Fraud in the classroom

DZ said:

Put your favorite
fairy tale to this test. Come up with a thought experiment that could
falsify Intelligent Design as a theory.

After you do the same regarding evolution. 😉

DZ said:

Jason Earl said:

Fah, a lot of what we consider "science" is nothing more than
consensus and politics, and you know it. Evolution is a perfect
example too.

I was trying to figure out what this this has to do with motorcycles
until I remembered ape hanger handlebars. Oooh oooh oooh aaah aaah!

Sean (kinda slow this morning)

ps. The Christian fundies sure made themselves a world-wide
laughingstock in 1925 Dayton, Tennessee. See:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

Reporters covering the trial stayed in a hotel that renamed itself
the "Monkey House", and repeated the last line of the chorus
to this Kipling poem to each other:

Road-Song of the Bandar-Log

Here we go in a flung festoon,
Half-way up to the jealous moon!
Don't you envy our pranceful bands?
Don't you wish you had extra hands?
Wouldn't you like if your tails were--so--
Curved in the shape of a Cupid's bow?
Now you're angry, but--never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!

Here we sit in a branchy row,
Thinking of beautiful things we know;
Dreaming of deeds that we mean to do,
All complete, in a minute or two--
Something noble and wise and good,
Done by merely wishing we could.
We've forgotten, but--never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!

All the talk we ever have heard
Uttered by bat or beast or bird--
Hide or fin or scale or feather--
Jabber it quickly and all together!
Excellent! Wonderful! Once again!

Now we are talking just like men!
Let's pretend we are ... never mind,
Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!
This is the way of the Monkey-kind.

Then join our leaping lines that scumfish through the pines,
That rocket by where, light and high, the wild grape swings.
By the rubbish in our wake, and the noble noise we make,
Be sure, be sure, we're going to do some splendid things!

Road Glidin' Don said:

DZ said:

Put your favorite
fairy tale to this test. Come up with a thought experiment that could
falsify Intelligent Design as a theory.

After you do the same regarding evolution. 😉

Darwinian evolution is certainly "falsifiable as a theory". Popper,
who coined the term long time ago, (but who wasn't expert on
evolution) was reluctant at first but then admitted that it is.

Understanding of relative importance of competing forces, i.e. neutral
ones vs. selection was shifted by Motoo Kimura not so long ago. That
falsified certain aspects of population genetics, like the
understanding of how polymorphism is maintained. Recent

studies on soma-germline feedback is an example of how falsification
could happen. The studies showed that certain immune adaptations can
be inserted back into DNA by the DNA polymerase eta that turned out to
have a reverse transcriptase activity, and passed to the offspring. I
refer to articles by Steele EJ and others; also see a theoretical
paper PMID: 12076127. If such route was widespread and predominant for
the variety of organismal adaptations - e.g. if drinking milk could
correct lactase haplotypes and pass the new sequence back to germline
- that would essentially falsify Darwinian theory as we know it.

Unlike ID, Darwinian theory is "tentative" as all science is, and
scientists as a group are prepared to reject or substantially amend it
in favor of a theory better supported by new evidence.

http://flyingspaghettimonster.com/

--
Stupendous Man,
Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty

In article <[email hidden]>,

DZ said:

Unlike ID, Darwinian theory is "tentative" as all science is, and
scientists as a group are prepared to reject or substantially amend it
in favor of a theory better supported by new evidence.

With the other side being willing to believe in an imaginary friend
based on a 2000 year old comic book. Would be funny if so many people
didn't believe in it.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Road Glidin' Don said:

DZ said:

Put your favorite
fairy tale to this test. Come up with a thought experiment that could
falsify Intelligent Design as a theory.

After you do the same regarding evolution. 😉

Almost any instant change. For example, if you can find an example of a
species which is blind, has no eye-like structures and a few generations
(like 3) later some descendents have the whole eyeball / retina / lens
structure, that would not be explainable by evolution. If a man eats grass
all day every day, and somehow acquires the ability to digest cellulose and
passes it on to his children, that would not be explainable by evolution.

The original Darwinian evolution has been falsified - if you have a
population of one species of bacteria with acquired resistance to a
particular antibiotic, and you leave these bacteria in contact with another
species of bacteria which do not have that antibiotic resistance, then you
can find that a little while later some of the second species have acquired
resistance to the antibiotic despite never having been in contact with the
antibiotic - this isn't explained by Darwin's original theory, and requires
you to modify the theory to allow for the possibility of DNA sequences
occasionally transferring from one individual to another. Use Google to
search for 'plasmids'.

The point is that although it's not easy to run experiments which could
potentially falsify evolution, because they'd usually require you to be able
to study an organism for maybe 100 generations, it is possible to find such.

If you try to do that for 'intelligent design' then whatever the outcome of
your experiment, intelligent design allows for it because 'God works in
mysterious ways'. Which means it cannot be used to predict how a species
will develop in any given conditions. Which means it is not a scientific
theory.

The equivalent in physics would look like the following: modern physics has
a long complex list of laws which describe the way we expect things to
behave. Sometimes we come across a particle which doesn't behave the way we
predicted, and we have to develop a new theory to explain this. These laws
are very useful - if you want to develop a computer chip you need to have
some idea of how electrons will behave, if you want to set up an accurate
GPS system you need to know that the timing and the signals are affected by
general relativity. The laws make very specific predictions. As a result
it's easy to find experiments which could falsify them: throw a ball, the
laws of physics say it will move along a parabola, if it goes diagonally
upwards then drops vertically downwards (which is how people used to think
cannonballs moved) then you have falsified the theory.

Whereas you could write down a thing called 'intelligent physics' which says
that particles move the way they do because God wanted it that way. This
isn't falsifiable - if a ball moves along a parabola then God wanted it that
way, if a ball goes diagonally up then drops vertically down God wanted it
that way. But it is also a useless idea - it doesn't predict anything, so
you can't use it to help you design computer chips or a GPS system.

Following Popper's definition, which is generally considered to be a good
one, a theory is a scientific theory if it is capable of making testable
predictions, which is exactly the same as saying it's falsifiable (your
theory predicts that if you do X then Y will happen, so do X, and if Y
doesn't happen you have falsified the theory). 'Intelligent physics' and
intelligent design both fail to make testable predictions, which means they
are not scientific theories.

Peter

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Road Glidin' Don said:

DZ said:

Put your favorite
fairy tale to this test. Come up with a thought experiment that could
falsify Intelligent Design as a theory.

After you do the same regarding evolution. 😉

Almost any instant change. For example, if you can find an example of a
species which is blind, has no eye-like structures and a few generations
(like 3) later some descendents have the whole eyeball / retina / lens
structure, that would not be explainable by evolution. If a man eats
grass all day every day, and somehow acquires the ability to digest
cellulose and passes it on to his children, that would not be
explainable by evolution.

The original Darwinian evolution has been falsified - if you have a
population of one species of bacteria with acquired resistance to a
particular antibiotic, and you leave these bacteria in contact with
another species of bacteria which do not have that antibiotic
resistance, then you can find that a little while later some of the
second species have acquired resistance to the antibiotic despite never
having been in contact with the antibiotic - this isn't explained by
Darwin's original theory, and requires you to modify the theory to allow
for the possibility of DNA sequences occasionally transferring from one
individual to another. Use Google to search for 'plasmids'.

The point is that although it's not easy to run experiments which could
potentially falsify evolution, because they'd usually require you to be
able to study an organism for maybe 100 generations, it is possible to
find such.

If you try to do that for 'intelligent design' then whatever the outcome
of your experiment, intelligent design allows for it because 'God works
in mysterious ways'. Which means it cannot be used to predict how a
species will develop in any given conditions. Which means it is not a
scientific theory.

The equivalent in physics would look like the following: modern physics
has a long complex list of laws which describe the way we expect things
to behave. Sometimes we come across a particle which doesn't behave the
way we predicted, and we have to develop a new theory to explain this.
These laws are very useful - if you want to develop a computer chip you
need to have some idea of how electrons will behave, if you want to set
up an accurate GPS system you need to know that the timing and the
signals are affected by general relativity. The laws make very specific
predictions. As a result it's easy to find experiments which could
falsify them: throw a ball, the laws of physics say it will move along a
parabola, if it goes diagonally upwards then drops vertically downwards
(which is how people used to think cannonballs moved) then you have
falsified the theory.

Whereas you could write down a thing called 'intelligent physics' which
says that particles move the way they do because God wanted it that way.
This isn't falsifiable - if a ball moves along a parabola then God
wanted it that way, if a ball goes diagonally up then drops vertically
down God wanted it that way. But it is also a useless idea - it doesn't
predict anything, so you can't use it to help you design computer chips
or a GPS system.

Following Popper's definition, which is generally considered to be a
good one, a theory is a scientific theory if it is capable of making
testable predictions, which is exactly the same as saying it's
falsifiable (your theory predicts that if you do X then Y will happen,
so do X, and if Y doesn't happen you have falsified the theory).
'Intelligent physics' and intelligent design both fail to make testable
predictions, which means they are not scientific theories.

Peter

It has been known for quite some time that the Xtian god cannot exist. The
Xtian definition of god is that he is all knowing and perfect in every way.
He also knows the past, present and future of everything and it is that
particular trait of god that causes him to not exist. Why? Because the
exact position and velocity of a particle can only be described by a Wave
Function. It is a matter of probability and due to it's very nature not
even God can know a particle's velocity and position. All that God or
anyone else for that matter can know is the Wave Function. Therefore the
god of the Xtians, by definition, cannot exist. For a better
understanding of the wave function, pick up Steven Hawkings books and give
them a read. They are short, clear, and easy to understand.

Given that God cannot know the exact position and velocity of a particle,
what else doesn't he know? Is it possible that he doesn't know how digital
watches work or how plasma televisions work?

pierce

Peter Allen said:

Road Glidin' Don said:

DZ said:

Put your favorite
fairy tale to this test. Come up with a thought experiment that could
falsify Intelligent Design as a theory.

After you do the same regarding evolution. 😉

Almost any instant change. For example, if you can find an example of a
species which is blind, has no eye-like structures and a few generations
(like 3) later some descendents have the whole eyeball / retina / lens
structure, that would not be explainable by evolution.

Yep. That's what one might guess, isn't it? At least at first...
before realizing that a scientific theory is never discarded without
having another to replace it with.

Care to provide an alternate theory for origins that does not involve
any supernatural intervention? Can't? Neither can I.

So the theory cannot be disproven (to the extent of being discarded,
anyway).

Quoted message said:

If a man eats grass
all day every day, and somehow acquires the ability to digest cellulose and
passes it on to his children, that would not be explainable by evolution.

<snip>

Funny thing about Intelligent Design... It can easily co-exist
along-side all that we know about evolution.

At least it does to me. Mutation and selection can be regarded as a
fantastic, self-maintaining process, whereby life can adapt to the
world's changing conditions. It's a great concept and tremendously
instructive! (note the term 'concept'😉.

Go ahead and find out everything possible about natural selection and
the rest. I'm all for it. Hey, I'd even be willing to help out.

Problem is, when all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a
nail. When all you've got is evolution and materialism...

An Intelligent Design theorist has a broader tool kit and science
might benefit from a little more critiquing.

After all, some of the ideas being presented as unchallengable in the
name of evolution have quite a serious potential for profound (and
harmful?) change to our society. Even if he accepted everything known
about natural selection, an Intelligent Design proponent might feel a
less compelled to accept some of the nuttier and more dangerous
notions.

I think of the (so-called?) science of evolutionary psychology, for
instance, and its crude explanations for everything noble in humanity
and (possibly) undermining every concept of good and evil. Just
because evolution explains much, it does not follow that it must be
the explanation for everything.

Road Glidin' Don wrote: (snipped here and there)

Why you cross-postin' sun uv a...

<g!>

Quoted message said:

Funny thing about Intelligent Design...
It can easily co-exist along-side all that
we know about evolution.

At least it does to me.

Quoted message said:

I think of the (so-called?) science of
evolutionary psychology, for instance, and
its crude explanations for everything noble
in humanity and (possibly) undermining every
concept of good and evil. Just because
evolution explains much, it does not follow
that it must be the explanation for everything.

Anybody read Dan Brown's Angels & Demons? Good stuff and, in part,
makes an attempt at reconciling faith and science. Same guy who wrote
that Da Vinci Code book.

I don't see the big deal with saying something like, "Hey kiddies! Some
people believe in an all-powerful being who makes stuff happen in the
blink of an eye (or seven days). Other people believe in scientific
theory. Let's examine the science and you have yer mommy and daddy take
you to church, etc. for the other stuff, 'kay?"

Problem solved.

But, nooooooooooooo! EVERYTHING has to be a lawsuit. Nice.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Road Glidin' Don said:

On 22 Oct 2005 07:25:19 GMT, DZ
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Following Popper's definition, which is generally considered to be a good
one, a theory is a scientific theory if it is capable of making testable
predictions

Not to be a wet blanket, Peter, but Popper's "falsifiability" was pretty
much shot down (within the Philosophy of Science specialists) almost as soon
as he proposed it. It has remained popular outside that sphere, however.
It's sort of like the common, but mistaken, atomic model (with all the
little balls whizzing around the nucleus) that Bohr at first proposed but
then withdrew almost immediately. It's still with us, however.

MP

On 23 Oct 2005 16:05:40 -0700, "Curt James" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Road Glidin' Don wrote: (snipped here and there)

Why you cross-postin' sun uv a...

<g!>

Hey. I think it was started by one of YOUR guys! 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funny thing about Intelligent Design...
It can easily co-exist along-side all that
we know about evolution.

At least it does to me.

Quoted message said:

I think of the (so-called?) science of
evolutionary psychology, for instance, and
its crude explanations for everything noble
in humanity and (possibly) undermining every
concept of good and evil. Just because
evolution explains much, it does not follow
that it must be the explanation for everything.

Anybody read Dan Brown's Angels & Demons? Good stuff and, in part,
makes an attempt at reconciling faith and science. Same guy who wrote
that Da Vinci Code book.

Okay, I was just getting kinda interested... until you mentioned he
also wrote the Da Vinci Code!

Quoted message said:

I don't see the big deal with saying something like, "Hey kiddies! Some
people believe in an all-powerful being who makes stuff happen in the
blink of an eye (or seven days). Other people believe in scientific
theory. Let's examine the science and you have yer mommy and daddy take
you to church, etc. for the other stuff, 'kay?"

Problem solved.

But, nooooooooooooo! EVERYTHING has to be a lawsuit. Nice.

They should find a way to accommodate each other better without having
courts decide. I think parents who disagree with the status quo will
eventually find a way to get the kind of education they want for their
children anyway, one way or another, like it or not. The state of
stubborness and inflexibility that exists right now seems to based on
the Palestinian-Israeli model.

Road Glidin' Don said:

Peter Allen said:

Road Glidin' Don said:

DZ wrote:
> Put your favorite fairy tale to this test. Come up with a thought
> experiment that could falsify Intelligent Design as a theory.

After you do the same regarding evolution. 😉

Almost any instant change. For example, if you can find an example of a
species which is blind, has no eye-like structures and a few generations
(like 3) later some descendents have the whole eyeball / retina / lens
structure, that would not be explainable by evolution.

Care to provide an alternate theory for origins that does not involve
any supernatural intervention? Can't? Neither can I.

It's not a problem. But I note some confusion between the theory of
Darwinian evolution and the origins of life.

Quoted message said:

Funny thing about Intelligent Design... It can easily co-exist
along-side all that we know about evolution.

That is what makes it rubbish. As far as the odds of being true it's
indistinguishable from the multitude of equally compelling hypotheses,
e.g. "aliens implanted everything around just yesterday and changed
our memories of everything that was prior to that".

Quoted message said:

An Intelligent Design theorist has a broader tool kit and science
might benefit from a little more critiquing.

Critique is always needed yet all of it that is ever helpful comes
from science itself. I could list many reasons for that. Most
disappointing one is that there are no proponents of ID well versed in
evolution theory. Even the "scientist" poster boy Behe with a PhD in
biochemistry admitted on the pages of Trends in Ecology and Evolution
after a review of his book showed his incompetence: "am I ignorant?
Perhaps so. No one can be completely in command of the literature".

There was a paper in Science that looked at how much is being
submitted by creationists. Not only they can't pass peer review, but
they don't even submit anything. Only a few papers in total were
submitted over 3 years to peer review, and those were marked as
sophomoric, "high-school theme quality", etc. by reviewers. The tactic
seems to be - if you can't write a high quality peer-reviewed
publication, then write a book!

It's actually quite amazing how much of not only ignorance but in many
cases dishonesty and misconduct comes from ID-supporters. Things that
are "fair play" for them would end any scientist's career. For example
see these links documenting lack of integrity and numerous distortions
of facts by an outspoken creationist Duane Gish. This is only typical
and none of it is a problem for a number of his supporters -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gishwadjak.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cronin.html

Curt James said:

I don't see the big deal with saying something like, "Hey kiddies! Some
people believe in an all-powerful being who makes stuff happen in the
blink of an eye (or seven days). Other people believe in scientific
theory. Let's examine the science and you have yer mommy and daddy take
you to church, etc. for the other stuff, 'kay?"
Problem solved.
But, nooooooooooooo! EVERYTHING has to be a lawsuit. Nice.

I agree with what you said. I know a number of religious evolutionists.
It's not like they're taking off scintist's hat before going to
church. There's even one who was ordained a Dominican priest. He
happened to write some excellent textbooks on evolution
(e.g. http://tinyurl.com/7pyez)

The real problem is when beliefs are being fraudulently dressed up to
resemble science and sneaked through the back door into the same class
where the science is being taught.

RGD writ:

I scribbled:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why you cross-postin' sun uv a...

<g!>

Hey. I think it was started by one of YOUR guys! 😉

Not so! I don't have any guys. Sole proprietor here.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Angels & Demons? Same guy who wrote
that Da Vinci Code book.

Okay, I was just getting kinda interested...
until you mentioned he also wrote the Da
Vinci Code!

I enjoyed A&D and also his Deception Point. Haven't read Code yet. you
didn't like it?

Quoted message said:

They should find a way to accommodate each
other better without having courts decide.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

I think parents who disagree with the status
quo will eventually find a way to get the
kind of education they want for their children
anyway, one way or another, like it or not.

Agreed again.

Quoted message said:

The state of stubborness and inflexibility
that exists right now seems to based on
the Palestinian-Israeli model.

I can't comment on Palestinian-Israeli relations due to ignorance of
the subject matter. Sorry, I live in a box. But I can say that the
status quo of public education revolves around people too often
protecting their pocketbooks and not giving a damn about their clients.
Students should be the focus, but instead the people in charge focus on
the almighty dollar.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/

In article <43620980.14069160@shawnews>,

(Road Glidin' Don) said:

Care to provide an alternate theory for origins that does not involve
any supernatural intervention?

Um yes, it's called evolutionary theory and it's perhaps one of the best
supported theories there is. Science works by testable hypothesis, not
imaginary friends. Because there might be some parts of the theory not
fully explained at this time does not = God did it. Because not all the
pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly yet does not = God did it. The amount
of shear knowledge in genetics and all the other sciences that converge
to support evolution as fact is staggering and because some people are
unable to fathom that reality does = God did it. Want to make yourself
feel better and warm and fuzzy that God did it, great, but that's called
belief, hope, faith, etc. but it's not evidenced based and thus can't
replace evolution as a theory, ergo, it's not a competing theory, ergo,
"God did it" can't be tested for and so ID belongs in philosophy courses
or perhaps psychology courses (under the course heading of 'wishful
thinking psych 101'😉 not in a science setting.

Quoted message said:

Can't?

He's been doing it all along actually.

Quoted message said:

Neither can I.

Clearly.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Aardvark J. Bandersnatch said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Following Popper's definition, which is generally considered to be a good
one, a theory is a scientific theory if it is capable of making testable
predictions

Not to be a wet blanket, Peter, but Popper's "falsifiability" was
pretty much shot down (within the Philosophy of Science specialists)
almost as soon as he proposed it.

That science should only strive for theories to be disproven was not
accepted, but falsifiability was not discarded either. I like IJ
Good's point of view - that scientific approach amounts to
specification of posterior odds in deciding between various
explanations.

Road Glidin' Don said:

Peter Allen said:

Road Glidin' Don said:

On 22 Oct 2005 07:25:19 GMT, DZ
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Put your favorite
> fairy tale to this test. Come up with a thought experiment that
> could falsify Intelligent Design as a theory.

After you do the same regarding evolution. 😉

Almost any instant change. For example, if you can find an example
of a species which is blind, has no eye-like structures and a few
generations (like 3) later some descendents have the whole eyeball /
retina / lens structure, that would not be explainable by evolution.

Yep. That's what one might guess, isn't it? At least at first...
before realizing that a scientific theory is never discarded without
having another to replace it with.

Not true. Quantum mechanics pioneers knew classical mechanics was wrong when
they only had a few examples of quantum effects, took another ten years
before they had any sort of theory. Einstein knew gravity didn't follow
Newton's laws when he published his equivalence principle in 1907, but
didn't produce a general relativity theory till 1914 (and it was incorrect,
the correct theory arrived in 1915).

Quoted message said:

Care to provide an alternate theory for origins that does not involve
any supernatural intervention? Can't? Neither can I.

So the theory cannot be disproven (to the extent of being discarded,
anyway).

See what I wrote about plasmids / DNA transfer between living organisms. The
original theory was discarded.

What you wrote is about the same as 'Can you see an alternate theory for
arithmetic that does not involve 2+2=4? Can't? Well in that case we have to
make up Intelligent Maths'.

In any case: Lamarckian evolution is an alternative theory (although now
disproven).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a man eats grass
all day every day, and somehow acquires the ability to digest
cellulose and passes it on to his children, that would not be
explainable by evolution. <snip>

Funny thing about Intelligent Design... It can easily co-exist
along-side all that we know about evolution.

If you were actually thinking about this, you wouldn't have written that
sentence: it demonstrates that you agree that ID is not a scientific theory
and that you don't understand the scientific method.

Quoted message said:

At least it does to me. Mutation and selection can be regarded as a
fantastic, self-maintaining process, whereby life can adapt to the
world's changing conditions. It's a great concept and tremendously
instructive! (note the term 'concept'😉.

Go ahead and find out everything possible about natural selection and
the rest. I'm all for it. Hey, I'd even be willing to help out.

Problem is, when all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a
nail. When all you've got is evolution and materialism...

An Intelligent Design theorist has a broader tool kit and science
might benefit from a little more critiquing.

Give me one example of a useful comment arising from an ID perspective.

Quoted message said:

After all, some of the ideas being presented as unchallengable in the
name of evolution have quite a serious potential for profound (and
harmful?) change to our society. Even if he accepted everything known
about natural selection, an Intelligent Design proponent might feel a
less compelled to accept some of the nuttier and more dangerous
notions.

Dangerous notions? Which are those?

Quoted message said:

I think of the (so-called?) science of evolutionary psychology, for
instance, and its crude explanations for everything noble in humanity
and (possibly) undermining every concept of good and evil. Just
because evolution explains much, it does not follow that it must be
the explanation for everything.

Most scientists think the evolutionary psychologist types take their
deductions way too far. They are, in any case, arguing from assuming that
the mind is substantially due to genetics as opposed to upbringing, which is
not proven and probably not really true.

Peter

Aardvark J. Bandersnatch said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Road Glidin' Don said:

On 22 Oct 2005 07:25:19 GMT, DZ
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Following Popper's definition, which is generally considered to be a
good one, a theory is a scientific theory if it is capable of making
testable predictions

Not to be a wet blanket, Peter, but Popper's "falsifiability" was
pretty much shot down (within the Philosophy of Science specialists)
almost as soon as he proposed it. It has remained popular outside
that sphere, however. It's sort of like the common, but mistaken,
atomic model (with all the little balls whizzing around the nucleus)
that Bohr at first proposed but then withdrew almost immediately.
It's still with us, however.

If you mean the proposal that scientists should spend their time either
shooting down theories or constructing new ones to be put up as targets -
sure, this is not a good way to approach science.

However, 'falsifiable' is equivalent to 'able to make testable
predictions' - which you want. So you need to keep that bit of Popper's
work.

Peter

WillBrink said:

In article <43620980.14069160@shawnews>,

(Road Glidin' Don) said:

Care to provide an alternate theory for origins that does not involve
any supernatural intervention?

Um yes, it's called evolutionary theory and it's perhaps one of the best
supported theories there is. Science works by testable hypothesis, not
imaginary friends.

Uh huh. Never miss an opportunity to engage in the childishness of
comparing people of faith to lunatics who have "imaginary friends."

Quoted message said:

Because there might be some parts of the theory not
fully explained at this time does not = God did it. Because not all the
pieces of the puzzle fit perfectly yet does not = God did it.

Heh, heh. Yep, there's a devastating argument. Better than the
"imaginary friends" one!

Quoted message said:

The amount
of shear knowledge in genetics and all the other sciences that converge
to support evolution as fact is staggering and because some people are
unable to fathom that reality does = God did it. Want to make yourself
feel better and warm and fuzzy that God did it, great, but that's called
belief, hope, faith, etc.

<snip>

Oh yeah. The "warm and fuzzy". Say, is that another one of those
advanced scientific arguments? I thought they used to be called ad
homenum - employed when people didn't much else in the way of
defending their belief.

Those who don't have any need for warm and fuzzies can be expected to
remain perfectly calm when someone brings into question the validity
those things underpinning their philosophy. After all, there's no
emotional need or attachment, is there?

Now follow this debate, figure out which side gets shrill the quickest
and resorts to trashing the motives and intelligence of those
disagreeing with their views and then tell me again how you don't have
a "warm and fuzzy" need, 'kay?

But, since you introduce it, how about if I turn that argument back on
you?

Your assertion is based on the unproven assumption that man is, by
nature, inclined to drop to his knees, deny himself and submit to a
higher authority. After all, you're claiming that gives him warm and
fuzzies, right?

I'd say it's equally fair (and far more plausible) to state that such
submission actually runs totally contrary to human nature.

By nature we are automatically inclined to submit to no one and seek
for ways to shake off anything that might place restrictions on our
self-centered pursuit for animal gratification. How better to achieve
that than to remove God from the picture? Talk about warm and
fuzzies!

But no. You would have it that only those *other* people believe what
they do, irrationally compelled by a need for "warm and fuzzies".
Those wretches... Aren't you happy you aren't at all like them? 😉

It's truly interesting how quickly and frequently atheists resort to
the line of argument you just provided. In spite of its
inconsistency, I see it come up almost every time. Could it be that
this provides a special (though unintended) insight?

A slight case of envy, perhaps?

I mean, science usually doesn't advertise it much, but studies made
into which things most common among people measuring as high on a
'happiness scale' sure seem to point in the direction of faith in God,
doesn't it? (atheists measure right at the bottom, btw)

So, when you automatically assume peoples' reason is distorted by a
need for the warm and fuzzy, perhaps you are actually admitting that
atheism is a dour, depressing ideology and it bugs the heck out of you
to see others so happy? Misery loves company, as they say.

Viewed that way, the preoccupation of atheists with this rhetorical
device begins to take on a new light.

But can the failure of your ideology (in terms of attaining happiness)
be reconciled to the earlier assertion that you are driven by warm and
fuzzies?

Most certainly!

As Oscar Wilde once cautioned, man is trapped in a dilemna. One is
longing for the things he can't have. The other is having them.

Impelled by your base drives (your conscience placated by science's
confidence that you are, after all, nothing more than an animal
anyway), perhaps you take the easy route and grasp for the immediate
pleasures that make the least possible demands upon yourself; in the
process, not acknowledging your Creator. And then, once committed on
that path, you eventually discover (just like the preacher in
Ecclessiastes states), all is vanity and striving after wind. Be
honest. Does that strike a chord?

The trouble is, perhaps the Creator *designed* you to have communion
with him - leaving you with a hole that can only be satisfied by that.
Disregard it and you're likely be in for a lifetime of grief and
perhaps various addictions (attempting to fill that hole with every
kiind of inappropriate thing that works for a short while but, in the
end, never satisfies).

P.S. Now, I know you guys are going to jump up and down about the
fact that I dared insinuate that *you* also might have motives for
believing what you do, so remember: What's good for the goose. 😉