Posted by Jakob on August 14, 1998 at 00:56:10:
In Reply to: The God hypothesis is a cop-out posted by Chris on May 13, 1998 at 13:52:19:
: Similarities are found, especially at the molecular level, in most living things on the Earth. These similarities are possible evidence for Speciation, but one must ask are they conclusive or could there be asternative explanations?
: They aren't conclusions, they are observations. An acceptable explanation must not only explain how those similarities came to be, but why they are graded similarities: humans are molecularly most similar the great apes than to other mammals-->mammals as a whole are most similar to other vertebrates-->vertebrates are most similar to other multicellular organisms (except plants)-->etc, etc, etc. There is a pattern to the molecular similarities that must be explained by whatever theory you propose as an alternate to evolution.
: It really is a matter of the Chicken and the Egg. Did all life evolve from one or a few common simple forms, thus having similar biochemical characteristics? Or was life designed to exist under a certain set of conditions, therefore making certain biochemical similarities a necessity?
: That form of reasoning only works for molecular similarities that have a function. What about introns? What about pseudogenes? What about the demonstrably functionless portions of pro-insulin? These non-functional features follow the same pattern of similarity as the genes and proteins with actual functions. There is no biochemical necessity for them to follow an apparently evolutionary pattern.
: Scientifically only one answer can be investigated...the evolutionary one. Since Science can only deal with natural phenomena, the second option (a Designer not part of nature/Supernatural) cannot be spoken to.
: And what about the other non-scientific possibilities? You apparently haven't considered that space aliens could have made life on this earth. Or that we are all the imaginations of a cosmic Invisible Pink Unicorn. Or that the Universe and everything in it were actually created ten seconds ago, and all the "proof" of a longer existence (including your memories) were placed there to give the illusion of a past existence.
: This, however, does not preclude the second possibility from being true.
: Or the third or the fourth or the fifth that I have proposed. Can we think of any others? I'm not mocking your beliefs here, I'm just pointing out that there are MANY alternatives that science can't examine. Why should we waste time with any of them?
: Science cannot investigate many things which we assume are true. In fact, Science as we now know it can only investigate natural phenomena in a very limited area of the Universe, and ASSUMES that the rest of the Universe acts and reacts the same way. Science cannot investigate Truth, for what experiment confirms or denies Truth. In fact, there are no Truths in Science, just theories and data that lead to conclusions which are never 100% certain.
: I agree with you. Science does not produce TRUTH, only approximations to truth.
: I say this to say that Science, while being a wonderful tool, is not the only method for obtaining information that humans use.
: I'm going to sound like a science-chauvanist now, and perhaps Tammy will try rebuke me for it ;), but science is the only method for generating and testing explanations for natural phenomenon.
: Your arguments assume that if one explanation can be investigated Scientifically and one cannot that the Scientifically valid one is the superior argument. I believe this to be a faulty premise.
: You are welcome to your beliefs, but you are wrong in this case.
: The biggest scientific problem with the theory of evolution
: : is that it Cannot be experimentally verified.
: Yes it can.
: Evidences for and against can be found, but unless we are able in the future to find a virgin planet and observe it for several billion years we will never be able to experimentally show if it is a good theory or not.
: You are kidding, right? You must also believe that we must find a virgin planet and observe erosion for a few million generations in order to "prove" that the Grand Canyon was produced by the Colorado River and nothing more. We all accept (I'm assuming you're not a full-blown creationist here) that the natural processes of erosion have produced the features of our earth. The same logic argues that natural selection, which can be experimentally demonstrated in the laboratory--has produced species as varied as humans and bacteria over a few billion years. Science is not limited by what it can observe in real-time. You might like to read The Unnatural Nature of Science by Lewis Wolpert.
: Your argument that it is valid because it is the only theory we have...
: You assume I was being rhetorical when I asked Brian for an alternate explanation for the pattern of molecular similarities. I was not. If he has a scientifically verifiable explanation besides evolution, I would love to hear it.
: ...reminds me of the 19th Century British Physicists who proclaimed that all the Physical properties of the Universe had been discovered, Science had only to work out the specific details to understand everything. 25 years later a few rebels like Planck, Heisenberg, and Einstein felt differently. "In the land of the blind the one eyed man may be King", but the one eyed man is not to smart if he doesn't swivel his head when he tries to cross the road.
: This example does not support your belief that we should consider Special Creation even though it is not scientifically verifiable. 19th century physics was replaced by 20th century physics--both are scientifically verifiable. Special Creation is admittedly (by you) not scientifically verifiable. What you need to support your assertion is a historical example where a scientifically verifiable explanation was overturned in favor of one that is not scientifically verifiable.
: If Science comes up with a theory and then can only
: : support it with indirect and secondary evidence, then it is valid for other theories to be propounded.
: It is ALWAYS valid for other explanations to come along. But they have to be scientifically verifiable. The God hypothesis is a cop-out.
: : I must say that you guys are pretty smart! I have enjoyed reading this discourse on this most intriguing subject!! I just wanted to comment a little!!! First, that quote of the Isaac guy about saying that the things people are ignorant about are of God. It's a fine thought for it's time and for those who are ignorant about things. I ask the question, do we know everything? At first I almost answer no, but then I think for a sec. and realize that "we" as a collective
unit, and perhaps some certain individuals that've learned much for themselves are, if not totally, pretty smart and perhaps pretty close to "knowin' it all". As for evolution; "to develop gradually; reach a highly developed state by a process of growth and change.", I must say that I like that definition. And how 'bout this, "as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." I think that we're all a bit chicken, however we will, with continual growth, change, and
compilation of proven truths, be able to produce our own protective "shell" from those things that have kept us from reaching our highest developed state or perfection. And then comes eternity, because once you're perfect what do you do then? Answer: progress eternally!!!! ! ! ! ! ! Chow for now! From: Jakob