"If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it's no solution to raise the theologian's plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case get it out of the science classroom and send it back into the church, where it belongs." - Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research
"You imply that if we do not understand the exact mechanism of a process (like evolution) we must allow for intervention by the 'Creator.' Sorry, but science doesn't work that way. Consider what happens when a living cell divides and its chromosomes move apart. We do not, in fact, know exactly what produces the force that moves chromosomes. Do I make a 'materialist' assumption when I say that the force is probably generated by biochemical mechanisms? Of course not. But your logic would claim there is no mechanism, and the Creator Himself has to push every chromosome around." - Ken Miller
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/deb07mil1206.html
"Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term 'information' undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:
- increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
- increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
- novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
- novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place." - The talk.origins FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory" - (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982)
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=03b_a0monNYC&pg=PA198&lpg=PA198&dq="A+scientific+theory+must+be"
"Science, by definition, is a method of learning about the natural universe by asking questions in such a way that they can be answered empirically and verifiably. If a question cannot be framed so that the answer can be tested, and the test results can be reproduced by others, then it is not science. Creationism, whether in its earlier form as creation 'science' or its more recent guise of intelligent design, attempts to explain complicated phenomena of the natural world by invoking a creator or designer. Creationism is not science because it invokes supernatural phenomena that cannot be tested. It therefore has no place in a science curriculum. Because science is limited to explaining natural phenomena through the use of empirical evidence, it cannot provide religious or ultimate explanations. Science teachers should not advocate any religions interpretations of nature and should be nonjudgmental about the personal beliefs of students." - The Geological Society of America.
http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment