Dr Rick

The above idiosyncratic description does not make any sense.

Something that is formed absent information cannot have evidence. A doctrine is a rule or principle that is taught, and it may arise from any number of disciplines. There are religious doctrines, such as creationism, which utilize faith-based evidence, and there are scientific doctrines, such as evolution, which are founded upon objective evidence. Belief in the absence of or contrary to objective evidence is called faith, and while many doctrines are articles of faith, many are not. A doctrine may be based on faith, but not all doctrines are. Faith-based doctrines are not equivalent to scientific doctrines as scientific doctrines, but not faith-based doctrines, are based on objective information.

<strong> okay.

<strong> Doctrines are taught, but that does not mean that all doctrines must be taught to all people or in the same way. Scientific doctrines should be taught as science, and religious doctrines should be taught as religion. Furthermore, just because something is a doctrine does not mean it is as valid as every other doctrine. Scientific doctrines are naturalistic, objective, verifiable, potentially falsefiable, and often useful in allowing us to understand and manipulate our world; religious doctrines such as creationism do not share any of these properties.

<strong> huh?

<strong> A claim or vision that is not supported by evidence is not science regardless of the claim's source. Scientific claims, by definition, never "rise above the evidence."

<strong> Scientific facts have a way of shaking up irrational beliefs.

<strong> This has been done ad nauseum since the Age of Enlightenment as one could learn in most any freshman philosophy course.

Rick

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

dk

Hi Rick,
rbochnermd: The above idiosyncratic description does not make any sense.
Something that is formed absent information cannot have evidence. A doctrine is a rule or principle that is taught, and it may arise from any number of disciplines. There are religious doctrines, such as creationism, which utilize faith-based evidence, and there are scientific doctrines, such as evolution, which are founded upon objective evidence. Belief in the absence of or contrary to objective evidence is called faith, and while many doctrines are articles of faith, many are not. A doctrine may be based on faith, but not all doctrines are. Faith-based doctrines are not equivalent to scientific doctrines as scientific doctrines, but not faith-based doctrines, are based on objective information.
dk: Doctrines form truisms, therefore axiomatic or self evident, not idiosyncratic. 1st principles are doctrine and truisms. Words suffixed with “ism” define a source of doctrine. Defining scientific doctrines as objective is circular. We are back at square one.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Dr Rick

The idiosyncratic use of words will not alter the objective and scientific nature of evolution and the irrational and religious origins of creation.

Rick

Doubting Didymus

Dear DK:

Are you drawing the science/dogma line between biology and evolution-'ism', or between evolutionary science and evolution-ism?

If the former, surely it's the evidence for evolution that counts? If the latter, what would the problem be? Dogmatic acceptance of evolution is not taught in schools. Only the scientific theory of evolution and the evidence for it are taught, so what is the problem?

Also, though I now know that your conclusion is 'evolutionism and creationism are both dogmatic', I am still unsure what you are proposing. What do you want to see in science classes? Is it 1) replace evolution with creationism? 2) teach them side by side as theories? 3) teach them side by side as dogmas (in which case, what would either of them be doing in science class)? or 4) leave science classes as they are.

I guess my primary question for you is: do you equate evolutionary science with ' dogmatic evolutionism'? Or is this 'evolutionism' thing something separate from actual evolutionary science?

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Doubting Didymus ]</p>

dk

<ol type="1">[*]dk: Evolutionism and Creationism are both doctrines, therefore should both be taught as doctrines that require a person's accent (conviction). Judaism, Christianity and Islam have fixed dogma (scriptures), and that should be taught as dogma. I’m not saying public schools should teach dogma, but where dogma exists, it should be known as dogma.
rbochnermd: Doctrines are taught, but that does not mean that all doctrines must be taught to all people or in the same way. Scientific doctrines should be taught as science, and religious doctrines should be taught as religion. Furthermore, just because something is a doctrine does not mean it is as valid as every other doctrine. Scientific doctrines are naturalistic, objective, verifiable, potentially falsefiable, and often useful in allowing us to understand and manipulate our world; religious doctrines such as creationism do not share any of these properties.
dk: The problem begins when public schools teach scientific doctrine as objective, and objective as scientific. When science modifies its doctrine to reinterpret positive knowledge because of new or faulty evidence students are told the facts are relative. The truth is that scientific doctrine is relative, and overstated the reliability of the known evidence. Religious doctrine doesn’t get a free get out of jail card, collect $200 and pass go card. To distinguish doctrine from facts provokes thought in science and religion, benefiting both. Certainly and clarity revealed through science makes religion better, and the certitude and inspiration infused by religious doctrine makes science better.[*]dk: Science on the other hand knows only material facts that can be demonstrated impersonally, and irrefutably therefore should be taught as certain.
rbochnermd: huh?
dk: Concepts, structures and forms of the mind are universal and absolute, while evidence contained in finite objects is particular. This produces a fundamental mismatch between the finite world of evidence and the universal concepts innate to the human mind. I submit the mismatch is resolved by judgments of the active intellect, one event at a time. I’m making a case for moderate realism.[*]dk: I have a real problem with scientists or religious clerics of any kind that claim a vision so compelling it rises above the evidence.
rbochnermd: A claim or vision that is not supported by evidence is not science regardless of the claim's source. Scientific claims, by definition, never "rise above the evidence."
dk: You can’t define science as objective, then define what is objective by science, Willie go round in Circles!!!! I don’t think its necessary for me to list the litany of scientific proclamations reclaimed because of spurious, new or insufficient evidence. There is a lot of hocus pocus science done by Dr. Quack and P.H.D. Duck, and a lot of bad reporting of the hocus pocus to boot.[*]dk:When such claims get enshrined as doctrine then they put society's faith at risk.
rbochnermd: Scientific facts have a way of shaking up irrational beliefs.
dk: Tell that to the citizens of Chernobyl, or the solders given lawn chairs and sun glasses to watch A-bombs explode.[*]dk: - Scientists and philosophers need to give the issue of doctrine and science some serious thought.
rbochnermd: This has been done ad nauseum since the Age of Enlightenment as one could learn in most any freshman philosophy course.
dk: -Heh? Could you be more specific?[/list=a]

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

scigirl

Sure ok. . .

I've heard you and vanderzyden and others repeat these claims ad nauseum now. Evolution has flaws because science has problems blah blah blah.

My question is - NOW WHAT? Do you have any practical suggestions for science teachers and/or scientists?

And what does this problem have to do with evolution? Doesn't it apply to all science?

Furthermore, any problems that science has - aren't they like 10 fold worse in religion, which is based in relatively few or no objective criteria?

scigirl

scigirl

One more thing,

Do you think that the rejection of basic tenets of science (geology, physics, palentology, genetics) by mainstream churches is helping or hurting this problem?

scigirl

dk

<ol type="1">[*]rbochnermd: Are you drawing the science/dogma line between biology and evolution-'ism', or between evolutionary science and evolution-ism?
dk: Well, physics studies sub-atomic particles with electron accelerators. Astronomy studies galaxies with telescopes. These are distinct disciplines of science because each studies different matters, with different instruments from a unique perspective. Now evolutionism works from the positive knowledge gathered by all the other scientific disciplines, but really has no instrumentation of its own. Perhaps one day somebody will write a computer program to model the essential universe, and that program might be considered a source of dogma. Short of that, I don’t see science as dogmatic.[*]rbochnermd: If the former, surely it's the evidence for evolution that counts? If the latter, what would the problem be? Dogmatic acceptance of evolution is not taught in schools. Only the scientific theory of evolution and the evidence for it are taught, so what is the problem?
dk: There’s questions science doesn’t know how to ask, except by supposing a hypotheticals that might be possible and plausible. For example what is gravity? Does the Universe contract or expand? Is the universe eternal or finite? Does nothing exist. Can two distinct things differ by nothing? I don’t believe the sciences of evolution are particular important in a practical sense, but are important in a theoretical sense because they raise questions from a unique perspective. Philosophically speaking asking the right questions is the most important part of science.[*]rbochnermd: Also, though I now know that your conclusion is 'evolutionism and creationism are both dogmatic', I am still unsure what you are proposing. What do you want to see in science classes? Is it 1) replace evolution with creationism? 2) teach them side by side as theories? 3) teach them side by side as dogmas (in which case, what would either of them be doing in science class)? or 4) leave science classes as they are.
dk: No I don’t think science is dogmatic and its very critical that science remain free of dogma, nor are all religions dogmatic.[*]rbochnermd: I guess my primary question for you is: do you equate evolutionary science with ' dogmatic evolutionism'? Or is this 'evolutionism' thing something separate from actual evolutionary science?
dk: I don’t think evolutionary science is dogmatic, but that it is becoming dogmatic-ish to establish preeminence.[/list=a]

Doubting Didymus

This last post of yours was a reply to me, by the way, not rbochnermd.

I am not certain, but are you saying here that evolutionary science has no instrument that is unique to it? So what? What impact does that have on anything at all?

Well, that's how science works. Hypotheses are proposed, tested and if found sound, they become theories. The questions you pose are questions that no-one knows how to ask, except by proposing hypotheses. What is your point?

Actually I agree with you here (I think). Scigirl and others may disagree with this point, but I strongly feel that the evolutionary theorys primary value is not its practical problem solving value, but its power as an explanation. Evolution both asks and answers a great many very important questions that no other theory or field of enquiry can do.

I said: "What do you want to see in science classes? Is it 1) replace evolution with creationism? 2) teach them side by side as theories? 3) teach them side by side as dogmas (in which case, what would either of them be doing in science class)? or 4) leave science classes as they are."

dk replies:
That wasn't really an answer to the question. How about an even simpler one: Do you accept that evolution, and common descent, are well-founded scientific theories that are supported by the evidence?

Or: are you descended from an apelike ancestor?

Well, about 'preeminence', which I assume refers to evolution being taught as the only theory of origins: what else deserves to get a look in?

Evolution should be the only theory taught in schools IF:

1) The theory is well supported by the evidence.
2) No alternative theory exists that is also well supported by the evidence.

Do you , or do you not agree that both these criterion are fullfilled? Do you think that christian creationism, ID, or scientological creationism are well supported by evidence?

Do you think that evolution is well supported by the evidence?

dk

<ol type="1">[*]Doubting Didymus: This last post of yours was a reply to me, by the way, not rbochnermd.
dk: Sorry[*] dk: Well, physics studies sub-atomic particles with electron accelerators. Astronomy studies galaxies with telescopes. These are distinct disciplines of science because each studies different matters, with different instruments from a unique perspective. Now evolutionism works from the positive knowledge gathered by all the other scientific disciplines, but really has no instrumentation of its own.
Doubting Didymus: I am not certain, but are you saying here that evolutionary science has no instrument that is unique to it? So what? What impact does that have on anything at all?
dk: It’s important to me because the objects evolution studies lack particulars. For example evolution doesn’t study a particular culture, molecule, or planet but the particular mechanisms essential to become a particular culture, molecule, or planet.[*]dk: There’s questions science doesn’t know how to ask, except by supposing a hypothetical that might be possible and plausible. For example what is gravity? Does the Universe contract or expand? Is the universe eternal or finite?
Doubting Didymus: Well, that's how science works. Hypotheses are proposed, tested and if found sound, they become theories. The questions you pose are questions that no-one knows how to ask, except by proposing hypotheses. What is your point?
dk: Is that how science works? I think the answer has to be sometimes science works that way, sometimes not. QM certainly doesn’t work that way. Why do we superimpose upon science facts unsupported by science. The fact is many perhaps most scientific discoveries are an entailment of chance, nuisance and unexpected side affects.[*]dk: I don’t believe the sciences of evolution are particular important in a practical sense, but are important in a theoretical sense because they raise questions from a unique perspective. Philosophically speaking asking the right questions is the most important part of science.
Doubting Didymus: Actually I agree with you here (I think). Scigirl and others may disagree with this point, but I strongly feel that the evolutionary theorys primary value is not its practical problem solving value, but its power as an explanation. Evolution both asks and answers a great many very important questions that no other theory or field of enquiry can do.
dk: Often a particular explanation becomes an obstacle to science, even close down scientific inquiry. I don’t disagree, but I think overstating the evidence makes for great press, but poor science.[*]Doubting Didymus: I said: "What do you want to see in science classes? Is it 1) replace evolution with creationism? 2) teach them side by side as theories? 3) teach them side by side as dogmas (in which case, what would either of them be doing in science class)? or 4) leave science classes as they are."
dk replies- : No I don’t think science is dogmatic and its very critical that science remain free of dogma, nor are all religions dogmatic.
Doubting Didymus: That wasn't really an answer to the question. How about an even simpler one: Do you accept that evolution, and common descent, are well-founded scientific theories that are supported by the evidence?
Or: are you descended from an apelike ancestor?
dk: I personally find the theory of evolution uncertain, as opposed to certain. I find the particulars of astronomy and physics persuasive but the general principles of anthropology, sociology and biology unreliable. From the perspective of the life sciences evolution can’t demonstrate a beginning, direction, mechanisms of macro-evolution, the effects of catastrophe or gradualism, or explain the general complexity life radiates. This may sound absurd but de-evolution seems to me just as likely as evolution. I think its fair to say life radiates complex forms from simple elements governed by biological mechanisms(laws). I don’t believe science comprehends the essential patterns. Even beyond this, human beings are causal agents in and of themselves, so people muddy the currents of evolution with mind-body puzzles, paradoxes and bias that resists positive inquiry, definition, reduction and objectivity.[*]dk: I don’t think evolutionary science is dogmatic, but that it is becoming dogmatic-ish to establish preeminence.
Doubting Didymus: Well, about 'preeminence', which I assume refers to evolution being taught as the only theory of origins: what else deserves to get a look in?
dk: What origins? The Big Bang yields nothing but a dead end. The origin of life theory follows from the Big Bang. Science can’t ask questions by denying the facts. Creationism and Evolutionism ask fundamentally different questions, and the questions are more important than the doctrine or either. Faith and reason aren’t adversaries except when subsumed by doctrine, they are two wings on the same bird. That’s what I think and believe.[/list=a]

• Doubting Didymus: Evolution should be the only theory taught in schools IF:
  1) The theory is well supported by the evidence.
  2) No alternative theory exists that is also well supported by the evidence.
  Do you , or do you not agree that both these criterion are fullfilled?
  dk: Science lacks a positive theory of origins. All theories end (or start) with the Big Bang, and the Big Bang poses an impenetrable wall past which science is blind. The Big Bang fails in its origins.
• Doubting Didymus: Do you think that christian creationism, ID, or scientological creationism are well supported by evidence?
  dk: There is no scientific (positive) theory of creationism, that would be theology and metaphysics. The question turns on “Does evolutionary science contradict or clarify the creation story (dogma) in the Bible?” I see no contradiction between science and Biblical dogma. I can’t understand the Jewish people or the Nation of Israel, apart from the Bible. I can’t understand Christianity, Western Civilization, modernity, Reformation, Middle Ages, Islam, Dark Ages, the Roman Empire or the Davidic Kingdom apart from the Bible. Science clarifies a lot of stuff in the Bible but so much of civilization has been formed by Biblical dogma I think its essential.
• Do you think that evolution is well supported by the evidence?
  dk: Many aspect of evolutionary science are well supported by evidence, but much of the supporting evidence is speculative, contradictory, and spurious.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>