"What is it with you and straw men?"
They are used to block genuine discourse so I object to their use. I will continue objecting each time you attempt to slip them in.
"I never claimed it was your position, "
You claimed to be initiating a debate with me, positioning yourself to be on the side of evolution. The things you positioned yourself against in your first post is not my side of this debate and I have already made that clear.
"I am just pointing out that you are wrong."
You are mistaken. I have not contributed anything yet so you can't be attacking my wrongness. Your tangent about the 'anti-evolution crowd' has nothing to do with my position. I'm not even sure that crowd is a real thing.
For example: "ID can fill any cracks because one just has to posit a miracle. If a transitional fossil is found, well, no big deal. Science becomes a game of whack-a-mole...
So what?
"The scientific method, which is what drives science, is not really amenable to miracles. I am reminded of a cartoon that shows a guy scribbling equations on a board, gets to a certain point and writes "a miracle occurs" and then continues on. His adviser, or some older gent, points at the statement and says "this step needs some explanation"...
I agree, so what?
"If you drag in miracles, "
I have no intention of dragging in miracles.
"If you drag in miracles,
then the set of things that are unknowable cannot be quantified."
So what, the unknowable cannot be quatified by any measure. But it is you dragging this in, not me. I don't think it belongs in this debate. Maybe one of the other guys responding to your ID complaints has an issue with that, I don't.
"You will have to define 'foundation for science' if you want to use it as a basis for arguing anything here. "
This is your argument? Dancing around terminology?
Call it what you will but there is 'evolution,' the science that everyone knows about and accepts then there is evolution, the belief system. It saves time if we are clear on the limits of the perspective you are building your argument around.
"Science is based on observation. Hypotheses are developed to explain those observations, and they are then tested to see if they are valid. In more abstract sciences, like cosmology and sub-atomic physics, the emphasis is more on building models and validating them against observations. These are more precarious, it is a lot more iffy to claim they are how reality operates, rather they are just models that might show how reality operates."
No problem there. Do you agree that an assumption (belief) must be founded first to support scientific inquiry and that the results are subject to such assumption?
"Then, I suggest you look up Popper and falsifiability. Basically it is a statement of testability. If you can't actually test it, it isn't science, it is faith."
Seems reasonable. I will look it up later per your suggestion. However, scientists usually separate theoretical probability from experimental probability, the latter being testable and the former not testable. Do you see a clear distinction between what Popper is talking about and this?
"Show me where I ever claimed you backed ID. Or anything of note."
You claimed to be debating against me and ID was the focus of your critique. You are now saying you just want to make sure the cracks are filled. Ok well I don't see the necessity but fill away if you must.
"I am just pointing out that your position that both evolution and ID cannot explain certain critical things is so much nonsense."
No its not.
"To make such a statement shows you lack either information or critical reasoning skills."
It demonstrates no such thing. I haven't laid out the reasoning for my position.
"And seems to be an attempt to pretend you are open minded on the issue, despite not knowing some of the important ramifications.
Ok here is your second mistake (childish gambit). You are not an authority on what I don't know. If you are true to your usual form you will next tell me I don't understand what I am posting . You have not considered the reasoning or information I have to offer on the subject, I haven't even taken my first opportunity to offer any support for my position.
"Anyway, I have established that ID cannot be science. Evolution, OTOH, can be. It meets all of the basic criteria. it is falsifiable(testable), it can be used to make predictions and it is logically consistent with what we know."
I know there is an argument to be made there but I am not making it (Maybe one of the lurkers will take that on). I'm perfectly agreeable to the idea of leaving ID by the side of the trail.
"So let's take these one by one. Evolution can be tested. Granted, it isn't an easy thing, but certainly if something can be found that cannot be explained with the fossil record, that is one way to test it."
Can be, has been, and continues to be tested. Viruses and bacteria mutate and survive against their host in a more adaptive condition. One of the finest qualities of human intelligence is adaptability. Bugs develop resistance to pesticides. We are developing new crop strains etc etc etc.
So what?
Finally, evolution is logically consistent with other things we know. It fits in with what we know of chemistry, geology and other sciences.
So far you haven't told me anything that every tenth grade biology student hasn't learned. You have told me why every educated person understands and accepts the science of evolution.
You seem to be suggesting that evolution should be given more weight than that (perhaps credit for theoretical probability) but you stop short of taking such a stand. If it's the theory you want to support, lay it out. If not we both agree to the 9th grade biology text.
I am ready to begin to present my position if you are satisfied with what you've done so far. What do you say? |
