Faith, not science

Think that the intelligent design zealots are confined to the US? Think again.

A recent survey in the UK asked respondents what they thought best described the origin and development of life. 48% said evolution, 39% said creationism or intelligent design, and 13% did not know. More seriously, over 40% of respondents said that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons. It can't be long before some people start pressing for the same thing here.

Regardless of your beliefs, there is a very simple reason why neither creationism not intelligent design should be taught in a science class: they are not science. By definition, science is about establishing the validity of hypotheses through measurement and experimental investigation. However, the validity of creationism and intelligent design cannot be tested in this way - they are matters of faith.

By all means allow creationism and intelligent design to be taught in religious education lessons, but keep them out of the science classroom.

Comments

[Marcus on 27.01.06 at 11:26]

Sorry that should have read "not talking about 42."
Going to have to start using preview instead of just hitting post. :(

[SmokingGun on 27.01.06 at 11:48]

"I can measure love in how my wife looks at me when I do something nice for her."

Marcus let's not start confusing appreciation with love because sooner or later when you start getting those funny looks it will become very confusing. Trust me.... I've seen it happen too often. :-O

And sandgrownan, love can be treated with drugs as well. Viagra!

Actually love is a drug....

[sandgrownan on 27.01.06 at 11:59]

Smoking - very funny - If my erection lasts more than four hours there are a few people I'm calling before I call my physician!

[Marcus on 27.01.06 at 12:38]

Smoking,

Good point, I knew I should have done it the other way round, ie what I feel for her, I can measure my feeling but not hers.
But Sandgrownan's point was still better (more emperical).

[Silencio on 27.01.06 at 13:03]

"I can measure love in how my wife looks at me when I do something nice for her.

That could just as well be dependency, greed and politeness. Formula for love please, or concede that it does not exist as per your scientific standards.

[SmokingGun on 27.01.06 at 13:08]

One love formula coming up:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3236328.stm

Dopamine is a good friend of mine. Dumbstruck as I may be when ever we get together.

[Bill Cook on 27.01.06 at 13:15]

Love hate all the emotions plus religion are connected to self preservation and the continuing of the human race.

Most would seem to have evolved over time to stabilise society and preserve some sort of order over chaos but like most things those who have the power will change the rules to preserve their own power hence war etc.

Love is seen where a mother will sacrifice her own life to preserve the life of her child etc.

Greater love hath no man than he lay down his life for another etc.

Different cultures and societies have different views but often a common link but who knows for sure ?

Thats why I am an Agnostic !

[Marcus on 27.01.06 at 13:18]

Silencio

So I come up with a bad answer (which was then bettered when I changed it round) and Sandgrownan comes up with a good one so you concentrate on my original one as you can't argue with his?

have fun

[Silencio on 27.01.06 at 13:36]

Marcus,

I thought that your answer was better than SG's, who only proposed brain activity, which could be as much a symptom of love as wind is a symptom of pressures in the heavens (if I recall correctly). The dopamine angle is old hat too. Dopamine production as a result of love is not proof of love. No more so than an erection (or more importantly, a lack thereof) when you see someone you want to bed. So specifically, what is the formula for love. Tell me on what scientific scale a child loves a parent, and what scientific test can be used to determine a love deficiency or surplus.

Just admit that there is a bit of faith in evolution and be done with it. I agree that I don't want religion taught in science class. But not for one second am I go to deny that believing certain science journals or what I am taught in a lab requires a similar degree of blind faith (personally, I've never tested E=MC^2, but I believe it. Is this not faith?).

[Phil on 27.01.06 at 13:50]

The fact that something cannot be measured does not mean that it doesn't exist. But that's not the point.

What's important here is that ID and creationism cannot be scientific theories because you can't use scientific method to prove or disprove their validity. With evolution, however, you can. Hence, evolution is something that should be discussed in a science class and ID is not. It doesn't matter which one you believe is more likely to be correct.

Indeed, it's perfectly possible to believe in both ID and evolution. I think it was Stephen Hawking who pointed out that since science can tell us nothing about what existed before the Big Bang (because space, time and the laws of physics were created at that point), it leaves open the possibility that God kicked off the Big Bang, then sat back to let evolution take its course.

[SmokingGun on 27.01.06 at 14:03]

"But not for one second am I go to deny that believing certain science journals or what I am taught in a lab requires a similar degree of blind faith"

Silencio - I'm not a scientist and I'm certainly not a priest. But yes to stick one's hand in pot of molten lead takes a lot of faith. Even if it can be scientifically proven it will not harm you.

Isn't love just a word that describes many different feelings and emotions? Whether it's the sudden rush from a dopamine hit or the trusted ten year old dog that follows you around the house. Each has it's own formula, some can be explained and some maybe not so well. So to seek one simple formula that explains love might be impossible. Unless you are into dogs of course.....

[Silencio on 27.01.06 at 14:05]

I'm mostly with you, Limey. ID should not be taught with or as science. I just get annoyed at the arrogance displayed by the pro science, or should I say anti-religious, people as they do not recognise their own leaps of faith. There was a time when current scientific method could not prove or disprove the validity of the atom, DNA, or lightspeed. Yet all these things existed from the dawn.

Man makes himself into a God when he judges the world by that which he can currently test. It is sheer ignorance to propose that something has no validity if it cannot be proven with current scientic tests. Who knows, a hundred years from now your Apple Iclorian may prove that Lucas was right about The Force.

[Silencio on 27.01.06 at 14:09]

"Isn't love just a word that describes many different feelings and emotions? Whether it's the sudden rush from a dopamine hit or the trusted ten year old dog that follows you around the house. Each has it's own formula, some can be explained and some maybe not so well."

I feel sorry for anyone who can reduce love down such a sterile condition. As with hate, it cannot be described so simply or measured. That is my point - it is totally beyond science.

[SmokingGun on 27.01.06 at 14:35]

Hate is also just a word that describes many different feelings and emotions. Whether it's the sudden loathing of a person you see on the news abducting a child and taking them to be raped and killed or the feeling one gets from seeing little green peas that get served on the side of the plate.

In the first instance hate can be measured by the lenght of the baseball bat that most people would use to destroy the perpetrator of such a deed and it can be described as simply as wanting to vomit whenever you see such a monster. Some kids like to use the word vomit when they see green peas as well.

There is no science to it. It just exists.

[sandgrownan on 27.01.06 at 15:11]

It's an interesting philosophical discussion, this baout love and hate. But irrelevant in the context of Intelligent Design as a possible science based class in school.

ID has no basis in science, and hsould not be taught as if it's based on some evidence. To think otherwise is plainly stupid.

[SmokingGun on 27.01.06 at 16:32]

If ever ID get's discussed in the context of science it should only be done so at a much higher level of education such as University or beyond. Young people should be taught science as a stand alone subject. The same goes for philosophy as well as religious studies.

Humour on the other hand should be included in all classes.

[Ralph on 27.01.06 at 17:15]

Key thing to me is that science and religion address different issues and shouldn't step into each others backyard. Science focuses on the physical world and seeks to explain it. Religion IMO looks at the spiritual aspect of life, crystallizing hopes / dreams / fears / faith. The ID folks seem to have have a greater political agenda and I don't like that.

An approach I subscribe is 'non-overlapping magisteria' written by Stephen J. Gould (do a search for the articles, theres a fair bit of material out there).

[Uncle Elvis on 27.01.06 at 17:59]

The difference is that we don't teach "Love" in biology.

By the way, it's been said that a miracle is something that inspires faith.

If you don't believe in miracles I want you to meet my nephew. He was born with all his insides backwards, which is a problem, but with the complication of only 2 chambers in his heart.
That was 5 years ago. Without science, REAL science, based on fact, he wouldn't be a strong, active, insanely funny little boy.
Without science, he'd be a sad memory.

THAT, my friends, is a miracle.

Without science, I would be in a wheelchair. Two seriously deformed club feet. All fixed.
It's a miracle that I can walk.

The way I look at it, there are three things going against ID...

1) It's not science. Not at all. Everything that they have put out has been thoroughly debunked. Every theory they proposed has been shot down.
It's just not science.
As such, it should not be taught in science class.

2) For an omnipotent being, he's not that great of a designer! I mean, take the brain. Why put it in a little ball right on top? I can see the eyes and ears and nose needing to be there, what with the hunting thing and needing all the sensory inputters to be on top, but why the brain? Why not put it in a really hard box (like he did with the skull), but lower, so it's more protected? Oh, wait. He created us in His own image. So HE wasn't very well designed.
How about pain? The worst design flaw there is. Ever.
It's an alarm system, right? To let us know when something's going wrong. Problem is, it doesn't have what even the SIMPLEST alarm system that WE design, and remember, we're not omnipotent beings, have. An off switch. For example. Your tooth hurts. Why? Because somethings wrong with it. Got it. Now how do you turn it off so you can get it fixed? Why does it still hurt hours and days AFTER it's fixed? You stub your toe. Pain. Alarm system telling you "Hey, don't do that." Message received. Why doesn't it stop.
Anyway, you get the picture.

3) For me, it's insulting to God. Personally, I think it's WAY more impressive, a WAY better feat to create an organism that can adapt to pretty much ANY situation the world throws at it, as long as there are a couple of variables in place. And even when they're not, this amazing organism is able to adapt!
We are an amazing thing, us people. To say that God designed us as we are now, as we stand here, is insulting. To say that God created us with the most amazing capabilities we can think of, to master whatever we put our mind to and, more importantly, to THINK UP these amazing things... now that's something that MY God can do.

Here's another question. We DO have hard evidence of human migration. We DO have hard evidence of changes in physiology in people from different places. These are hard, hard facts. Proof of the pudding.
If not from evolving, how did we all become so different? Did God come down and go "Oh! You guys aren't going to need dark skin way up here in what you call Europe, but I call Stanley. You guys down here in Jimmy... I mean Africa... are going to need darker skin 'cuz of the sun, so here BING! you're darker."?

You want proof of evolution and our amazing ability to adapt? Look no further than the guy sitting next to you.

[Marcus on 28.01.06 at 08:18]

Silencio,

SG's point was better as you asked for a way of measuring love and he (urm I am assuming that SG is a man) provided that.

I have a feeling we both actually agree, I'm was disagreeing with certain points about science not proving anything which you posted. And to be honest I'm not in complete agreement with the OP point about if you can't measure it doesn't exist (however I feel he meant it in a "just cause we can't measure it now doesn't mean we will never be able to measure it" way. This is something I can agree with, but I don't want to put words in other people's mouths).

However I disagree with you that you need to have faith to believe e=mc^2 as you can read up the reasoning behind it and the experiments that lead Einstien to come up with that equation. Although I'm using this as an example I suggest it could be used for any piece of science.
The fact that I can't be bothered or am not intelligent enough to do this and understand it I would suggest is irrelevant.

In this context faith is usually taken to mean "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." The fact that I don't or can't understand the material evidence doesn't stop it from existing.

From my point of view the main difference between a science based viewpoint and a religion based one, is that a science based one is able to deal with change and if evidence comes up that shows that the Goddess that we all live on is in/was sentient and she caused life on her to start then that's fine.
Whereas I think that history has shown that a religious pov wouldn't be able to deal with this.

[Joseph Froncioni on 28.01.06 at 08:26]

“…You see, the religious people -- most of them -- really think this planet is an experiment. That's what their beliefs come down to. Some god or other is always fixing and poking, messing around with tradesmen's wives, giving tablets on mountains, commanding you to mutilate your children, telling people what words they can say and what words they can't say, making people feel guilty about enjoying themselves, and like that. Why can't the gods leave well enough alone? All this intervention speaks of incompetence. If God didn't want Lot's wife to look back, why didn't he make her obedient, so she'd do what her husband told her? Or if he hadn't made Lot such a shithead, maybe she would've listened to him more. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn't he start the universe out in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why's he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there's one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He's not good at design, he's not good at execution. He'd be out of business if there was any competition.” [Sol Hadden in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985), p. 285.]

[lickinalong on 28.01.06 at 10:03]

Limey,
Great topic!!

In the early 70s when I was in university, I majored in genetics. It was a pretty exciting time in that field with Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA. There were a lot of students studying genetics as a route to get into medical school and most of my classes had at least 100 students. There was one course that only 5 students chose and that was evolutionary genetics. Without a doubt it was the best course that I took at university. The professors teaching the course were all senior elder scientists in the molecular genetics field. They were highly respected scientists. What was interesting was that the course seemed more like a philosophy than science course. What became very clear is that the theory of evolution had and continues to have major problems. These scientists all had some doubts about its veracity in explaining the origins of life. To them it wasn’t science it was really more philosophy. So those of you, who are absolutely and totally convinced of the science underpinning evolutionary theory, take care. It still remains more theory than science.

One of the biggest problems with evolution is the realization of the complexity of biological organisms. Let me give you an example. One of the areas I studied was the acrosome reaction in sea eggs. The acrosome reaction is the mechanism by which sperm manage to break into an egg to create a fertilized egg. Even now scientists do not know the full mechanism but it is a complex series of biochemical and physical reactions that allow a sperm and one sperm only to enter an egg without destroying that egg. Now imagine all the other higher complex physical and biochemical reactions that go on in our body constantly. Is it truly possible that natural selection could have created such complexity? Maybe, maybe not. Complexity is really the enemy of evolutionary theory. That doesn’t mean to say it is not possible. In fact I lean towards evolutionary explanations of life but I also am not dismissive of other theories. I think that the issues of evolutionary theory and IT should be taught as part of philosophy courses. They both ultimately rest on unproven and probably unprovable explanations and neither of them are truly science in its classic sense.

Now to God and religion. Although religion has a lot to do with and say about God, I am not sure that God has much to do with religion. I think it is a real mistake to equate God and religion, as many seem to do. All religions and sects are man-made institutions and have all the failings of such organizations. For those of you who reject God because of the failings of religion, try to keep an open mind. In my life certain things have happened in certain ways that lead me to believe that there is a God. I can’t prove it but I can’t disprove it either. So I believe in God who is not necessarily the God presented by religion. When it comes to God just keep an open mind, just as you should keep an open mind when it comes to evolution.

[C Darwin on 28.01.06 at 10:32]

"Without science, I would be in a wheelchair. Two seriously deformed club feet. All fixed.
It's a miracle that I can walk."

That goes against the theory of natural selection, it would have been better for us all, not to correct your deformity, let nature takes its course, and your inferor genes would have been removed from the gene pool, thus we would evolve, instead you are alive and have passed on your flawed genes, and we as a whole are weaker for it.

[Raptor on 28.01.06 at 10:56]

Nice, C.Darwin.

Since when are club feet a terminal condition?

I'd vote for a winning personality with club feet rather than the opposite.

[Marcus on 28.01.06 at 11:03]

C Darwin

If you saying the science that fixed the OP feet somehow invalidates the theory of selection, you're wrong.

However if (as I think your saying) that the use of this science has stopped natural selection from working in this case, you might be right (but I have my doubts, why would club feet stop reproduction). However how is this relevant?

[Bulb on 28.01.06 at 11:04]

Great topic. I read a book by an autor called Lee Strobel 18 months ago. It was a very interesting read and dealt wilth a lot of the topics discussed here from a new point of view. He has recently written another on Creation and intelligent design. I haven't read it yet but plan to. For anyone interested in a little more info check out this site

http://www.ccn.tv/programming/event/evt_26sep04.htm

[Raptor on 28.01.06 at 11:07]

Lickinalong, What an interesting post!

An open mind is a beautiful thing.

“God” is so hooked in to this image of a giant person in the sky, seen or experienced by so many people in a very limited way with little avenue of possibility. Religions are humans’ attempts to deal with all that we must confront in life; they’ve evolved with rule upon rule, but there is usually much good within them too that should not be so easily dismissed. I also have had a couple of extraordinary experiences that lead me to believe there is something inestimably bigger than “me” or “us.”

[Bulb on 28.01.06 at 11:08]

Lee Strobel, a former atheist, holds a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was the award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune.

[C Darwin on 28.01.06 at 11:42]

"I'd vote for a winning personality with club feet rather than the opposite"

Then you are a dreamer or a fool, and in my book there is very little difference between the two.

"However if (as I think your saying) that the use of this science has stopped natural selection from working in this case, you might be right ..... However how is this relevant?
"

It is relevant because if you understand the theory of evolution and natural selection, you understand that by extending the lives of the unfit, you give them more chance to pass their flaws into the gene pool. By promoting science in the class room you weaken us, case in point, the last pandemic flu, wittled away a lot of the unfit, by "saving" those who whould have died from recent bouts with the flu etc... we have allowed them to weaken the human stock, so if and when the next pandemic comes many millions more will die than would have if we had let nature takes its course.

Allowing ID in the classroom will surpress science, hopefully many "advances" will be lost, and natural selection will start again in earnest and the human race will be better for it.

The correction is coming we have to hope that we haven't weakened ourselves to the point that it equals our extinction.

[Bill Cook on 28.01.06 at 12:19]

C Darwin,

Did you write a book called MEIN KAMPF ?

[C Darwin on 28.01.06 at 13:52]

No Bill, Mein Kampf was written by Adolf Hittler, I am sure you knew that, so I have to assume you asked the question to liken my views to those of Hitler, in a cheap way to discredit me.

Do you disagree then that saving or extending the lives of the unfit goes against natural selection?

I would be interested in hearing your views which I think are conflicted. You want it taught in school, but if someone calls that we follow it you liken them to hitler, please explain.

[SmokingGun on 28.01.06 at 14:36]

Mr. Darwin,

Do you agree with abortion? Nuclear energy? Do you drive a car or moped or do you walk? Is the sun a friend or foe?

Are all diseases natural occuring or are some man-made? Is man-kind today made weaker because of natural causes or because of our own intelligence or in some cases lack there-of. Is man-kind itself not just a mutating disease that the earth suffers from? Is man-kind mean't to survive at all? Is that what the plan was all along?

We are what we are, we have what we have and we must do as best as we can. There is little that we can do to turn back the clock other than invest in protecting our future from ourselves. Befriend the sun, the wind, the earth and the oceans. As far as people are concerned we must learn to build strength not just in bodies but in faith and humanity of the soul. And that does not mean culling out the weaker one's because if it did, people with your mind-set would probably be the first to go.

If you want to start a new world of stronger beings then you'd probably have to take it to the moon....

[Bill Cook on 28.01.06 at 15:48]

C Darwin,

As Dr Joad said "it all depends on what you mean"

Who makes the decision on fit or unfit ?

If I am correct using your interpretation we would have lost a great many talented people who have enriched human life with their extraordinary talents.

Ludwig Van Beethoven was deaf and Thomas Edison also almost deaf and Toulouse - Lautrec
had deformed legs etc etc. the list is very long and we would have been the losers.

[sandgrownan on 28.01.06 at 15:57]

Bill, I think what C Darwin is trying to say is that as man is able "fix" club feet, cure disease that he's messing with natural selection. That may well be true, but it's irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned. It doesn't alter the principle argument.

Evolution is fact, a scientific explanation for the way all living things are. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is simply bollocks.

One might take C Darwin's idea a little further, and say that as man is smart enough to cure disease and club feet, that he is actually adhering to "survival of the fittest."

Let's face it, if the dinosaurs had been smart enough to build fires, then they might not have frozen to death in the ice age (crap analogy I know, but I think you see what I'm getting at).

[Lisa on 28.01.06 at 17:56]

While I don't like where C. Darwin's argument appears to be leading - and think that his/her suggestion that teaching ID will return us to being controlled by natural selection is utter BS... I do agree that we have done oursleves an injustice by escaping population control.

There's too many of us here and no amount of praying is going to help our predicament. The earth is being choked by the 6.5 billion of us living on it and no matter what kind of inventions we come up with - we will not be able to make the earth any bigger. I sometimes laugh at how much energy we spend trying to figure out how we all got here - when our extinction is staring us in the face but then I realise, it's just not funny.

It's sad to realise that before we go, we will have exterminated much of the array of life that evolved here long before we did.

But let's keep talking about how we got here because it takes our minds off how we have nowhere else to go once we make this place unfit for survival and that time seems closer and closer every time I look at the news.

Sorry to be so doom and gloom.

To brighten it up a little here's one of my favorite quotes from Ricky Gervais

""God created the universe AND man on day one. On the second day, he created
light. So he did all that in the dark?? How cool is that?!""

[SmokingGun on 28.01.06 at 18:19]

Lisa, I agree that mankind has got to get a control on it's growth. It is the one and only thing that we truly can blame ourselves for.

[Bill Cook on 28.01.06 at 19:48]

While we have Nature causing forest fires brush fires etc to control growth we also have wars and pestulance that control population but we are reluctant to blame Nature on that and neither science or religion have prevented either.

In fact Einstein gave us the Atom bomb and Religion has given us many wars granted the Pope gave us advice on contraception.

[C Darwin on 28.01.06 at 23:50]

"One might take C Darwin's idea a little further, and say that as man is smart enough to cure disease and club feet, that he is actually adhering to "survival of the fittest.""

That's not how natural selection works, we don't cure disease, man kind has never been able to come up with a cure for any virus, if you get cancer we remove the infected part of the body, thats not a cure!! you prolong the lives of those who carry the genetic code for cancer, they then breed and pass that code on. Its unnatural selection.

Their offspring then require the "cures" because they carry the flaws and develop the diseases and the cycle continues, except while we have in fact prevented our evolution, bacteria (the only dieases that I will grant we can curently cure in some cases) have followed natural selection, the antibotics have killed the weak and the strong survive, so they increase in strength, while we weaken ourselves.

Don't worry lisa the Correction is coming, we won't be 6.5 billion for long.

Bill,

I'm not talking about killing or culling anyone, just about leting nature taking its course.

[Bill Cook on 29.01.06 at 10:19]

CD,

I think the quality or qualities that separates man from other forms of life gives us a conscience.

The thought of allowing one to die or encouraging it, is repugnant to most reasonable people.

It would be easier if we were dealing with things rather than people.

In an increasingly less physical world the brain will dominate not perfect feet over club feet etc and we can or soon will be able to control genetics anyway so it becomes complex and your theories are just an interesting parlour game.

[Lisa on 29.01.06 at 10:25]

you prolong the lives of those who carry the genetic code for cancer, they then breed and pass that code on. Its unnatural selection.

For one thing, not all cancers are related to deleterious genes and for another, most of them do not become apparent until later in life, after most people have already reproduced so I really don't see how not fixing sick people is going to help the gene pool even it it were an ethically sound thing to do.

Usually if people discover that they may pass on serious genetic defects they will decide against having children. However, for most people it is very difficult to decide where to draw the line. How bad is too bad?

"In a few short years, scientists will have completed the Human Genome Project, the mapping of all genes that make up a human being.

"We have now evolved to the point where we can direct our own evolution. Had we acquired this knowledge sooner, the following people may never have been born:

Abraham Lincoln—Marfan Syndrome
Emily Dickinson—Manic Depression
Vincent Van Gogh—Epilepsy
Albert Einstein—Dyslexia
John F. Kennedy—Addison's Disease
Rita Hayworth—Alzheimer's Disease
Ray Charles—Primary Glaucoma
Stephen Hawking—Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Jackie Joyner-Kersee—Asthma"

-- Gattaca

But anyway C Darwin - I just really don't understand how you think "the Correction" will come about by teaching Intelligent Design. I'm interested in your logic because you seem to have very little of it.

Are you a member of a religious cult?

L.

[Ethiops on 29.01.06 at 11:56]

Maybe man very well could be the germ that flourished out of an infected chimp’s sick condition. All this about natural selection could be about perfecting our sick state to become an even better parasitic virus than we are. Instinct based creators that turn about them-selves pondering sounds like proof of a bug in the system to me but, we call it genius of the species.
Couple that with the fact we mimic a virus in every way and that we’re like a tourist here on the planet. We also like viruses have goals to move on to the next solar cell as viruses do at a cellular level. Chimps aren’t building space ships or zebras, but we call it genius of the species.

Don’t get me wrong I’m for setting up shop on the moon as he’s moving further away from us each cycle.

While throwing theories out agreed upon or not, there is one that says most disease is related to what we eat. What we eat can harm us, as well our unborn, soy being a great example.

Napoleon said history was a lie agreed upon. Around people in the field the word evolution and science tend to get the same response.

[J Starling on 29.01.06 at 12:05]

One big problem that seems to be cropping up her continously (though I admit I have had time only to skim) is a confusion betweent the scientific and the general use of the term theory. In popular usage theory usually means a hunch or a guess. In science however it means a logically consistent model that best describes known fact, empirical data. It is a fact that over time lifeforms have changed. Evolution in this respect is a fact. What is a theory is the model explaining how this cahnge occurs, Darwins theory being the theory of evolution by natural selection. True, theories cannot be be proven 100%, but they can be disproven, namely by new data that conflicts with the theory, or by a rival theory that better explains the facts. The theory of evolution by natural selection, or at least the modern synthethis of the theory (that includes genetics and punctuated equilibria) best explains the fact of evolution. Intelligent Design leads itself into a huge number of contradictions - it is not logically consistent - and thus does not supplant our current theory of evolution. Sorry for all this, each branch of knowledge uses its own epistimology, specialised terms - terms that often mean something else in common general speech. The problem comes when people with no, or little understanding of these terms confuse them.
Just an aside to the one who, in what I've read, perverts the name of the great biologist Darwin. What you are arguing seems to be pure Malthusian theory, which was largely debunked even before Darwin set forth on the Beagle. Like intelligent desing it is not logically consistent and contradicts itself. There is something in what you say, but you seem to be barking up the wrong tree and going down the road of perverse sociobiology, on your way to eugenics.

[J Starling on 29.01.06 at 12:36]

I hope you will forgive me for any repetition, I am guilty here of jumping before I looked. Following the link to the S. J. Gould internet library I came across an essay entitled Evolution as Fact and Theory. It says pretty much what I wrote in the above post, but much much better. I will copy and paste the best bit here, but reccomend any to read it in its entirety. Goulds' writing follows.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

[SmokingGun on 29.01.06 at 16:08]

"I think the quality or qualities that separates man from other forms of life gives us a conscience." - Bill Cook

Without a conscience I do not think our species would have made it this far.

[tong on 29.01.06 at 18:15]

to Lisa, nice use of Mr.Gervais,

to C. Darwin... wow, not trying to be rude but i hope you're life is a little more lighthearted than your posts. To your point though I do think we do tend to overmedicate i also believe that as we evolve the survival of the fittest is an ever changing concept. Just as we no longer need to be the fittest to survive and reproduce maybe we don't have to be the healthiest either. Will this lead to some cataclysmic "correction" i think not, not in the sort of Will Smith Science Fiction Blockbuster kind of way that you might imagine.

More importantly the topic is about the ID in schools taught as an alternative to evolution and labeled as science. This is not right, it is religious beliefs, specific (Christian) religious beliefs that are being touted as science for the purposes of appeasing a very narrow minded Christian majority. It shouldn't be taught unless we include many other religious ideas .. Buddhism etc as there are too many people from diverse backgrounds in N. American schools to be so narrow as to focus on Christianty alone. I think it's wrong to push religion on people but it is right to teach the youf about the many ideas that are out there and allow them to reach their own conclusions. That is Theology or philosophy not science. Just for the record i am not bashing religion either, just that everything has it's place.

Oh and slightly off topic, there's a dvd called 'What the bleep do we know anyway" a sort of light entry into the ideas of quantum physics... you can rent it here... it's actually very watchable, a sort of documentary and really interesting. Throws science a curve ball. I never knew much about the topic and it certainly gives you some very diiferent ways to view things.

[Ethiops on 30.01.06 at 01:03]

Yeah tong 'What the bleep do we know anyway" is kinda cool. I really enjoyed it.

[Uncle Elvis on 30.01.06 at 01:29]

Mr. Starling,

Thank you. You put it better than I ever could.

Tong,

I'm gonna check that out.

Mr. Darwin,

I certainly hope that you are just kidding around and playing Devil's Advocate. I really, really do.

Lisa,

Thank you for the list.

Let's not forget to add:

Helen Keller: Blind and deaf.

Franklin Roosevely: Polio

Jesse Jackson, Cheech Marin, Tutankhamun, Tom Brokaw: Cleft Palate

Winston Churchill, John Irving, George Patton: Dyslexia

Jack Benny, Halle Berry, B.B. King, Johnny Cash, Ella Fitzgerald, Jackie Gleason, Dizzy Gillespie, Jerry Garcia, Rick James, Waylon Jennings and, of course, Elvis Presley: Diabetes

Dan Ackroyd: Asperger syndrome and Tourettes

Steven Spielberg, Wassily Kandinsky, H.P. Lovecraft, Michael Palin: Aspergers Syndrome

and last, but not least,

Uncle Elvis: Club feet, 2 prenatal hernias

Two Cents: Kidney problems.

Wil (my nephew): Situs Inversus (I think... I can't remember the name I was told, but I think this was it...)

[Lisa on 30.01.06 at 08:56]

Uncle - I was reading your list and thinking hey the world wouldn't be too bad without some of those folks but can you imagine a world without Monty Python?!!

[Yet Another Limey on 30.01.06 at 10:21]

There are 2 problems in the way C Darwin looks at ‘survival of the fittest’.

1. Some phenotypes which could be considered to make someone ‘less fit’ are due to environmental factors and so would not be passed on to subsequent generations (thalidomide is a good example of this).

2. Evolution as it is understood today tends to take place on a molecular genetic level. So it doesn’t matter how many genetic ailments you may have but how many your fittest egg/sperm are carrying.

So, there’s nothing wrong in letting science correct our outward physical issues because evolution will take care of future generations on a cellular level.

[Uncle Elvis on 30.01.06 at 16:11]

YAL,

I'm not really following what thalidomide has to do with genetic traits. Can you elucidate?

[Yet Another Limey on 30.01.06 at 16:28]

Uncle Elvis,

Thalidomide was the drug given to women to relieve morning sickness, but ended up causing babies to be born without properly developed limbs.

Now I’m sure the C Darwin’s of the world would look at a Thalidomide person and decide that they are ‘not fit’ and should not be allowed to continue to contribute to the gene pool. Though the reality is there is nothing wrong with them on a genetic level and have gone on to have perfectly normal children.

The only people that should think twice before having kids are people who are a little too closely related to each other (like the real C Darwin who married his cousin).