A further comment on the post by Neal Bryan about the statement "There *is* quite a body of supporting literature, misinterpreted as it may be." I must ask whether this body of literature is recognized by any scientific community (meaning those who practice science as a profession or who are recognized themselves as being scientists) as science. Peer-review is an essential component of the process of what is considered to be valid science.
---------------------------------- Vicky Hollenbeck USDA Agricultural Research Service Corvallis, OR 541-738-4136 On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian?= wrote: > I'm not convinced that I understand some of what you have to say here, > however: > > The most basic tenet of most religions is that there is a God of one form or > another. Most go on to claim that this God interacts (or interacted) either > directly or indirectly with humans and/or our world. None of these claims > can be addressed in any way by science. No matter what the result of any > test is, a believer can always take one step back and claim "God did it." > There's simply no way to disprove God exists. And falsifiability is, after > all, what science is all about. > > Maybe I missed something important in your post. If so I apologize. But I > have yet to come across a major "religious belief" that is testable, much > less falsifiable. > > As to the scientific evidence for evolution being "convincing but not > incontrovertible" I very much disagree. That life did not evolve is no more > likely than flying pigs playing dueling banjos. > > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 10:56:02 -0500, Neal Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I agree that scientists do not *believe* in, but rather accept evolution. >> However, I reject the claim there are no evidences of, or testable >> hypotheses for, religious beliefs. SOME (but not all) religious people "just >> believe without testing alternative and testable hypotheses." Exercising >> faith in and acting on a religious principle (pick one) is subjecting it to >> a test. Consider one's life before application of the treatment as a >> control. Data are taken by experiencing the effect of the treatment in >> one's life. Certainly not hard data, but there are academic disciplines not >> held to hard data either. Why, ecology was once (and is still considered by >> some to be) a soft science. Once observational and descriptive, we now >> consider ecology all grown up, with numbers and statistics to manipulate >> them. Yet we are still grappling with concepts like thresholds of >> detectability in wildlife ecology. Is religion not afforded type I errors? >> It is a different paradigm, but cannot, I think, be rejected outright. >> There *is* quite a body of supporting literature, misinterpreted as it may >> be. Is the ID argument not logical, *given* that God at least existed at >> one time? In the extreme interpretation, it is certainly more parsimonious >> than some of the alternatives. My argument strays from the disproof of >> evolution by testable hypotheses, and I apologize. However, the scientific >> evidence for evolution is convincing (I accept it), but is of course not >> incontrovertible. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "James J. Roper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> >> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 7:28 PM >> Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution >> >> >>> A comment on this question. >>> >>> I would draw to our attention that the question "Why do scientists >>> believe...?" is phrased in the same context as "Why do people believe...in >>> = >>> a >>> god". However, this wording falsely put those two questions into the same >>> apparent conceptual framework. However, I would say that scientists do >>> not >>> "believe" but rather they accept that the evidence for all the testable >>> hypotheses of origins, adaptations and so on are supported by evolution by >>> natural selection (with minor quibbles here and there on details). On the >>> other hand, and contrastingly, religious people really do just "believe" >>> without testing alternative and testable hypotheses. So, with religion >>> comes a belief system, with science comes accepting the evidence. Those >>> ar= >>> e >>> both not the same conceptual thing. >>> >>> Jim >>> >>> On 8/27/07, Christie Klimas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Evolutionary Analysis by Freeman and Herron is a good >>>> introductory textbook that will explain many of your >>>> questions about the validity of the theory of >>>> evolution. It is easy to read and interesting and >>>> should provide a basis for further exploring any other >>>> questions you have. >>>> >>>> Christie >>>> Forest Resources and Conservation >>>> University of Florida >>>> >>>> --- Johannes J L Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "I do not think evolution is supremely important >>>>> because it is my specialty. On the contrary, it is >>>>> my specialty because I think it is supremely >>>>> important." - /George Gaylord Simpson/ >>>>> >>>>> JJ Le Roux >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> Department for Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences >>>>> University of Hawai'i at Manoa >>>>> Hawai'i >>>>> tel (808) 956 0781 >>>>> fax (808) 956 3894 >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/rubinoffd/jaco.htm >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Robert Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> Date: Monday, August 27, 2007 5:06 am >>>>> Subject: Re: why scientists believe in evolution >>>>> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU >>>>> >>>>>> The answer is much simpler. The Theory of >>>>> Evolution explains those >>>>>> data.No other theory does. Someone wants to >>>>> propose another theory >>>>>> to explain >>>>>> those data, I'd be all ears, but my ears are >>>>> closed the "theories" >>>>>> thatare nothing more than criticisms of other >>>>> theories. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rob Hamilton >>>>>> >>>>>> "So easy it seemed once found, which yet >>>>>> unfound most would have thought impossible" >>>>>> >>>>>> John Milton >>>>>> ________________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert G. Hamilton >>>>>> Department of Biological Sciences >>>>>> Mississippi College >>>>>> P.O. Box 4045 >>>>>> 200 South Capitol Street >>>>>> Clinton, MS 39058 >>>>>> Phone: (601) 925-3872 >>>>>> FAX (601) 925-3978 >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Russell Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> 8/27/2007 8:09 AM >>> >>>>>> Carissa: >>>>>> you've got quite a collection of concerns about >>>>> evolution here, and >>>>>> you're asking a lot of readers to go thru them all >>>>> and teach you a >>>>>> basic >>>>>> course in evolution. too bad you didn't have one >>>>> already, then it >>>>>> would >>>>>> be possible to start this discussion at some point >>>>> later than where it >>>>>> was in Darwin's time--we're on to more advanced >>>>> issues now. that's >>>>>> right, almost every one of your concerns here was >>>>> familiar to Darwin >>>>>> and >>>>>> he quite nicely rebutted them in his time. sure, >>>>> he didn't ask about >>>>>> molecular evolution, but replace the molecular >>>>> terms in your email >>>>>> with >>>>>> parts of the vertebrate eye and he answered it 150 >>>>> years ago. ID >>>>>> arguments are so old hat by now that they're >>>>> pretty boring. sorry if >>>>>> that's offensive, I don't mean to be. >>>>>> >>>>>> except maybe the origin of life question, which is >>>>> quite separate from >>>>>> evolution--evolution being change over >>>>> generations, evolution doesn't >>>>>> specifically address origin of life. that's a >>>>> different issue that's >>>>>> often conflated with evolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> you asked why the scientific community is so >>>>> convinced of >>>>>> evolution? >>>>>> I'd say three main reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. there is a gigantic amount of morphological, >>>>> behavioral, >>>>>> molecular, >>>>>> and fossil evidence to support it. pick up any >>>>> basic text book in >>>>>> evolution and you'll see what I mean. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. it has another characteristic that scientists >>>>> like: using the >>>>>> theory >>>>>> of evolution, we can and do generate testable >>>>> hypotheses, and by >>>>>> testing >>>>>> them, we practice science. in fact, many >>>>> thousands of tests of >>>>>> evolution have been performed, and evolution is >>>>> holding up quite well. >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. it is the only game in town. no other theory >>>>> of "how the >>>>>> biological >>>>>> world got to be this way" has evidence supporting >>>>> it and generates >>>>>> testable hypotheses. if you or someone else comes >>>>> up with an >>>>>> alternative, you can replace the theory of >>>>> evolution with your own >>>>>> ideas >>>>>> when you produce substantial amounts of data and >>>>> successfully use it >>>>>> to >>>>>> generate and test meaningful hypotheses. >>>>>> >>>>>> especially given your background and institutional >>>>> placement, its >>>>>> surprising that you haven't made better use of the >>>>> tremendous >>>>>> resources >>>>>> at your disposal to educate yourself on the >>>>> evidence for evolution, >>>>>> and >>>>>> at least bring your education up to current >>>>> issues. I'll bet the >>>>>> people >>>>>> in your lab would be glad to hear your thoughts, >>>>> and if not, you are >>>>>> surrounded by resources that can answer your >>>>> question: "why is the >>>>>> scientific community so convinced of evolution?" >>>>>> >>>>>> RBurke >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carissa Shipman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/26/07 >>>>> 10:08 PM >>> >>>>>> I am a biology student at Temple University and I >>>>> have >>>>>> conducted an NSF funded systematics project for >>>>> the order >>>>>> Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural >>>>> History. My >>>>>> question is why is the scientific community so >>>>> convinced of >>>>>> evolution? There are very few publications >>>>> concerning >>>>>> evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. >>>>> Most >>>>>> scientists are baffled at how such molecular >>>>> systems such >>>>>> as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step >>>>> manner. >>>>>> It looks to me like many of the molecular inter >>>>> workings all >>>>>> needed to be there simultaneously for the end >>>>> product to >>>>>> function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just >>>>> as >>>>>> baffling. How could that have happened in a step >>>>> by step >>>>>> fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist >>>>> has the >>>>>> answer. So if you can not explain how the most >>>>> nitty gritty >>>>>> machines of life "molecules" learned to function >>>>> in the >>>>>> intricate ways that they do why are you so certain >>>>> that >>>>>> everything evolved? Science is looking at the >>>>> details. All >>>>>> science textbooks I have read have relayed very >>>>> little >>>>>> evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They >>>>> just say >>>>>> it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has >>>>> published very >>>>>> few papers concerning molecular evolution it >>>>> should perish. >>>>>> Systematics addresses genetic similarities between >>>>> species, >>>>>> but it does not address exactly how those genetic >>>>>> differences and similarities came to be. There >>>>> maybe fossils >>>>>> and genes, but you need more than this. I am not >>>>> convinced >>>>>> of evolution, but still choose to educate myself >>>>> in what it >>>>>> teaches and believes. How do scientists explain >>>>> how even the >>>>>> slightest mutation in the human genome is highly >>>>> detrimental >>>>>> most of the time? If even the slightest change >>>>> occurs in our >>>>> >>>> =3D=3D=3D message truncated =3D=3D=3D >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _________________________________________________________________________= >>> ___________Ready >>>> for the edge of your seat? >>>> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. >>>> http://tv.yahoo.com/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --=20 >>> James J. Roper, Ph.D. >>> Ecologia e Din=E2micas Populacionais >>> de Vertebrados Terrestres >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Caixa Postal 19034 >>> 81531-990 Curitiba, Paran=E1, Brasil >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Telefone: 55 41 33857249 >>> Mobile: 55 41 99870543 >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Ecologia e Conserva=E7=E3o na UFPR <http://www.bio.ufpr.br/ecologia/> >>> Personal Pages <http://jjroper.googlespages.com> > >
