[X] My Assistant

[abalone]

Yes, in a pure epistemological stance. But if you look at how things happened, you notice that hypothesis such as the atom, or heliocentrism, existed during two millenia without being practically checkable. This did not made these hypothesis FALSE, .......

They did not exist for two millenia as scientific hypothesis, they were not at that time ideas based on scientific observation.

They were no more valid than many religious beliefs until there was some logical observation or mathematical reason to support them.
If I were to make the declaration the the inhabitants of Titan were fond of smoked kippers for breakfast that does not elevate my otherwise great idea to scientific hypothesis status.

Further, when a future Titan Rover stumbles upon a group of Titaniums (sorry) sitting around their oxygen stove, with the scales still stuck to their noodly appendages in the pre lunch hours, I will be recognised for the true genius that I am and indeed correct in my prediction that inhabitants of Titan were fond of smoked kippers for breakfast . Even then however, it will not elevate my now confirmed idea to a retrospective hypothesis.

[abalone]

By the way, its my hypothesis that Titan is the true home of our Noodly Master and the methane in the atmosphere a result of the excessive garlic in their meatballs.........
.....or is that a belief?

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

They did not exist for two millenia as scientific hypothesis, they were not at that time ideas based on scientific observation.

They were no more valid than many religious beliefs until there was some logical observation or mathematical reason to support them.

...

The idea of atom came to the Greeks through reasonings about the divisibility of matter (which look odd today, but were relevant at that time, as well as the aether was a valid science hypothesis in its time)

The idea of heliocentrism also came through logical reasoning about the positions of the planets, the round shape of Earth and the first estimate of the astronomical distance. So these reasonings were valid science hypothesis in their time, and, now demonstrated, they are still the basis of today astronomy knowledge. Our ancestors were no more stupid than us, they simply came earlier in the reasonning chain.

Two other examples of abusive arrogance of today scientists about the abilities of past thinkers:

-Pasteur never disovered the bacteria, he discovered the miasma. The idea that something was passing from a body to another to transmit diseases was known since the early Middle Age (or sooner) and it was prettily well deduced at this time, they were even able to find the best means available at that epoch to destroy the miasma (plants countaining anti-bacteria essences, like thyme).

-Today chemist love to say that ancient alchemists were stupid, as they "believed" that they could change lead into gold. In fact alchemists were just chemists before Lavoisier, yet ignoring the quantitative rules of chemical reactions. But they were still able to make many reactions, isolating bodies like antimonium or arsenic, understanding the formations of salts from an acid and a metal. So it appeared logical to them to seek for some CHEMICAL REACTION to try to change lead into gold. Of course the concept of elementary chemical bodies was not yet discovered at that time, so they could not know that this was impossible. And it is strange to see that the catholic malediction on "transmutations" is still endorsed today by atheist scientists...

For the remainding of your post, try to transmute it into tomato sauce and offer it in sacrifice to His Noodliness

[abalone]

The idea of atom came to the Greeks through reasonings about the divisibility of matter (which look odd today, but were relevant at that time, as well as the aether was a valid science hypothesis in its time)

The only point of connection between the idea of atoms to the Greeks and our modern concept, is the word atom. It was a metaphysical idea not a scientific hypothesis.

For the remainding of your post, try to transmute it into tomato sauce and offer it in sacrifice to His Noodliness

I am not aware of your own belief system but He/She frowns on such cornerstones of the primative religions as sacrifice.

As for Pasteur, I dont get your point? Mendel discovered the rules behind dominant/recessive inheritance before the discovery of genes and Darwin proposed his theory of The Origin of species.. long before a mechanism for inheritance was postulated, so what?

For the ancient alchemists, there are plenty examples of a scientist lifetime work on ideas that have failed to produce useful results or been overtaken by new concepts. Provided that work was done properly, negative results are just as scientifically valid as positive results. Again I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

Just to be add some spice to the arguement here are two more point to consider

1. There is no such thing as the "Theory of Evolution". Nowhere in Darwins work does such a term exist.
2. Evolution is a fact not a theory. This is what I teach my students when we cover this topic in our course.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

...

I don't have any "belief system". If I was aware that any of my opinion would be a belief, I would abandon it. And I did questioned ALL my opinions if they were true, and kept only those with evidences.

For the remainder of your post, it is becoming a bit complicated...

My point about Pasteur and the alchemists is that it is a bit arrogant to think that the ancients were all idiots. They simply had less means than us. To despise them and say that "only modern science is rational and blahblahblah" is not an intelligent behaviour. If Paracelse or Esculape had had a microscope, they would have found bacterias as well as Pasteur did.

The word "theory of evolution" perhaps appeared after Darwins, but no matter, we cannot deny he is the creator of the concept, that other enlarged after. And evolution is both a theory (speaking at how it works, etc, a very active field) and a fact (what actually happened in the past).

Other hair spliting?



Oops I forgot to put smileys in my past posts where I am joking.

[abalone]

.....hair spliting?
Oops I forgot to put smileys in my past posts where I am joking.

I am glad to see that you take the banter in such good spirit. You are right of course that I am hair splitting to be , dare I say it , a little provocative.

[edstrick]

Technically speaking... "Theories of Evolution" refer to things like Gradualistic models, Punctuated Equilibrium, or George Gaylord Simpson, Ernst Mayr and others "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis".

That evolution resulted in the diversity of life on Earth is a scientifically proven fact, exactly (or approximately) how it works is theory.

The Idiotic Design proponents and other creationists harp a lot on speculations about the origin of life. I'm not sure we have anything that really deserves the term "Theory" regarding life's origins. There are multiple working hypotheses and a subset of them form a general "consensus model" for the origin of life, but nothing strong enough to call a theory.

We simply do not know enough about the "Hadean" geology and environment on Earth, as that record is essentially entirely destroyed. Without hard constraining data, we're just not smart enough to solve the problem of the origin of life.

It's about as well constrained as discussions of the geology of extra solar planets. Rocky and icy ones do indeed have geology, but till there's enough data to chew on, the discipline is a pre-science".

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Technically speaking... "Theories of Evolution" refer to things like Gradualistic models, Punctuated Equilibrium, or George Gaylord Simpson, Ernst Mayr and others "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis".

evolution displays long periods of equilibrium, with few evolution or very gradual, and short periods of fast evolution, called punctuations, where new species appear (or disappear) quickly. There was many discutions about his, and it is not yet very clear why it is so. Most likely periods of equilibrium are when there are hefty populations in stable conditions; they don't need to adapt. And punctuations would rather be periods of difficult conditions where small populations ("survivors") have to adapt quickly. We did the experiment without knowing, when bacteria existing since millions of years had suddenly to adapt to the appearance of antibiotics: small populations of survivors strife and replace the mainstream polulation.

The Idiotic Design proponents and other creationists harp a lot on speculations about the origin of life. I'm not sure we have anything that really deserves the term "Theory" regarding life's origins. There are multiple working hypotheses and a subset of them form a general "consensus model" for the origin of life, but nothing strong enough to call a theory.

We simply do not know enough about the "Hadean" geology and environment on Earth, as that record is essentially entirely destroyed. Without hard constraining data, we're just not smart enough to solve the problem of the origin of life.

It's about as well constrained as discussions of the geology of extra solar planets. Rocky and icy ones do indeed have geology, but till there's enough data to chew on, the discipline is a pre-science".

I shall certainly not qualify creationists at a whole of "idiotics", even if I disagree with their point of view. I keep the term "idiotic" only for the fanatics and the manipulators who try to present religious dogmas as established scientific facts.

As you note relevantly, we don't yet know for sure how life appeared. The most probable is a 100% natural way (without divine intervention) such as appearance of a molecule-rich ocean, where the basic components of life appeared from abiotic chemical reactions, with a more or less "mandatorily" result. Phospholipids formed vesicles, as it is one of their properties, still used today by cells to form their membranes. Then the vesicles sheltered molecules, among them peptides and RNA parts, which form self-catalytic reactions. When the vesicles are large enough, they break appart mechanically, and thus they "reproduce" and invade all the ocean. One day a vesicle with a better set of catalists is found more efficient, so it strifes to use all the available space and eliminates the others. The most difficult and mysterious part is the appearance of DNA, which seems to have also resulted from an evolutionary process. But this step was still made very soon in Earth history, telling us that it was "mandatory" too. After we know better.


If the tenants of ID were really clever, they would realize that things did simply not happened how they say. To "save" the theory of ID would need to introduce a further step: God would have created an universe with such conditions that an evolution would take place, and randomly create many form sof life adapted to their planet, without the need to design them one per one. Looks sympathetic, and cannot be proven false by today physical science. But still a speculation.

[ljk4-1]

Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition

By KENNETH CHANG

Published: February 21, 2006

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.

The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.

...

Discovery officials did point to two scientists, David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician and a senior fellow at the institute, and Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but do not hold conservative religious beliefs.

Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, "I signed it in irritation."

He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. "They deserve to be prodded, as it were," Dr. Salthe said. "It was my way of thumbing my nose at them."

Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. "From my point of view," he said, "it's a plague on both your houses."

Full article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/...7155f1d&ei=5070

[abalone]

........ and Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but do not hold conservative religious beliefs.

Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist,.............Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. "From my point of view," he said, "it's a plague on both your houses."

I was not aware of the discipline in science called atheism, I hope he had some other more convincing contribution to make to science. A plaque on him and his house

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition

By KENNETH CHANG

Published: February 21, 2006

In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.

The petition, they say, is proof that scientific doubt over evolution persists. But random interviews with 20 people who signed the petition and a review of the public statements of more than a dozen others suggest that many are evangelical Christians, whose doubts about evolution grew out of their religious beliefs. And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.

...

Discovery officials did point to two scientists, David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician and a senior fellow at the institute, and Stanley N. Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton University, State University of New York, who signed but do not hold conservative religious beliefs.

Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, "I signed it in irritation."

He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. "They deserve to be prodded, as it were," Dr. Salthe said. "It was my way of thumbing my nose at them."

Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. "From my point of view," he said, "it's a plague on both your houses."

Full article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/...7155f1d&ei=5070

Interesting article, ljk4-1.

It is interesting to see how science can be instrumented (taken over) for ideological or political purposes, hiding in the guise of science results or science authority. There was another example recently, with an international coloquium of psychology or mind science (sorry I don't have the name at hand) which invited the Dalaï Lama, in order to hear his inequaled testomony on introspection. But very soon there was a large petition asking the cancellation of this invitation, in order to "protect science from this ingerence of religion". Sane defense of "rationality" over "beliefs"? No, absolutely no: soon it appeared that most of the signers of this petition were mainland Chineses, who consider the Dalaï Lama as their ennemi, for whatever obscure ideological/political reason I shall not discuss here. We may even wonder if those scientists really agreed to sign, if they did not received some threat to enforce them, in their non-democratic context.

So this is another example of religious belief (here atheism) trying to manipulate science and to use it as a cover, to present their ideology as being science!!

Good new, if they need science so bad it is that science is the best .

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

I was not aware of the discipline in science called atheism, I hope he had some other more convincing contribution to make to science. A plaque on him and his house

I insist that,on a strictly scientific basis, atheism is a religion like the others. Physical science today cannot prove/disprove the existence of God. And the hypothesis of a God seems useless in physics (at least so long as we don't touch at anthropism of "before the big bang", but they are very speculative areas) but very useful in morals/meaning of life.

Only a true mind science, using spiritual evidences, could have some efficiency in the domain, and assert things in metaphysics, morals, etc. But until now mainstream science don't feel really concerned by this need...

This also makes that, from a pollitical/legal point of view, atheism has to be considered as a religious system like the others. Only a theocracy (call it an atheocracy, like in marxist countries) can make laws directly according to a religious morals. In democratic countries, we cannot make laws making mandatory a religious practice, so we can no more make laws making atheist practices mandatory (such laws could, for instance, forbid religious practices, like in China, and in a lesser extense in France) or make mandatory practices that religious peoples cannot do (for instance making pork and meat mandatory in french schools restaurants, an atheist practice which creates an heavy stress on Muslims and non-violent children)

With this in mind, it is easy to guess the correct attitude about ID in schools: being free to mention it as an hypothesis or speculation, not based on clear facts, and not make of it a mandatory teaching presented as a proven science theory. On the contrary the Darwin/evolutionary theories, being based on many proven facts, have to be full parts of any well devised curicula, while keeping the freedom to mention other theories as hypothesis/speculations.

[ljk4-1]

DARWIN TODAY

- Natural Selection General Force Behind Formation Of New Species

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Natural_...ew_Species.html

Nashville TN (SPX) Feb 23, 2006 - The famous scientist would be pleased because
a study published this week finally provides the first clear evidence that
natural selection, his favored mechanism of evolution, drives the process of
species formation in a wide variety of plants and animals. But he would be
chagrined because it has taken nearly 150 years to do so.

--------
ABOUT US

- Better Carbon Dating Revises Some History

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Better_C...me_History.html

London, UK (UPI) Feb 23, 2006 - Advances in radiocarbon dating are leading
scientists to revise estimates of when early modern humans arrived in Europe.
Refinements in the paleontological tool have substantially narrowed the
estimated overlap between Europe's earliest modern humans and the Neanderthals
that preceded them, the journal Nature reported Thursday.

[Ames]

Here we go again!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Although not explicitly teaching ID within a Science lesson (Just discussing it) this opens the door, just a bit, and that's way too much.

"I don't like it, I tell you. I don't like it at all"

Nick

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

Here we go again!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Although not explicitly teaching ID within a Science lesson (Just discussing it) this opens the door, just a bit, and that's way too much.

"I don't like it, I tell you. I don't like it at all"

Nick

the line is thin between "teaching ID" and "presenting creationism in order to make understand the evolution of the though over ages". I still think it is correct to present creationism as a past theory which has be proven false, but we may lose this freedom because of excessive reactions against the dishonest attempt to introduce ID as a science theory.

It is however simple: in science lesson, it is common to present the aether theory, and how it was proven false and led to relativity. The aether theory is false, but presenting it don't arise cries and protests, as it is not a religious theory. The theory of aether is no more true than the theory of ID, but being called a science theory, it enjoys a better statute in school than a religious theory like ID. Two reasons:
-a bad one, atheism (when it comes to be implicitelly presented as "a science fact", no more proven than ID)
-a good one, "certain" religious persons alway try to impose their useless dogmas, by lies or by weapons. Hey guies please re-read the Gospels, there is no mention of disputes on creation or evolution, just of loving each others. Don't make this more difficult with pointless disputes on unproved theories.