What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Giving a Smart phone? Finding The Right One Just Got Easier. view!
bestbuy.com - Best Buy has all the phones and carriers in one place so you can quickly compare prices & features.
182 Comments
- Croixce, on 08/28/2008, -23/+139Thats the joy of Fiction.
Nice to see "Intelligent Design" where it belongs - A11YND, on 08/28/2008, -17/+121Finally its getting the respect it deserves!
....in the genre it deserves. - LarianLeQuella, on 08/28/2008, -16/+104I just have to add: Contrary to the claims of some of our political leaders, intelligent design is not an alternative theory to evolution. It's a belief, and maybe - on a really good day - a hypothesis. But it is not a theory.
To become a scientific theory, a hypothesis has to be developed into principles that not only explain what we see around us, but make specific predictions that differentiate it from other explanations. It's not enough to simply sound like a reasonable alternative; a theory has to take a stand and risk being proven wrong. A philosopher named Karl Popper observed that a theory is only a theory when it is "falsifiable."
Intelligent design can't be falsified because it doesn't as yet predict anything that we can go out and check. And that, quite simply, is why intelligent design shouldn't appear in textbooks next to evolution as a scientific explanation of the fossil and genetic record of life on earth.
To be serious scientific players, the advocates of intelligent design have to develop their hypothesis into a theory that can be falsified, and then put at least as much effort into testing it as they do courting school boards and state legislatures.
That said, it would help immensely if scientists and educators were more careful when talking to the general public about evolution in particular, and scientific theories in general.
For example, it confuses people when evolution is referred to as a "fact." In general usage, a fact is something like "The sun set in the west today." A theory is, in the sunset case, celestial mechanics, a set of principles and equations that explains the movement of the planets, and makes precise predictions about where things will go when they're shot into space. The fact that the sun set in the west today is undeniably true, but doesn't do us much good if we want to land a spacecraft on Mars. The theory of celestial mechanics does.
Theories weave facts, observations, ideas and hypotheses into coherent explanations by a painstaking process of analysis and synthesis. They are fluid - always subject to revision as more is learned about the world. In everyday life, however, people expect facts to be true and final.
To avoid confusion on this important point, scientists and educators should stop calling evolution a fact, and take the time to explain just what it means for something to be a theory.
Another dangerous assertion is that scientists have proven the theory of evolution. This is misleading, because we can't absolutely prove a theory correct; we can only prove it wrong. A philosopher by the name of David Hume summed it up nicely with his "black swan" example. If we claim all swans are white, we can prove it only by examining every single swan - past, present and future. But if we find just one black swan, we've proven the theory wrong.
That's why the history of science is one of fits and starts - sometimes revolutions. It's rare for a theory to survive tens of years - let alone 100 - without being radically modified or superseded.
Scientists and educators should avoid saying that we've proven the theory of evolution, and patiently explain how remarkably well evolution has held up to everything that's been thrown at it.
A little more attention to the profound differences in meaning between fact, theory and belief might help lower the level of rhetoric in the evolution debate. It will also more clearly put the burden on advocates of intelligent design to meet the standards to which we hold all those who aspire to do science. - Pssdoff, on 08/28/2008, -4/+49What does Scientology have to do with science?
- baldgye, on 08/28/2008, -26/+67what does Intelligent Design have to do with science?
- mCanada, on 08/28/2008, -6/+39What do penguins have to do with 3 assed Siberian Unicorn's?
- EatingPie, on 08/28/2008, -5/+312001: A Space Odyssey isn't included in the list? Yes, I'm serious. One of the most popular interpretations of the greatest Science Fiction movie ever made is that it was intelligent design (the movie is very open ended). AFAIK, the book didn't even leave any doubt: the aliens caused our evolution.
One of the purposes of Science Fiction is to look at different ideas, project those into the future, or alternative realities, and see what happens. Some people prefer to call SF "Speculative Fiction" for that reason. So many of Science Fiction books were logic experiments, and often completely untenable as real science, but bore out good stories.
Asimov's Foundation series (among many other books) used the idea that we could predict the future actions of people as long as the group was large enough. Great books, but nothing really to back this up as possible. Similarly I've read Science Fiction stories that speculated God's Angels intruded into our plane of reality (sometimes causing Godzilla-like destruction, sometimes converting people to loving God just by the light they gave off), or that the world existed on a Mobius. Interesting ideas, good stories, but factually false in our universe.
And then there's the *millions* of Time Travel books and stories.
So, I don't see a problem here. This is what Science Fiction is all about. Ideas and speculations projected into stories. It's still up to you to decide if it's logical, plausible, truthful or not... just like it always has been.
-Pie - jawdog, on 08/28/2008, -3/+24Answer: Intelligent Design
- deepthot42, on 08/28/2008, -8/+29"By making ID into something that was clearly fiction, I wanted to show that the idea itself was fictional," Lake said.
- ghidorahnotweak, on 08/28/2008, -7/+25I just love the idea that ID has become part of the science fiction landscape. It's a very sneaky critique on the part of scifi authors.
- feignNU, on 08/28/2008, -3/+19rAmen.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -16/+30What does intelligence have to do with religion?
- Oronar, on 08/29/2008, -4/+18It's better to be a skeptical *****. There is no evidence at all for intelligent design.
- 5xSTUN, on 08/29/2008, -1/+13Of course, we all know it was intelligent design... especially Norway, thanks to Slartibartfast, the award-winning coastline designer.
- budser, on 08/28/2008, -5/+17What does scifi have to do with science? Just look at the SciFi channel--UFO's, Loch Ness, Sasquatch, and ESP all day long.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -2/+13@ baldgye & Pssdoff - Not a damn thing.
- KingGorilla, on 08/29/2008, -0/+10What does Christian Science have to do with science?
- jj101, on 08/29/2008, -0/+10It doesn't matter. Evolution describes the process of change and the reasons for it, not the origins of life.
- Sendai129, on 08/29/2008, -0/+10Actually how a seed becomes a vast forest is understood quite well. It's something that was hypothesized about, tested, tested and tested again. See that's the beauty of science and reality, it can ALL be tested. It all follows strict rules that with enough time and testing can be fully understood.
Now I said it before in a reply and I'll say it again. I want what you're smoking, would make for one hell of a trip : ) - shupy, on 08/28/2008, -2/+12Uh, I think it is called DNA.
- TritonX, on 08/28/2008, -3/+12Still you.
- LordStandley, on 08/28/2008, -13/+21Silly religious nutters and their funny superstitions.
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -2/+10It's called science*fiction* because fiction is a not true story.
Therefore, it's not in sync with science. - inactive, on 08/28/2008, -3/+10I have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
- jj101, on 08/29/2008, -1/+8simplistico6 - You can be whatever you want to be. It's when it comes to teaching that this has to be ruled out.
What you're saying is obviously correct. We could be living in a universe created by some other being. We could be living in a universe that is part of a random object in another universe.
The thing is could does not mean much. There are an infinite number of things that "could" be. When it come te teaching we should teach about what we know "is". We should teach science. I'm going to assume that you are intelligent and understand what I mean by that. - jj101, on 08/29/2008, -1/+8Which is completely fine. Anything is possible. The thing is "anything" is possible. My problem with ID is that people want to teach it. But how would people choose out of all the other things that are possibe. Science is the teaching of ideas we can back up with evidence. That is what we should teach - what we have learnt. Not any idea we have had that "might" be.
Also say thats right and the designer exists and is not of this realm. So? The not of this realm part explains why there's no evidence for a designer in this universe but also kind of makes the designers existence irrelevant. Certainly from a teaching standpoint. Why would that knowledge ever be helpful? - Disgod, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7@Stepheniscool
For it to be scientific a theory has to be falsifiable. The theory of evolution is 100% falsifiable. Find a single organism whose DNA is not shared by a single other species and evolution is falsified. Find a fossilized bunny in Precambrian geologic layers, as Thunderfoot on Youtube likes to say. Find some DNA which can not be mutated, ever. Find some organism which has a feature which has absolutely no known ancestral, "primitive" form, or one that is impossible for it to have evolved in steps. Or find an example of a organism reproducing and giving birth to a completely brand new creature, like a duck giving birth to a reptile. All these things and more would disprove evolution, but in the hundreds of thousands of fossils, and in every single DNA sequence ever run on any species, and in all the reproductive events ever witnessed none of these things have been found.
What is amusing is that the Christian version of creation, and the subsequent events portrayed in the bible can be falsified, and have been falsified, but Creationists conveniently ignore this fact. There is absolutely no way the earth suffered a global flood like in the bible according to all known physics, nor is there one single shred of geologic evidence for a global flood. And that's just one of the "events" in the bible which has been 100% disproved. - cgibbo, on 08/28/2008, -7/+14What does design have to do with intelligence?
- allenthar, on 08/29/2008, -2/+9You can falsify it, primarily through the fossil record. Evolution makes predictions on what kind of fossils we should find, and in what age of rock. If the fossils found are substantially more complex or of completely different kind than evolution would dictate, them bam! Theory has problems!
So far, that hasn't happened, but there is always the possibility it will.
Reproduction of something in a lab in only one way of falsifying something, making predictions about what historical data should show is another.
To use a really simple (and probably really bad) example, say you had devised a "theory" that prior to the 20th century, all governmental change was peaceful in nature. But then you find out, amazingly, there was thing called the American Revolutionary War in old documents, and suddenly you have to revise your theory. - simplistics06, on 08/29/2008, -1/+8Would it be so hard to imagine a species thousands of years more advanced than us creating life for the hell of it? We would probably do the same.
- flossdaily, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7...except that SCIENCE fiction's job is to pick up where science leaves off. Intelligent Design ignores vast bodies of scientific achievement. It would be more properly classified as Fantasy.
- ApokalypseNow, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7@JimmySpaza
You want to falsify evolution? That's easy. Give me fossil bunnies from the Cambrian. - Dimensio, on 08/29/2008, -0/+7" It cannot be observed in nature except for a relatively small number of speciation events and DNA mutations."
You are apparently unaware of what is required of a scientific explanation. A scientific theory does not require direct replication of the entire model. A scientific theory requires only that the processes and mechanisms of the model be demonstrated as occurring as a result of the fundamental properties of the universe, and that evidence that such processes have occurred in a fashion consistent with the model is present. The theory of evolution is based upon physical events that are known to occur -- modification in descent and varying selection pressures upon reproductive success relative to environmental conditions. These physical events were postulated as the cause of all extant biodiversity; this postulate was used to derive logical implications of what should subsequently be observed as a result of those processes occurring in a regular and predictable fashion. Specifically, the theory of evolution implies that certain observations should be made in the fossil record, that certain commonalities should be evidenc across varying diverse organisms and that certain patterns should be evident when observing DNA and mitochondrial DNA. It also directly implies that certain observations in the aforementioned scopes should never be observed; for example, rabbit fossils should never appear in Precambrian strata, and it should never be observed that a retrotransposon found in both orangutans and chimpanzees is also not found in humans. Thus far, no contradictory observations have ever occurred, and sufficient numbers of predicted observations have been documented so as to establish confidence amongst scientists in relevant fields of study in the validity of the theory of evolution as a viable model.
Given that you have demonstrated clear ignorance of both scientific methodoly and scientific terminology in previous discussions, I do not believe that it would be wise to consider you to be a reliable source of information upon any scientific topic. - phrenzy, on 08/29/2008, -3/+10Wow dude... You might as well have just drooled all over your keyboard and said:
"GAAWWWD did it!" - 5xSTUN, on 08/29/2008, -1/+7LOL.
- Esstee, on 08/28/2008, -7/+13The overall concept is that the Designer is not of this realm, but of one from where the laws that bind our own universe do not exist.
aka. a supernatural being. - smartguy4932, on 08/29/2008, -3/+9I agree completely....but it seems that no intelligent conversation is going on with this subject....just slamming on both sides .....IMO
- lensman00, on 08/29/2008, -1/+7Seems like many of the commenters skipped the article and jumped right to flogging their position points. "Welcome to Digg", as they say.
I wrote a story for a college course that had future humans using robots for a terraforming project. The world they were creating was nautilus-shaped, and the robots lived short, brutish lives fighting their way out to the edge of the nautilus and then pulverizing each other to help the planet grow. In the story, one robot is "born" with a superior sense of self-awareness and sneaks back to the control room to confront his makers.
I was no Isaac Asimov (I think I got a B+), but the story was inspired by his tales of robots and consciousness. Several of the tales the article mentions are along similar lines: self-aware creatures inhabiting curiously mechanistic worlds and pondering their origins.
As a couple of others mentioned, this sort of plot is nothing new in sci-fi. And yes, there is some overlap with fantasy, as there is in lot of speculative fiction. - ixid, on 08/29/2008, -1/+7If natural selection didn't work it would have falsified evolution. Having no hereditary transmission of information between generations would have falsified evolution. There, evolution had falsifiable elements. I'm sure I could think of some that it still has if I gave it some thought but we're really way beyond the stage of falsifying and well into working out the details but there's no requirement logically for it to retain falsifiable elements, only that it had them at one point. Now we're just verifying or falsifying the details really.
- imakecomments, on 08/29/2008, -0/+6No, he said not to respond with all your atheist crap. I'm assuming then that it's ok to respond with just *some* of your "atheist crap". :)
And it's probably ok to respond with links like this:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/ - Sendai129, on 08/29/2008, -3/+9I'll have two of whatever he's smoking.
- dmann, on 08/29/2008, -0/+6The thing is, at its core, "intelligent design" isn't anti-science.
Simply put, you look at evolution and go "well, yeah, that's just proof of how God did it"
It just isn't science in and of itself. It's a one day lesson in sunday school, where it belongs. - TheKillDoctor, on 08/29/2008, -0/+6Dude! He told you not to reply!!
- TheZorch, on 08/29/2008, -4/+9This is nothing new. The concept of a God or a pantheon of Gods creating a certain world has been the staple of fantasy since before Tolkien's day.
- smartguy4932, on 08/28/2008, -11/+16I am really getting tired of this argument....it seems every 10 days someone else is ripping religion on Digg....can we all just leave things as they lie?
- kirakun, on 08/29/2008, -2/+7It's nothing funnier than writers without super power writing about superman.
It's all fiction. - jj101, on 08/29/2008, -2/+7@jimmy - You can't "falsify" the evolution from bacteria to humans because that never happened. Bacteria clearly do not eveolve into humans. There are a lot of steps in between.
Your comment is like saying "Of course trees are not made from seeds. Look, you can't instantly make that seed into tree". But if you planted that seed and took a photo every week for 10 years then you would be able to see how it happened.
Similarly each stage that the single celled organsims take up the evoltionary ladder is falsifiable exactly as allenthar describes (I'm sure there are gaps but you get the point). Our "photos" are the fossil recored and the gaps are ones we can't find or have lost.
PS @ phrenzy - you're a heartless bastard but I'm still laughing. - bmcnally, on 08/29/2008, -1/+6Would you call the Foundation Trilogy science fiction by your definition? Because it seems to me like you are discounting most of Asimov and Bradbury's works.
- deepthot42, on 08/28/2008, -3/+8Well, the authors are adding the science part....
- inactive, on 08/29/2008, -0/+5In the field of science, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim. If I make the claim that a giant space monster lives in the sun, it is my responsibility to prove it, not the scientist's responsibility to provide proof that it isn't there.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 184 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is