like cartographers of old writing 'Here be Monsters' on their maps.. to reflect that no-one had yet explored and reported back on the blank areas.

fine, but then don't argue that because evolution can't yet explain the problem proves it to be true...

time to go home

It is impossible to cast light in a closed room or have knowledge enter a closed mind.

You may, with some credibility, cast doubt on the validity of a critique by an undergrad of a book by a PhD. But it is revealing when you use the undergrad's status as a reason to ignore or discard the works to which he has linked... when those works are by a number of oft-published scholars with credentials on par with or in excess of those of Behe.


Science is a process: it is a way of thinking in which known evidence is examined in order to deduce or infer explanations. An explanation is scientific if it is capable of being tested..... but testing may be retrospective as well as prospective.

In other words, one may postulate that the theory should, if we examine evidence from the past, which evidence did not form part of the formulation of the theory, cause us to observe certain points. If, on such examination, the expected points are not found, that is as valid a test as those conducted by particle physicists at CERN.

On that basis, evolution, as a scientific theory, has passed many, many 'tests' with flying colours.

Moreover, and at least as significantly, advancements in both physics and chemistry (and chemistry is really a branch of physics when one delves deeply enough) have CONFIRMED relationships postulated by evolutionary theory.

Thus one could say, that two species evolved from a common ancestor in the geologically recent past and that therefore their genomes should be very similar.. and what do we find? Precisely that.. thus we have a 98% overlap with a chimp, but a significantly lesser overlap with a rhesus monkey and still less with a dog, and a spider and a mushroom etc. This is what one would predict from evolutionary theory and ... guess what... analysis confirms that our theory-based predictions are true.

Major predictions generated by the theory of evolution have thus been mathematically confirmed by genetic analysis back hundreds of millions of years.... read a popularized version of this story in The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins... not one of his better books imho but still useful reading for those interested in learning rather than in having their prejudices reaffirmed.

In other words, if you actually look into the subject, you would learn that the theory of evolution is an accepted SCIENTIFIC theory, which has been subjected to falsification..... utterly unlike the mystical claptrap of ID, which, by definition, is untestable.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Aug 4 2006, 04:51 PM, said:

It is impossible to cast light in a closed room or have knowledge enter a closed mind.

i'd have to agree with you there... however, i can honestly say that i've read much on both sides of this issue, including 'darwin's black box', and i am convinced by my reading that behe's arguments are stronger than those of his opponents... now remember, i'm saying that as someone who has absolutely no training in this area... i'm sure you have far more, which is probably the reason your rooms contain more light and your mind is more open... but i do think that a reading of behe's book might be in order before unilaterally declaring it to be nonsense

Quote

You may, with some credibility, cast doubt on the validity of a critique by an undergrad of a book by a PhD. But it is revealing when you use the undergrad's status as a reason to ignore or discard the works to which he has linked...

it was this undergrad who wrote the article in question... and i don't ignore or discard the other works/links, i simply remain unconvinced by them... as i said above, i don't believe it's possible for you to simply appeal to authority in this area without first having read behe's book... as an open-minded man in a well lit room, i'm sure you'll agree

Quote

On that basis, evolution, as a scientific theory, has passed many, many 'tests' with flying colours.

perhaps this is true, but it's not even close to what i said... as a matter of fact, it's somewhat of a straw man, in the sense that i was objecting to this wording from you:

"The point is that evolutionary science ... "

in your present post you revert to referring to 'evolutionary theory', and i have no argument with that... while a theory falls in the realm of the philosophy of science, it isn't science...

Quote

Thus one could say, that two species evolved from a common ancestor in the geologically recent past and that therefore their genomes should be very similar.. and what do we find? Precisely that..

do you really believe that to be true? helene and others are fond of using occam's razor (which is fine, i do it also), but is it really simpler to accept as a solution to the nearly inconceivable diversity of life on this planet that it all evolved from one common cell than it is to accept that a creator used the same blueprint for all? which is easier to envision (given no presuppositions about either)?

Quote

In other words, if you actually look into the subject, you would learn that the theory of evolution is an accepted SCIENTIFIC theory, which has been subjected to falsification..... utterly unlike the mystical claptrap of ID, which, by definition, is untestable.

it's true that behe was called as a witness in a trial seeking to prevent evolution from being the *only* theory taught in our schools re: the origins of our species... it isn't true that my posts concern ID.. they concern IC

[pigpenz]

nothing

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 6 2006, 07:54 PM, said:

do you really believe that to be true? helene and others are fond of using occam's razor (which is fine, i do it also), but is it really simpler to accept as a solution to the nearly inconceivable diversity of life on this planet that it all evolved from one common cell than it is to accept that a creator used the same blueprint for all? which is easier to envision (given no presuppositions about either)?

The theory of evolution requires that I believe that multiple different complex life forms all evolved from a common single celled ancestor.

Intelligent Design requires that I accept that there is some kind of ominipotent being who created all the little critters, and - for whatever reason - used methods that are indistinquishable from what would occur if the theory of evolution were true...

I know what I consider more reasonable...
I know what nearly every scientist considers more reasonable...
I know what the Pope considers more reasonable...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 6 2006, 07:54 PM, said:

"The point is that evolutionary science ... "

in your present post you revert to referring to 'evolutionary theory', and i have no argument with that... while a theory falls in the realm of the philosophy of science, it isn't science...

Out of curiousity, do you accept that the Theory of Gravitation is science?
What about the Theory of Special Relativity?

Quoting once more from our good friend the wikipedia

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

[cherdano]

Jimmy, there is no way around the fact that biological scientific community has accepted the theory (in the above sense) of evolution as a verified fact. That the only somewhat serious paper refuting Behe is written by an undergrad shows even more that noone takes him seriously (if they did, someone with a status would write a paper refuting him, as there are many - I hope you believe me that far, in fact it's all - serious biologists disagree with him). Really, I am not trying to be provocative here, just realistic.

Anyway, what's wrong with god having created a universe that allowed us humans to develop via this extremely remarkable mechanism of evolution? Christians all over the world don't seem to have a problem with evolutionary biology; the Christian right in the US is making a problem (faith vs evolution) where non exists, following an interpretation of the bible that would be rejected by a huge majority of Christians world-wide.

I find it very irritating that there is the public misconception about a "scientific debate" between Intelligent Design and Evolution, and a statement like my first paragraph above might be considered arrogant there.

Arend

[Winstonm]

To me bottom line is irrelevant - created or spontaneous - what does it matter? But one cannot deny that change indeed takes place and the significance and reason for this change is survivability. Those organisms that have the best mechanisms for adaption have the best chance of survival.

Do we know the mechanism of how cilia and flagellum came into being? Of course not. But we do know that cilia and flagellum allow movement, and movement allows interaction between bacteria to co-mingle DNA so resistance is gained. Thus, the bacteria is strengthened and survivability is enhanced. Does it really matter whether this was a creation process or a scientific process or some combination of the two as long as we know and can prove it occurs?

To argue otherwise is simply trying to justify the unjustifiable - a literal interpretation of a dis-authentic piece of literature: the bible. The fight to hide the truth of and prolong the belief in this disinginuous fairy tale has caused more bloodshedk grief, and hideous acts than any other single cause in the history of mankind. Religion is not the opiate of the people; it is the justification of the wicked - from the Inquisition to the Salem Witch Trials to modern Israel and modern Islam.

The other Lenon had it right: Imagine there's no heaven, and no religion, too, nothing to kill or die for, above us only blue.

The more interesting question to me is whether or not mankind is included within or separated apart from the evolutionary process. Do we as thinking beings have the right to try to save a dying species that cannot adapt, and how will we ourselves adapt to our own destructivenss? If we destroy the forests that harbor the spotted owl, are we simply a part of the process of evolution to which the spotted owl could not adapt?

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Aug 6 2006, 02:01 PM, said:

Out of curiousity, do you accept that the Theory of Gravitation is science? What about the Theory of Special Relativity?

Quoting once more from our good friend the wikipedia

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

far be it from me to argue with wikipedia (not that i would anyway, i happen to agree with all of that)... but especially note this section: "... In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory..."

this is also from wikipedia: "Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it does not admit the possibility of a contrary case."

now i know that not everyone accepts popper's words on this subject as gospel, and that's ok... but it is his view, and i've rarely seen anyone "...admit the possibility.." that evolution (in the macro sense) might not be the end-all of the discussion

i accept both gravitation and special relativity as exactly what they are, theories subject to correction as more and more observable data becomes available... don't you?

Quote

I know what I consider more reasonable...
I know what nearly every scientist considers more reasonable...
I know what the Pope considers more reasonable...

ok, you've answered the question i asked, as has "nearly every scientist" and even "the Pope"... i will take your (and their) word for it that no presupposition entered into it

Quote

The theory of evolution requires that I believe that multiple different complex life forms all evolved from a common single celled ancestor

ok, fair enough... the "theory" of creationism requires that i believe that God created each being "after its own kind"... that's part of my religion, evolution is part of yours, and it appears we each accept those teachings on faith (taken from both of us using the word "believe")

arend said:

Anyway, what's wrong with god having created a universe that allowed us humans to develop via this extremely remarkable mechanism of evolution? Christians all over the world don't seem to have a problem with evolutionary biology; the Christian right in the US is making a problem (faith vs evolution) where non exists, following an interpretation of the bible that would be rejected by a huge majority of Christians world-wide.

i think there's a slight misconception here... while it's true that some on the christian right do make it a matter of faith vs. evolution, it's my understanding that the recent trial on including ID as a counter theory in schools wasn't so much about that (f vs. e) as it was about offering an alternative viewpoint... something as general and seemingly innocent as, "while the vast majority of scientists hold to evolutionary theory as the prime factor in the origin of our species, others believe the world and all in it to be created by a supreme being"... but that, as simple as it sounds, makes some go ballistic

winston said:

But one cannot deny that change indeed takes place and the significance and reason for this change is survivability. Those organisms that have the best mechanisms for adaption have the best chance of survival.

that's true, but evolution isn't defined merely as "change"... maybe it *should* be, but it isn't

Quote

Do we as thinking beings have the right to try to save a dying species that cannot adapt, and how will we ourselves adapt to our own destructivenss? If we destroy the forests that harbor the spotted owl, are we simply a part of the process of evolution to which the spotted owl could not adapt?

that's a good question... i don't know how a darwinist would answer it, from a survival of the fittest point of view

[Winstonm]

Quote

that's true, but evolution isn't defined merely as "change"... maybe it *should* be, but it isn't

You are correct. But many do not understand that "Darwinism" is actually a number of theories, one of which is common ancestor - the one I believe that creates the most uproar; however, if taken separately, another Darwin idea of natural selection not only makes sense but does not conflict in any way I know with religious theology.

I cannot understand what the fuss is about in truth - the lessons of the "digs" show mankind evolving - whether this creature crawled from the sea or was created at a later time doesn't matter much that I can see. If a "creator" started the chain as a molecule with evolution as the mechanism of man or whether this creator brought mankind in much later but still as undeveloped and at a later point imbued this creature with "free will" is irrelevant in my view.

The problems it seems to me are only in those who insist on a literal interpretaion of "so-called" religious books. To some it seems the concept of man evolving from apes in some way lessens the creator - where to me if the concept of creator is valid, then using the evolutionary process to produce man and withholding free will until this process was completed would make more sense and would be in keeping with archeological discovery.

The problem it would seem in accepting this version is it cuts a huge hole in original sin - the boogeyman of christian theology. But when you finally do an in depth and unbiased study of the writings included in the bible and find that it is flawed historically beyond belief, that religious scholars in centuries past who had the audacity to point out its flaws were imprisoned, killed, or in some other way totally discounted, you get to the real reason it is necessary to accept the bible as "holy and unchallengeable" - control, power, greed.

Without Adam and Eve and the garden there is no original sin - without original sin, there is no need for salvation; without salvation there is no need for Tammy Faye's tears, for Million dollar churches, to donate, buy writs of absolution, get 17 virgins upon death, or any of a hundred other silly rewards for following the rules.

By accepting the concept of evolution, the church loses its power to terrify and absolve - and what does power do? It corrupts. Absolutely.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 7 2006, 03:04 AM, said:

i accept both gravitation and special relativity as exactly what they are, theories subject to correction as more and more observable data becomes available... don't you?

In a previous post you asserted the following

"in your present post you revert to referring to 'evolutionary theory', and i have no argument with that... while a theory falls in the realm of the philosophy of science, it isn't science..."

Note: You are asserting that evolution can't be considered science because its a "theory"...

I was merely attempting to determine whether you're playing the same silly semantic games with respect to other well known theories...

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Aug 7 2006, 03:04 AM, said:

ok, fair enough... the "theory" of creationism requires that i believe that God created each being "after its own kind"... that's part of my religion, evolution is part of yours, and it appears we each accept those teachings on faith (taken from both of us using the word "believe")

Hate to break this too you, Jimmy, but there is a big difference between believing something because its written up in some 2000 year old book and believing something that is

(A) Considered (near) consensus amongst biologists
(B) Backed up by experimental evidence and the fossil record

This difference is particularly important when you're discussing what gets taught in science class.

Your superstitions have no place in a federally funded school system...

[Winstonm]

I don't proclaim to be a scientist and do not want to step on the toes of anyone who truly is so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

So many dismiss evolution as "Well, it's just theory," as if it is nothing more than an idea or concept. My understanding of science is that a theory must be reproducable and have recurring results. Prior to that it is hypothesis - and even the test of a hypothesis is such that someone following the notes can reconstruct exactly the same set of circumstances. This is how science works, I am told. If I am not incorrect, it was theory that placed a man on the moon in 1969 and returned him safely to earth.

Case in point: The theory of natural selection. There was a species of moth - I believe in London - whose dominant gene was expressed as white moths with black spots. The recessive gene expressed as black moths with white spots. During the industrial revolution, coal smoke filled the air turning everything sooty. The birds had an easy time picking out the white moths from the dark colored bricks and trees. Over time, the black-winged moth with white spots replaced the white as the dominant gene - in order to better hide from the birds. This was not "theory" as a concept that had no basis in fact - this was fact - natural selection had occurred and over the years has been shown again and again to have the same recurring results within other species.

So when one compares scientific "theory" to creationism "theory", it is much more than faith or lack thereof.

[helene_t]

Quote

Do we as thinking beings have the right to try to save a dying species that cannot adapt, and how will we ourselves adapt to our own destructivenss? If we destroy the forests that harbor the spotted owl, are we simply a part of the process of evolution to which the spotted owl could not adapt?

Surely. The man-made environment changes too fast for a slow-replicating organism like the spotted owl to adapt. Some bacteria manage to adapt, e.g. by aquiring resistance against antibiotics.

As for the moral issue - that's an entirely different thing, you cannot base a moral viewpoint solely on a scientific theory and/or evidense. Some would put a value on each individual owl, some would focus more on the species, some would focus on ecosystems. Some would say that nature only has a value as far as it has utility for humans.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Aug 7 2006, 02:04 AM, said:

i think there's a slight misconception here... while it's true that some on the christian right do make it a matter of faith vs. evolution, it's my understanding that the recent trial on including ID as a counter theory in schools wasn't so much about that (f vs. e) as it was about offering an alternative viewpoint... something as general and seemingly innocent as, "while the vast majority of scientists hold to evolutionary theory as the prime factor in the origin of our species, others believe the world and all in it to be created by a supreme being"... but that, as simple as it sounds, makes some go ballistic

But the point is that there is no scientific reason for offering an alternative viewpoint. Whether there might be a religious one, I dono. Maybe the communities of Bible translators, priests, Bible-history teachers, and Bible-history schoolbook authors should have a debate about whether there is any conflicts between the Bible and modern science and if so, what (if anything) to do about it. But biology teachers and biology schoolbok authors don't need the debate any more than geography teachers need to discuss whether the Earth is round or flat.

Suppose some loby went to court to have some stickers put on bible-history schoolbooks, saying that the interpretation of the Bible offered in the book is controversial: some bible-historians believe that the appostels intended the evangalia as a joke and actually considered Jesus to be an evil snake-oil merchant.

My reaction would be: why don't those guys, as well as the lawyers and judges, just mind their own business? Whether such a disclaimer is waranted is for the academic community of bible-historians to decide.