Predictability of Evolution

_{December 5, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

We often hear the ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity.

The theory of gravity can predict precisely where the planets will be a million years from now. What can the theory of evolution predict a million years into the future?

Essentially, ToE predicts nothing. It explains history after the fact which is a whole lot different than predicting something before it happens. Of what value is a theory with no predictive power? Why do we bother teaching our children a valueless theory of history that more often than not is disbelieved and causes so much strife? Just the facts, ma’am, please.

All life on earth is related through common structures such as the genetic code. That’s a fact. How the relations were established is not a matter of fact but a matter of speculation. Leave the speculation out of primary school. There are more facts surrounding biology than we possibly have time to teach in primary education. That is what we should be teaching. Just the facts, please.

Comments

The bottom line is simple. The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution is the nearly undisputed best explanation for biodiversity. Though I am solidly an IDer, one must recognize that the hard evidence supporting ID is minimal. One must also recognize that the neo-Darwinan theory of evolution is a rather time-tested theory. Our mission, as IDers, is to uncover the evidence that we are convinced is there. When we have uncovered a significant amount of that evidence, then it will be time to suggest that kids be actively taught about it. I do believe that kids need to be taught that there are big questions, big opportunities for exploration, in the field of evolutionary biology. They can start with abiogenesis, and the cambrian explosion. If neo-Darwinianism is presented as "fact", it steifles interest. If it is presented as "the best theory so far", great! Beyond that, it is recognized that for a biologist to admit curiosity about ID is for him/her to commit professional suicide. Further, it is clear that there is a publication ban on ID friendly research. These aspects of scientific inquiry have got to go -- but the theory needs to be taught until it is overthrown. That's the way science and education work, that's the way that they must work.bFast_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Now we are in complete agreement, I think. Your points about gravity I make every day when discussing what exactly science has explained and what it hasn't, and just what a true prediction is. Which returns us to our other point of agreement: Fair enough that gravity is better tested than evolution, and the evolution = gravity trope is surely dumb. Charlie_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT}

Which is, of course, introducing a straw man. No one said the predictivie nature of gravitational theory hasn't room for changes due to 'stray comets' or 'other external forces', those things can be calculated in and adjustments made. He simply said that you can make far reaching, precise predictions about gravity and you cannot with ToE. But of course you know that.mr_flood_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

That is the point of discussing predictions. The two [gravity and evolution] are not the same kinds of theories. Fair enough that gravity is better tested than evolution, and the evolution = gravity trope is surely dumb. But I don't see what this has to do with which theory gets taught in public schools. As for Ã¢â‚¬Å“ToE predicts that organisms will continue to changeÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ that is merely restating the observation that populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they change or how they did so in the past. True, but "the apple cut from the tree will fall to the ground" is merely restating an observation as well, independent of any theory of what gravity is or how it works. We still don't really know what gravity is, or how it works, and we don't have a unified field theory but that doesn't mean we don't think gravity happens.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT}

The theory of gravity can predict precisely where the planets will be a million years from now. And BTW, this is overstated. You could make a prediction like this under Newton's laws of motion and gravity, but those laws assume the background of a fixed Euclidean space. While you might be able to predict the positions of the planets relative to other bodies in the solar system, you can't predict the absolute positions of the planets in the universe a million years from now. So, even an example of a strongly predictive law is in reality only relatively predictive. Further any such prediction assumes there will be no other external force applied to those planets over that million years. A stray comet or meteor could upset the whole apple cart.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

dopderbeck, You make some very good points, but you miss the main one. Dave opened with: We often hear the ridiculous assertion that the theory of evolution is as well tested as the theory of gravity. That is the point of discussing predictions. The two are not the same kinds of theories. As for "ToE predicts that organisms will continue to change"... that is merely restating the observation that populations change, and is independent of any theory of why they change or how they did so in the past.Charlie_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

This is the kind of argument that drives thoughtful people who question Darwinist orthodoxy nuts. Why should a theory's ability to predict the future determine whether it gets taught? What about other historical natural sciences that can't make sure predictions about the future -- say, geology, or cosmology? What about social sciences that are largely historical in nature, say, sociology and economics? What about historical liberal arts, say literature, or history itself? Why is a "fact" less important or "factual" simply because it is "historical" rather than "predictive?" Anyway, evolutionary theory does make predictions about the future. It predicts, for example, that organisms will continue to change as they adapt to their environments. This has obvious implications for how we manage the environment and for technologies such as biotechnology. It's one thing to suggest that the mechanism by which life on Earth came to be related through common structures and genetic code is subject to reasonable dispute, the protestations of fundamentalist Darwinists notwithstanding. It's another thing entirely to try to make education policy based on a facile distinction between historical and predictive science.dopderbeck_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

DaveScot: That is what we should be teaching. Just the facts, please. That is what I have been saying for years! Present the data, along with the options for how that data came to be. Then have an open discussion that would perhaps lend itself to objective testing.Joseph_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Why do we bother teaching our children a valueless theory of history that more often than not is disbelieved and causes so much strife?Ã¢â‚¬Â CÃ¢â‚¬â„¢mon now, evangelical atheists need something to believe in too.shaner74_{December 5, 2006
December
12
Dec
5
05
2006
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply