Letting my Flying Subscription Expire

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger wrote:
Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
"controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.

That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
some times called faith.

True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
superstition. Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if
fossils supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence
would disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.) Things
have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution -- the more
we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a scientific
standpoint.

One factoid that got my attention: Evolution proponents insist that
_only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach
the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.
The latter position is in line with scientific principles and an honest
effort to learn the truth, while the former smacks more of unsupportable
religious belief and superstition. Some folks don't think kids should
even be told that evolution is only a _theory_, not a proven fact, and
that there are other views with good scientific arguments behind them.
Is that objective science, or religious fundamentalism?

In the interest of returning to topic, I've determined that with spring
coming, I'm going to have to get out there and fix my airplane, as it
doesn't seem to be evolving on its own. At least, not in the right
direction. I was hoping if I left it alone over winter, it would turn
itself into a Columbia 400, or maybe a King Air. But, no luck so far.

Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint. I've
seen some attempted explanations of this phenomenon, but they don't stand
up to critical and unbiased examination. It's sort of like believing if
you play the slot machines long enough you've just gotta win, when there
are big signs everywhere saying "Our slots return [some number less than
100]%" -- in other words, on average, you are going to lose. But, folks
keep believing what they want to believe, despite the facts staring them
in the face.

-Dan

"Dan Youngquist" wrote in message
hell.org...
True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
superstition.

Doesn't sound to me like you're actually doing much learning.

Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if fossils
supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence would
disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.)

Your assertion is that there is no fossil evidence in support of evolution?

Things have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution --
the more we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a
scientific standpoint.

Hardly. Evolution has not only received strong support from geological
evidence, but from laboratory experiments as well.

One factoid that got my attention: Evolution proponents insist that
_only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach
the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.

A fundamental component of science is a testable hypothesis. Evolution
qualifies for this, "intelligent design" does not.

Evolution proponents do not "insist that _only_ evolution be taught". What
they do insist on is that in science class, the topics be restricted to
things that are valid science. If someone came up with an alternative
theory that actually proposed a testable hypothesis, I'm sure they would
have no trouble accepting that as a teachable topic.

"Intelligent design" is nothing more than the religious idea of a creation
by a supreme being restated. It contains no actual theory for process, no
testable hypothesis, nothing that would even remotely qualify it as science.

The latter position is in line with scientific principles and an honest
effort to learn the truth, while the former smacks more of unsupportable
religious belief and superstition.

You have that backwards.

[...]
Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

It seems that you understand neither evolution nor thermodynamics. Entropy
is in no way a counter-proof to evolution.

Pete

But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many people are confused on which is science and which is faith or superstition.

The key difference is that a scientific theory can be =dis=proven, with
appropriate evidence. An issue of faith cannot.

Evolution proponents insist that _only_ evolution be taught, while intelligent design proponents say teach the pros & cons of all views and decide which has the most going for it.

It may be a factoid, but it is not a fact. A factoid "resembles" a
fact. What you state above is not true. It is not a fact.

What is a fact is that those whom you call "evolution proponents" insist
that matters of faith not be taught as science. Come up with a
testable, disprovable theory and it can be taught as science. Come up
with some evidence in its favor and it might even gain support.
Evolution fits the bill. Neither Intellegent Design (laughable when I
see how living things actually work!) nor the Great Spaghetti Monster
(bless his noodley appendages) can be disproven, therefore do not fit
the definition of "scientific theory". To be a "scientific theory" it
must be more than an idea or speculation - it must be DISprovable. (not
that "disprovable" does not mean "incorrect"; it merely means that there
are experimental results which, =if= obtained, could disprove the theory)

Theories of air pressure on wings is testable and disprovable. Lifting
fairies are not.

I've never understood how people can simultaneously believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).

Entropy increases over a closed system. Evolution shows its effects on
an open system. It's like perpetual motion machines being impossible,
even in the face of solar powered motors. While small areas of a system
get more complex, they do so at the cost of larger areas of the system
becoming more degraded. Go to any garbage dump for a picturesque
illustration.

This has been discussed here about six months ago. I forget the (of
course misleading) subject lines, but google for it.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Dan wrote:

Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

Check out: http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

--Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dan wrote:

Which reminds me... I've never understood how people can simultaneously
believe in evolution theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy).
Just doesn't make sense, from a scientific or logical standpoint.

Check out: http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

Two good links from Walt and Dan Luke. Let's wait and see if Dan Y. recants.

My bet is he spins like a top. (Based on experience)

"Dan Youngquist" wrote in message
hell.org...
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Roger wrote:
Try becoming well informed on the evolution/intelligent design
"controversy" if you're not a biologist to begin with.

That's easy. One is based on science and the other on superstition,
some times called faith.

True. But the more I learn about the issue, the more I realize that many
people are confused on which is science and which is faith or
superstition. Even Darwin himself said something to the effect that if
fossils supporting his theory didn't start turning up soon, their absence
would disprove his theory. (150-odd years later, no luck yet.) Things
have only gone downhill since then for the theory of evolution -- the more
we know, the harder it becomes to support the theory from a scientific
standpoint.

HA!!! Where did you get that non-sense?

On 2006-03-16, Dan Youngquist wrote:
religious belief and superstition. Some folks don't think kids should
even be told that evolution is only a _theory_, not a proven fact, and
that there are other views with good scientific arguments behind them.

As soon as someone says '...evolution is only a _theory_' you can
immediately tell they actually have no idea what a scientific theory
actually is. They are equating the scientific meaning of 'theory' with
the common every day use of 'theory'.

The common use of 'theory' often really means a hunch, or a gut feel, or
maybe even as much as a conjecture. In science, a 'theory' is something
much different. A theory must be falsifiable for a start. It must make
predictions that can be tested. I won't waste my time here going over
the full definition of a scientific theory, if you're interested, Google
will help you do that.

Electricity is also "just a theory" too. So is Einstein's Theory of
General and Special Relativity. Even though, as you put it, they are
'just a theory', you tell the residents of Hiroshima in 1945 that E=MC^2
is part of something which is 'just a theory'.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is not a theory or even a
hypothesis - it only qualifies as conjecture. It is not scientific in
any way. It has no place being taught in science classes. That's not to
say it should *not* be taught at all - perhaps it should be taught as
what science ISN'T and why it is not science. Perhaps it should be
taught in religious studies classes and philosophy classes. But it
should not be taught as a valid theory in a science class because it is
not science.

Teaching the theory of evolution is not religious or religious
fundamentalism. It is just science. Of course, those who don't even
understand what a scientific theory actually is (probably because their
own science classes failed them) are not likely to agree.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net