November 9, 2008

ID is a Science-Stopper

Objections to Intelligent Design continued from a previous post

ID is a Science-Stopper

Science writer Michael Shermer said "The point of the ID movement is not to expand scientific understanding-it is to shut it down"

The truth, however, is just the opposite. By rigidly excluding ID from science, Darwinists themselves impede scientific progress. Consider the embarrassing label of "junk DNA." The word "junk" suggests that useless portions of DNA have arisen together through a blind, unguided process of evolution. Evolutionary theorists thus have come to regard only a small portion of DNA as functional. By contrast, if DNA is the product of design, we would expect much of it to be functional.

Current research indicates that much of what previously termed "junk DNA" is now known to have function. In a recent Newsweek article, Mary Carmichael describes the transformation in how DNA is understood: "Researchers have realized that this forgotten part of the genome is, in fact, profoundly important. It contains the machinery that flips the switches, manipulating much of the rest of the genome...Genes make up only 1.2 percent of our DNA. The rest of the DNA, once called "junk DNA" was thought to be filler. Recent finds prove otherwise"

I would add even vestigial organs to this list also. It means total lost of an organs original function. Saying it still has function negate the use of the word.

Take the appendix in humans as a fine example, evolution scientists calls it a vestigial organ. Most evolution scientist, even this Dawkins dude, still believe the old story that the appendix is some kind of useless leftover from our ape-like ancestry. It's incredible that this myth continues to be spread. Even the encyclopedia sates "The appendix doesn't serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time." (New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:491, 1997)

Newest medical textbook, on the other hand, present the known function of this organ. For example, the appendix has a role to play in our immune system. This has left countless of people scared, and unable to fight infections, including my own Dad. Many evolutionists continue to cling to outdated and wrong information in their attempt to persuade you that evolution is true. They also claim that there are other so called "useless" body parts that are "left over."

Design thus encourages science to look for deeper insight into nature, whereas Darwinian evolution discourages it. The criticism that design stifles scientific progress is therefore mistaken. The criticism applies more readily to Darwinism then design.

59 comments:

  1.      That is not the impression I get. While "vestigal" traits are thought no longer to serve a function, the evolutionary hypothesis assumes that all traits served a function at some time. Scientists find surprising current functions precisely because they seek to determine what function the traits once served.
         Evolution may be regarded as a type of mindless pseudo-designer. Everything it produces serves some purpose that increases the likelihood of reproduction. There is nothing purely decorative. There is nothing for a "designer's" art, humor, or interest. It is a slavish devotion to function only.
         On the other hand, creationism generally assumes a creator whose ways are inscrutable. It discourages investigation into the purpose for things because, unless it is found specificly in the "holy book," such things are regarded as unkowable, belonging to the mind of the creator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. vestigial organs: Whales have been found with remnants of legs, feet, and even toes. How do you explain that? Biologists claim whales evolved from land animals, so they are not surprised about these vestigial organs found in some whales.

    There are many examples of identical Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) that have been found in the exact same location in the genome of chimps and people. The only possible explanation is these ERVs were inherited from a common ancestor. The Liars for Jebus can lie about ERVs all they want, but they can't change the obvious fact these ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor.

    Biologists know the average rate of mutations per generation so they are able to make accurate estimates of when the common ancestors of chimps and humans became separated and began developing differently. So they know the split between the ancestors of people and chimps occurred between 5 and 6 million years ago.

    Biologists can see the history of life when they compare DNA sequences of different species. They can see the history of life in incredible detail. For example they can see strong evidence for the idea that after the ancestors of people and chimps split apart about 6 million years ago, they continued to mate with each other for hundreds of thousands of years when they encountered each other, until they permanently split apart about 5 million years ago. Since they must have been still very similar the first million years after their separation this makes sense and that's what the DNA evidence shows to be true.

    Anyone who makes an honest effort to understand how evolution works and to understand the massive extremely powerful rapidly growing evidence for evolution from molecular biology and genetics couldn't possibly deny the facts of evolution.

    You want to stick your intelligent design magic religious belief into science, as if a real scientist would ever agree to do that. Even religious scientists reject the idea that intelligent design magic could ever be part of science. Religion and science are two completely different subjects and scientists will never allow them to be mixed together. Religions must accommodate modern scientific discoveries because science does not care about religious ideas. Even the most religious scientists know they can't let their religious beliefs interfere with their work.

    Your denial of the most important fact of biology, and one of the strongest facts of science, evolution, disgraces your religion. What intelligent person would want to have anything to do with a religion that depends on the denial of modern scientific discoveries?

    ReplyDelete
  3. From the right column of your blog:

    "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company), p. 1.

    That's called quote mining. Dishonest creationists like to select sentences from a scientist to make it appear that the scientist agrees with the creationist. Any educated person who sees your quote mining would immediately conclude you're a liar. Don't you Christians have some commandment from your magic fairy that forbids lying? Christians think they have superior moral values but the truth is Christians like yourself are the more immoral people in human history. You should be ashamed of yourself. You bring disgrace to your religion with your dishonest quote mining.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, I don't know when I've seen Bob get so wound up, and I've seen a lot of Bob, so you must have done a pretty good job of making your point, Dan.

    And Bob, it's only quote mining if you change the context of the statement to alter the point in your favor. But Dawkins statement stands alone, since an "appearance of design" *can* mean just that, so creationists are perfectly justified to call you clowns the liars, since neodarwinians, skeptics, and anticentrists flat-refuse look at evidence for purpose in nature from a scientific perspective. Your willfully ignorant loss gives them the right to call your lame bluff, even if they do read-in too much, in other words.

    At least Dawkins gives credit to possible forms of natural intervention, which is more than I can say for most of you freaking fanatics.

    The only possible way to permanently end the war against science is to completely eradicate the Christian death cult and all other religions.
    -Bob the fanatic

    ReplyDelete
  5. One of the marvelously "designed" organs of the human body is the gall bladder. After many years of fine service, my gall bladder started malfunctioning in such a way as to prevent me from eating a normal diet. Surgery corrected this.


    If there are no vestigial organs and the human body's "design" is as great as you seem to think, then why is it that my original equipment actually failed me, and surgery actually corrected that condition? If the gall bladder is so essential, then why have I been able to have a normal life after surgery; not before?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob,

    "Whales have been found with remnants of legs, feet, and even toes. How do you explain that?"

    I am assuming you are referring to the whale's pelvic bone. It is very often mistaken for vestigial legs. From what I have read the pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column. This bone in the whale, serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs.

    Being an evolutionist, you naturally interprets this smaller piece of bone as a throw-back to the femur, or thigh bone, of the whale’s evolutionary ancestor. However, the bone in question is sometimes ‘fused’ with the pelvic bone.

    Island,

    Thanks for the explanation of quote mining, it's that kind of logic that will get some points across to stubborn minds. I have found a new friend, Thank you and welcome. Please stay.

    I actually rebuked Bob but if he is repentant and civil then I could forgive him and let him stay. I will give him the undeserved grace, something God gave me.

    "I don't know when I've seen Bob get so wound up"

    I see many get mad, which is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve.

    ReplyDelete
  7. captain howdy,

    By the logic that you are using then my wife's pituitary gland is a vestigial organ? People have heart failure and lung cancer every day. Are all failing organs on a body vestigial?

    I did a post on what you are describing, it's what we call a fallen creation.

    Where, that is very understandable question it has nothing to do with the vestigial organs 'perceived' by evolutionists. These are just failing systems in our bodies. Maybe even a wake up call, of sorts, for our temporary residence here on earth.

    From the day that a person breaks God's Law of Sin and Death, God's greatest desire is that they will come to repentance. And so we then go along thinking that we're just living life, but the reality is, that our life's experiences are filled with acts of God trying to bring us back into a relationship with Himself.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan wrote By rigidly excluding ID from science, Darwinists themselves impede scientific progress.

    You can't be that dense.

    ID excludes itself from science, not the other way around. It's like a duck trying to get into a convention of physicists, and then claiming that the establishment is anti-physics.

    The minute ID makes testable predictions, you'll be treated seriously. Until that point, however, please continue gnashing your teeth; pseudo-science is recognized for what it is, regardless of whether that frustrates you or not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Whateverman,

    So you basically ignored the entire post or you didn't comprehend it.

    "You can't be that dense."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dan wrote:
    Design thus encourages science to look for deeper insight into nature, whereas Darwinian evolution discourages it. The criticism that design stifles scientific progress is therefore mistaken. The criticism applies more readily to Darwinism then design.

    Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design and it's supporters operate on negative evidence: in effect, they support their theory by attacking other peoples theories. An example is Irreducable Complexity: "Evolution can't explain this, therefore ID is right". This post does the same: rather than explaining why concluding that "ADesignerDidIt" isn't a complete science stopper, it instead makes the claim that "Darwinism" is a worse science stopper.

    This seems to stem from the false dichtomy promoted by many creationist organisations. They think that disproving their opponents viewpoint will automatically mark their own as the correct one. Unfortionately, they seem not to realise that science doesn't work like that: a claim must be supported with positive evidence. Disproving evolution by natural selection would not count as evidence for Intelligent Design: there may well exist other processes or entities (other than natural selection) which can result in the appearance of design without intelligence.

    I see no need to personally refute the claims of evolution as a "science stopper": 150 years of incredible progress in every field it touches seems to do that well enough for me.

    Instead, I would like to once again ask the supporters of ID: can you provide any positive evidence in support of your supposedly scientific theory?



    A couple of examples:

    Positive evidence in favor of evolution: Engenous Retrovirus's appear in modern species in places expected by the nested heirachy which is a result of common decent.
    Negative evidence against ID: There are no known mechanisms for a designer to use to design life, and no evidence external to life's appearance of design that one has done so in the past.
    Negative evidence against evolution: Some things in nature would require fairly improbable mutations to evolve stepwise.
    Positive evidence in favor of ID: ???

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan said So you basically ignored the entire post

    When the second sentence of your opinion (as the beginning of a long post) fundamentally misunderstands the term "science", and when you have been repeatedly shown as to how science operates and what it assumes, and yet you ignore this knowledge of the scientific method in favor of dogmatic criticism...

    Yes, I most assuredly will ignore the rest.

    Demonstrate to me that you understand how science works, and I will consider your criticism of it to be worth reading.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Whateverman,

    I perfect understand the basic tenets of the scientific method. This certainly doesn't mean that scientists follow it.

    Evolutionists have violated many rules including:

    III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

    "As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation."

    Did I demonstrate, satisfactorily?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Quasar,

    I absolutely enjoyed your comment and also your candor. You are one of my favorite debaters.

    Remember this post?

    "It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of origins--that is, of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos. These are, in simplest terms, evolution or creation. Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot--one or the other. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic symptoms of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far as origins are concerned.

    This necessarily means that if we can "falsify" either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option. By definition, evolution should still be occurring now, since it is to be explained by present processes."

    This agrees with your claim (negative evidence), and I cannot necessarily, for now, disagree. We must again change the entire paradigm (currently evolution) in order to move to a "better" direction. If the paradigm was the "positive" towards God instead of the current negative then there might be a vast amount of said "Positive" evidence. This is not to say there isn't any because there is. The presuppositions of the scientific community these days just will not allow it. If we can show the theory of evolution to be false then maybe, just maybe, fundings will go towards looking for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan wrote:
    "Evolutionists have violated many rules including:

    "As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation."


    Could you please provide an example of an experiment that has been influenced in this way, and yet has still been accepted as scientific?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Quasar,

    "Could you please provide an example of an experiment that has been influenced in this way, and yet has still been accepted as scientific?"

    Good question, since I am not in any science field, I probably cannot answer that question at the moment. We both know it goes deeper then this.

    Wendell Bird said "Evolution is at least as religious as creation, and creation is at least as scientific as evolution."

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wendell Bird is a creationist, so it's no wonder he'd say that. It's not like he'd be an objective view. Remember, any member of any creationist group has to take an oath promising to never deviate from their doctrine before they are even allowed to join up, much less do any research in their groups.

    For more Bird fun.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Stupid me, I forgot to include an example of ID creationists refusing to do research.

    So, at risk of sounding like a broken record, let’s see what we didn’t get from the intelligent design movement this year:

    -A peer-reviewed paper by Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer ...

    -Or for that matter, a single peer-reviewed article offering either (a) evidence for design, (b) a method to unambiguously detect design, or (c) a theory of how the Designer did the designing, by any fellow of the DI.

    -An exposition of Nelson’s theory of "ontogenetic depth" (promised in March 2004)

    -An article by Nelson & Dembski on problems with common descent (promised in April 2005).

    -Nelson’s monograph on common descent (currently MIA since the late 90’s).

    Funny. That list is identical to what we didn’t get last year. Wow. It’s like 2007 never happened.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dan wrote Did I demonstrate, satisfactorily?

    By linking several items? No, that's not sufficient.

    You've omitted the methodology that precludes ID from being referred to as "science"; namely, it makes no falsifiable claims.

    One more time, very slow so that you'll remember it in the future: ID makes no falsifiable predictions. It therefore is not science, and by its very nature, prevents itself from being called as such.

    Individual scientists and professors and (lack of) belief systems have nothing to do with this. You were intentionally dishonest to suggest otherwise.

    ---

    You should have contained your critique to the realm of the specific science. Instead, you revealed that you're simply looking for reasons to validate your faith (via ID), rather than searching for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. quasar, look at this very incomplete list of examples, but note that I am an atheist, a Darwinist, and a materialist, who sees Dan's point as a real factor that hurts science very badly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Reynold,

    "[He] is a creationist, so it's no wonder he'd say that. It's not like he'd be an objective view."

    So let me get this straight, if they are evolutionists then they will give an "objective view?"

    Mwahahahhahahah

    Thanks for that one. That makes the list of funny quotes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So let me get this straight, if they are evolutionists then they will give an "objective view?"

    Mwahahahhahahah


    Irony: You're Doing It Wrong

    ReplyDelete
  22. Island,

    "but note that I am an atheist, a Darwinist, and a materialist, who sees Dan's point as a real factor that hurts science very badly."

    Ouch, thanks for ruining my hope, that hurt. And I thought you were a sensible, level headed, and objectively thinking man. Sigh, I hope you feel comfortable and secure being on the same side as Bob.

    Hurts science very badly? Little ol me? If I can take down science then there is no need to rely on it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Whateverman,

    "Instead, you revealed that you're simply looking for reasons to validate your faith (via ID), rather than searching for the truth."

    Ouch, that hurt. I am using all I can to throw doubt your way to show you that you may be wrong and God may exist and that He may have come to save all of our lives.

    The tools I use is not a validation for myself, per se, but a tool to help you understand "the other side."

    "You've omitted the methodology that precludes ID from being referred to as "science"; namely, it makes no falsifiable claims."

    Isn't evolution itself a falsifier for ID? Come one if there are two existing models then one is true and one is false. Or am I far from the truth here? Make sense?

    So we all agree that ID is falsifiable through evolution, right?

    That was easy, NEXT!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Isn't evolution itself a falsifier for ID

    No.

    Stop, go back, and reread what I said: ID makes no falsifiable claims.

    Without doing so, it is not and will not be considered to be science.

    Throwing doubt my way is certainly your perogative, this being your blog and me enjoying healthy debate. You assuming the validity of the logical and factual fallacies you assert in the course of lobbing those doubts stops discussion dead in its tracks

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dan wrote:
    "I absolutely enjoyed your comment and also your candor. You are one of my favorite debaters.
    "


    Why thank you!

    Dan wrote:
    "Remember this post?"

    Indeed I do. Grasshoppers and TalkOrigins were mentioned, among other things.

    Your post uses the terms "Evolution" and "Creation" in a very very broad fashion. More accurate terms might be "Materialism" and "Supernaturalism", as these are mutually exclusive.

    Creation and Evolution are not mutually exclusive: the creator could theoretically have done the first replicator, and then let Evolution go and do what it wants.

    Creation isn't the only supernatural option: what about any of the billions of other religous options, or even an unintelligent but supernatural process resulting in life?

    "Darwinian" evolution isn't the only natural option, either, although it's by far the most plausible. You also have to take into account the possibility that there is another natural process we haven't thought of capable of producing the appearance of design.

    This is why creationism, or Intelligent Design, need to provide positive evidence: disproving their "opponent", evolution, wouldn't prove them right.

    Consider Charles Darwin: he released his theory against the paradigm of the time (old earth biblical creationism). He didn't attack his opponents: he instead spent years compiling positive evidence in favor of evolution. 8 years researching barnacles, among other things. Not a single chapter in Origin of Species was devoted to negative evidence. He released the book, and though it was slow to take off, the sheer weight of positive evidence gave it a momentum of its own.

    In comparison, the ID movement have made a big impression and thrown hundreds of attacks against evolution, but have yet to provide (as far as I can tell) a single item of positive evidence. Without it, their theory has no weight behind it. Without evolution as an opponent, the theory of Intelligent Design simply doesn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Quasar,

    "Without evolution as an opponent, the theory of Intelligent Design simply doesn't exist."

    Isn't evolution itself a falsifier for ID? Make sense?

    Great, so we all agree that ID is falsifiable through evolution, right?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    "[He] is a creationist, so it's no wonder he'd say that. It's not like he'd be an objective view."

    So let me get this straight, if they are evolutionists then they will give an "objective view?"
    I notice that you conveniently left out the rest of my post:
    Remember, any member of any creationist group has to take an oath promising to never deviate from their doctrine before they are even allowed to join up, much less do any research in their groups.

    For more Bird fun.


    At least "evolutionists" don't have to sign an oath before they are allowed to do "reseach". Bird has to follow the oath he signed with the ICR or get tossed.

    Mwahahahhahahah
    Yeah, your scholarshop skills are rather laughable...

    Thanks for that one. That makes the list of funny quotes.
    As the man said, Dan...
    Irony. You're doing it wrong. Want to know why?

    Bird belongs to an organization where they have to take an oath where they promise to never deviate from their YEC doctrine.

    Try to take that into account next time, hmmm?

    There is no such thing in real scientific institutions.

    "Evolutionists" themselves can give examples of what would falsify evolution. (vertebrate fossils in precambrian strata for instance). None of them take oaths.

    See the point yet? You can stop projecting your dogmatism onto us anytime now.

    ReplyDelete
  28.      Hmmm... I have to make a point here. To my observation, large-scale evolution also makes no falsifiable claims. Precambrian vertebrates would not have falsified the idea. A different path for evolution could simply have been postulated. This also seems to have been introduced as a "potential falsifier" only after such point where, if they were there to be found, they would have been found. I think of it like citing the sun rising in the west as a potential falsifier for creationism.
         As far as I know, there are no oaths that scientists take to support large-scale evolution. But, since it is drilled into people, they are going to see things in terms of it. I can't of any possible observation (barring a time machine or a device to record the full history of the planet) that would actually contradict large-scale evolution. Incidentally, the fossil record does not qualify as such a device. A qualifying device would allow full discretion in determining what to record. The fossil record is more like a haphazard collection of snapshots by a mindless, disinterested party.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I see many get mad, which is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve.

    It could be a sign that you used the terms "falsifiable" and "falsifier" repeatedly without knowing what it means.

    Here's the first two sentences from the wiki:
    Falsifiability (or "refutability") is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment.

    The second reason people might seem mad at you is because you don't read what other people have written to you. You instead seem so stuck in a blinkered worldview that you can't even comprehend what people are writing to you. But that's okay, no-one is an expert on every subject. And no-one should be expected to be. It is bad form though to never admit when one is wrong. Such things like the "Chinese Noah" post are so obviously wrong that it only hurts your own case to continue defending them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sorry, Pvblivs, but we've all been through this before.

    You're wrong. Fossil vertebrates in the precambrian would utterly destory the theory of evolution.

    Your claim This also seems to have been introduced as a "potential falsifier" only after such point where, if they were there to be found, they would have been found. I think of it like citing the sun rising in the west as a potential falsifier for creationism. is off base. What does the sun have to do with creationism? What makes you think that they may not yet still be found? Scientists have put the theory of evolution on the line since day one, and it's passed all the tests. Even when the theory was first proposed and most people still bought into creationism.

    So, youre point about people having evolution "drilled" into them as the reason they don't question it just doesn't wash in that context.


    When you say that you can't think of anything short of a time machine that would contradict the theory of large-scale evolution, you're obviously not thinking hard about it.

    If, when the theory was first proposed, there had never been any transitional fossil forms found, evolution would have died a long time ago. It would have never gained acceptance in the scientific community to begin with.

    The fossil record is more like a haphazard collection of snapshots by a mindless, disinterested party.
    Several paths have been traced through the fossil record, even though it's imperfect.

    Remember, evolutionary theory was not always around. It had to prove itself first. If the fossil record didn't yield any evolutionary pathways (transitional forms), evolution would not have survived.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No Dan, you misunderstood me, although I was not very clear:

    I am not on "their" side, I am only on the side of science.

    Bob is a strong, (and fanatical) "frothing" atheist, whereas, I am an agnostic, or an atheist by default of the fact that I see no evidence for a supernatural power.

    My examples support your point that scientists are predisposed to willfully ignore evidence that they ***wrongly*** perceive to be in support of the creationist position. They commonly concoct the most absurd theoretical plausibility that they can come up with, in order to deny the very obvious significance of evidence, and you will find a clear example for this in the scientific paper that was critiqued in the first example, at the bottom of the previously linked page.

    This page also states my position as well as my deep concern for what the debate has done to science, (at the top of the page).

    I also agree with this statement of yours, but not because of anything having to do with ID or god:

    Design thus encourages science to look for deeper insight into nature, whereas Darwinian evolution discourages it. The criticism that design stifles scientific progress is therefore mistaken. The criticism applies more readily to Darwinism, than design.

    I would highly recommend that you seriously inspect anything that I might link to, because you will find that my information is factual and on target.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Island wrote much. Buried in it was this: my deep concern for what the debate has done to science

    I cruised through your blog and some of the links you've posted. Very interesting stuff - makes me wish I'd enjoyed physics while in college (as opposed to "discovering" it some time afterwards).

    I think you've made some good points. And though he might be shocked to see me write this, if you strip away the logical fallacies, Dan is capable of approaching valid criticism of the scientific method; IMHO, he buries it under a mountain of faith and blind scorn that it's almost imperceptable - but it's there.

    I don't know that the bias you describe is either surprising or does damage to science in any way. Peer review and falsifiability will eventually lead us to fact, even if we currently seem to be going nowhere (with regards to the ToE).

    With that said, however, the debate is certainly muddied by emotion. Most Creationists are simply looking for some way to validate their dogma, and scientists end up dismissing them (and their opinions/challenges) en masse. It definitely slows any progress we might be able to make, in terms of understanding the real underlying process. We're spending too much time arguing and not enough time testing.

    Critical thinking is ALWAYS an undervalued commodity, and there's ALWAYS a need for more than we currently have or use. But I don't think that a lack represents "damage". It undermines our credibility (as secular naturalists), which consequently provides the Fundamentalists with fuel for their assault on reason.

    The big question: how exactly do we react to those who seek to destroy productive (tho not infallible) aspects of society when it conflicts with their ideology?

    Doesn't the presence of this question put the debate (and the notions you've raised by way of critique) into perspective?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Reynold:

         Indeed we have been through this before.
         "You're wrong. Fossil vertebrates in the precambrian would utterly destory the theory of evolution."
         And how would they do that? I remember one person told me that it was because they would have no food supply. But that means they shouldn't be found whether evolution is true or false. Otherwise the timeline can be adjusted so that vertebrates evolved earlier.
         "Scientists have put the theory of evolution on the line since day one, and it's passed all the tests."
         Really? Could I have an example? I am looking for some test in which an outcome that is likely if one assumes large-scale evolution false would have been regarded as falsifying the idea. Quote me the study. But don't bother with anything of the order of "if we don't find what we are looking for, it's inconclusive, because there are other reasons for a negative result." I've seen lots of those.
         "When you say that you can't think of anything short of a time machine that would contradict the theory of large-scale evolution, you're obviously not thinking hard about it."
         Quite the contrary, I have thought about it. (I also for a sort of "time scope," something that could track down and record past events.) The problem is that the claim is historical, vague, and can fit into gaps (not unlike "godidit.")
         "If, when the theory was first proposed, there had never been any transitional fossil forms found, evolution would have died a long time ago. It would have never gained acceptance in the scientific community to begin with."
         You mean, like if nothing ever fossilized? The idea might not have gained any traction in such a situation. But that's still not a falsifier. And transitional forms are subject to confirmation bias. If one is looking for transitional forms, one is more likely to see things as transitional forms.

         I have seen many people trying to tell me I am crazy for not believing specificly in large-scale evolution. (I consider it plausible, but not testable.) I think my favorite was one person who told me that falsifiability was not important to the "theory." He said that I should concentrate on the fact that there were "positive data."

    ReplyDelete
  34. Pvblivs, can you give me a few concrete examples of what you mean by "large scale evolution"?

    ReplyDelete
  35. whateverman, yes, it does,and it's funny that you mention the theory of everything, because I sincerely believe that I have good reason to believe that it is this issue that is the whole problem there too. I openly challenged the cutting-edge, right where the live, on this very point, (not they they ever listen to reason):

    http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle/

    ReplyDelete
  36. Pvblivs said...
    Reynold:

    Indeed we have been through this before.

    "You're wrong. Fossil vertebrates in the precambrian would utterly destory the theory of evolution."
    And how would they do that? I remember one person told me that it was because they would have no food supply. But that means they shouldn't be found whether evolution is true or false. Otherwise the timeline can be adjusted so that vertebrates evolved earlier.
    Not really. You'd have to take into account the fact that oxygen and plant life that would be needed for vertebrates to survive weren't around then. Even if one were to assume that they were, there's no evidence of it in precambrain rock layers.

    One would also have to take into account the fact that according to evolutionary theory, plant life (needed to draw oxygen from the air) and invertebrates would have to have had time to develop first.

    There would have been too little time in the precambrian period for all that to happen, since the precambrian is a lot closer to the time when the earth itself formed.

    Evolution would indeed be blown away.


    "Scientists have put the theory of evolution on the line since day one, and it's passed all the tests."
    Really? Could I have an example? I am looking for some test in which an outcome that is likely if one assumes large-scale evolution false would have been regarded as falsifying the idea. Quote me the study. But don't bother with anything of the order of "if we don't find what we are looking for, it's inconclusive, because there are other reasons for a negative result." I've seen lots of those.
    I've given you the link before, such as the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ on the TalkOrigins archive.

    You can find all sorts of tests there. The failure of all of them would ruin the theory. Instead they all pass.


    "When you say that you can't think of anything short of a time machine that would contradict the theory of large-scale evolution, you're obviously not thinking hard about it."
    Quite the contrary, I have thought about it. (I also for a sort of "time scope," something that could track down and record past events.) The problem is that the claim is historical, vague, and can fit into gaps (not unlike "godidit.")
    Your assertion; not reality. Remember, evolution was not always accepted. How would it have survived after Darwin proposed it if they didn't find evidence for it? Remember, Special Creation was the reigning paradigm at the time.


    "If, when the theory was first proposed, there had never been any transitional fossil forms found, evolution would have died a long time ago. It would have never gained acceptance in the scientific community to begin with."
    You mean, like if nothing ever fossilized?
    Nope. I mean if the fossils didn't show any signs of development over time. If the scientists were completely unable to figure out ancestral relationships from the fossils.

    The idea might not have gained any traction in such a situation. But that's still not a falsifier. And transitional forms are subject to confirmation bias.
    Even when it was special creation that was the ruling theory of the time? Even when people were looking for evidence of Special Creation? For some examples of creationists who reluctantly came to accept evolution, check out Ronald Number's book: "The Creationists".

    If one is looking for transitional forms, one is more likely to see things as transitional forms.
    Problem is, there's more than just one scientists who looks at them. They check each other's work, and nothing motivates people like the chance to catch someon being wrong about something.

    Remember the incidents like Nebraska Man (never accepted by the scientific community in the first place)

    I have seen many people trying to tell me I am crazy for not believing specificly in large-scale evolution.
    Their opinon.

    (I consider it plausible, but not testable.) I think my favorite was one person who told me that falsifiability was not important to the "theory." He said that I should concentrate on the fact that there were "positive data."
    In actuality, you have to look at both. And look at the question of: "Does this theory answer any questions? Can this theory be built up by further data? Can this theory be overturned by new data?

    ReplyDelete
  37. island wrote The anticentrist’s tendency to deny the significance of the observation is an over-reaction to pressure from religious extremists and from ill-considered assumptions about human arrogance

    I loved this quoted bit; it makes a lot of sense to me.

    I'm a habitual centrist, whether we're talking about politics or religion or philosophy. I don't mean to suggest that I have anything of substance to say about "particle" physics or string theory - I simply tend to value both rationality *and* strident critical thinking (of both Internal and External thought).

    I really dig this article you wrote, but it's going to take a few days to absorb. I need to reearch some of the terms you've used. In any case, thanks for the distraction from religious debate; I get tired of repeatedly banging my head against the wall.

    Cheers...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Reynold and Pvblivs are talking about Darwinian-style evolution.
    Not Lamarckism, neo-Lamarckism or Haeckel's recapitulation theory of evolution or saltationism. There were many competing ideas about how evolution worked. It's just that Darwin's idea was the one that actually worked and was backed with evidence.

    Evolutionary ideas go back as far as 4th century BC with Zhuangzi. It's just that Darwin's one worked.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sorry, the Greeks beat Zhuangzi by a hundred years...

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Isn't evolution itself a falsifier for ID? Make sense?

    Nup Dan, it's not. It would be if they were mutually exclusive, like materialism and supernaturalism are. But ID simply posits that an intelligent agent did something at some point in lifes history (they're a little vague on the specifics). This is perfectly compatible with anything but absolute knowledge of the entire natural history of the entire earth.

    What I meant by the "Without evolution as an opponent, the theory of Intelligent Design simply doesn't exist", was that their support for their hypothesis relies entirely on attacking evolution. Without evolution, their claim has no evidence whatsoever: but lack of evidence is not equivilent to being falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Chris Mackey said...

    Reynold and Pvblivs are talking about Darwinian-style evolution.
    Not Lamarckism, neo-Lamarckism or Haeckel's recapitulation theory of evolution or saltationism. There were many competing ideas about how evolution worked. It's just that Darwin's idea was the one that actually worked and was backed with evidence.

    Evolutionary ideas go back as far as 4th century BC with Zhuangzi. It's just that Darwin's one worked.

    Because of that, evolution was never really generally accepted until Darwin's time. Before that, creationism was the dominant view.

    Morris tries to make some headway with evolution being around before Darwin's time in his book The Long War Against God. Only he said, I believe, that evolution got it's start in the Tower of Babel.

    Whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  42.      No concrete examples because large-scale evolution is not concrete. It is the broad assertion that successive adaptation is responsible for the diversity of life. The competing types of evolution all "fall under the umbrella."
         "You'd have to take into account the fact that oxygen and plant life that would be needed for vertebrates to survive weren't around then."
         What you have just done is demonstrated why your "potential falsifier" would not happen even assuming evolution false. The reasons why we expect it not to be there have nothing to do with evolution. Bluntly, even if large-scale evolution is false, we do not expect to find species in conditions not suited for their survival.
         "Does this theory answer any questions? Can this theory be built up by further data? Can this theory be overturned by new data?"
         No, No, and uhh... no.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Pvblivs wrote No concrete examples because large-scale evolution is not concrete. It is the broad assertion that successive adaptation is responsible for the diversity of life. The competing types of evolution all "fall under the umbrella."

    Ok. I'm not an expert like Steven J is, so I'm in no position to refute the idea. In fact, from what little I know, I will accept it as generally accurate.

    There's a problem, however. As far as I understand it, all the evidence and information we have suggests that it *does* account for the biodiversity.

    I wont lecture on the scientific method; I think you understand it. I admit that we may be a bit enthusiastic about the idea, but isn't that the fault of the fundamentalists who keep trying to shove their book down humanity's throat?

    By comparison, the ToE is vastly more credible than Creationism. Maybe we shouldn't be preaching it as the absolute undisputed truth, but it doesn't help that the only counter-hypothesis requires us to abandon the squishy gray matter between our ears.

    The scientific method will eventually iron out the kinks

    ReplyDelete
  44. Excellent conversation all, This only helps me to believe that we all can actually look for fact without extreme bias towards the wrong direction. The Data should allow the truth to come out. Certainly not with the current setup/mindset or paradigm though.

    Pvblivs,

    "I think of it like citing the sun rising in the west as a potential falsifier for creationism."

    That reminded me of when Ray was talking to an atheist who thought he knew it all. Ray asked if the atheist "has ever seen the sun rise or sun set?" The atheist said "Yes" he has. Ray said "you have not!" no one has, because the sun doesn't move. It only appears to rise and set. What appears to be apparent is only a perception some times.

    From the mindset or rose colored glasses (of evolutionists) then one would absolutely believe that we evolved. That just isn't the case. Although, Salvation isn't accomplished through the intellect.

    Whateverman,

    "Very interesting stuff - makes me wish I'd enjoyed physics while in college (as opposed to "discovering" it some time afterwards)."

    I agree completely. College only taught me how to smoke pot or was it the other way around, as in, I did the teaching. I can't remember. :)

    I am far more interested in physics, astrophysics, and science in general these days then in my younger years. Granted, I thank God for that too. Forgive me for playing catch up, I am doing the very best I can.

    Speaking of 'ToE', I can't wait for the day when they find the "God particle." If they ever. I don't mind if they find the truth as long as it actually is the truth; not some push of an (biased) agenda. Evolutionist pushes, and we just push back that's all. Someone is always on the wrong side of truth, which should be encouraged. Only friends will tell friends they stink. Thermostats not thermometers.

    "the debate is certainly muddied by emotion."

    Valid, I might add passion also, which could be admirable.

    "Most Creationists are simply looking for some way to validate their dogma"

    And we view evolutionists doing the exact same thing, imagine that. I should stop doing this because, as someone pointed out, that when we find proof of God the gig is up there is no longer the requirement of faith and that day probably will be Judgment Day. So really I don't want "proof" just yet, until all of you are saved.

    Hey, one can hope right?

    Quasar,

    I just found this article that parroted your view:

    "Many critics of intelligent design have argued that design is merely a negative argument against evolution." THE POSITIVE CASE FOR DESIGN

    Of course there's no way to falsify a mere assertion that a cosmic designer exists. But that isn't the claim being made here.

    This article backs up my claim that Intelligent design is falsifiable (and therefore testable).

    ReplyDelete
  45. I read the "Positive Case For Design" paper. To sum it up "argument from ignorance".

    ReplyDelete
  46. Pvblivs said...

    No concrete examples because large-scale evolution is not concrete. It is the broad assertion that successive adaptation is responsible for the diversity of life. The competing types of evolution all "fall under the umbrella."
    "Competing types of evolution"? huh?

    Meanwhile, that "broad assertion" has plenty of evidence to back it up, only you seem to ignore it, and Dan doesn't permit links to one of the best places to find it.

    Oh well.

    How about this?


    "You'd have to take into account the fact that oxygen and plant life that would be needed for vertebrates to survive weren't around then."
    What you have just done is demonstrated why your "potential falsifier" would not happen even assuming evolution false.
    What? What I've done is I've shown why if any precambrian fossils were to be found, it would disprove evolution. Becuase it would fly in the face of so many known facts.

    The reasons why we expect it not to be there have nothing to do with evolution.
    It also has to do with what we know of the age of the earth, and what the conditions of the early earth was like.

    Bluntly, even if large-scale evolution is false, we do not expect to find species in conditions not suited for their survival.
    If a fossil vertebrate was found in the precambrian, it would be able to survive then, but we'd have to explain how vertebrates arrived so early in the fossil record, before any supposed "precursor" invertebrates had been around, and how they arrived so fast, since not long before that, the earth would have been inhospitable to whatever precursors the vertebrate would have had.

    Special creation would be able to explain that better than evolution and the age of the earth as figured out by scientists.

    They'd have to explain just how and where it came from. Evolution would have so many problems with it, it'd have to be chucked.


    "Does this theory answer any questions? Can this theory be built up by further data? Can this theory be overturned by new data?"
    No, No, and uhh... no.
    Try doing some reading on this, Pvblivs. No offence, but I don't have the time to educate you on this. If you want, you can search around on Scienceblogs dot com, Pandas Thumb or even Talk Origins for examples of questions that evolution has answered. I can't link to TO of course, which would help. Maybe you could ask a biologist those questions?

    I've already brought up an example of how evolution could be falsified, but you just refuse to accept it. Whatever. That's your opinion, it's not the actual opinion of the scientists who are actually working in the relevent fields.


    I notice that you didn't say anything about how special creation was the reigning paradigm back in Darwin's day, yet evolution somehow still won out. It wasn't because of "confirmation bias" then, because back then, the confirmation bias was towards the bible.

    ReplyDelete
  47. First, "irreducible complexity" needs to be measurable and well defined. I intend to do a bit of research in the next 24 hours to see exactly what this term is supposed to represent.

    Second, the fact that it is measurable still does not, of itself, suggest design. Recent research in The 2nd Law of Theormodynamics suggests explanations for how organized complexity can evolve from chaos. If these stand the test of time (ie. they're tested repeatedly and found to be fundamentally sound), "complexity" would have to be dismissed as a source that suggests design.

    References

    Finally, I would like nothing more than to have ID make predictions that are falsifiable. It would do much to give the idea scientific legitimacy. Lacking that, it's entirely possible that the science is evolving (ha) and that such things aren't currently available.

    Until that point, however, ID is not science. It's critique of science, and of such a nature that it appears to be motivated by dogma, rather than a search for fact.

    I will respond more seroiusly to this thread in the near future...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Reynold:

         You actually show why I think that large-scale evolution is a sacred belief. When you seek to think of a falsifier, you think of something that simply cannot happen. The known facts that your "potential falsifier" would fly in the face of remain even if evolution is assumed false. If you think something must be true, it makes sense that when you think of a falsifier you think of something that cannot happen.

    ReplyDelete
  49. irreducible complexity = "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."
    Mirsky, Steve, Scientific American, February 2005

    Irreducible complexity is just saying "I don't know how it works, it must be magic!"

    ReplyDelete
  50. Whateverman,

    Nice article, my brain is tingling after just a little bit of reading.

    I will just have to add it to the list of "desired reading"

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pvblivs said...

    Reynold:

    You actually show why I think that large-scale evolution is a sacred belief. When you seek to think of a falsifier, you think of something that simply cannot happen.

    Not quite. Fossil vertebreates in the precambrian could and and likely would happen if biblical creation in six days was true.

    When Darwin first wrote about it, he said that intermediate fossil forms would be a test of evolutionary theory. That was when most still believed in special creation, so they didn't have any "confirmation bias" for evolution then. They found them. Fossilization is something that was known to happen; they were wondering if any sequenced patterns of change would be found in the fossil record later. They were. They had no guarantee that they'd find them; Darwin's version of theory had just been started to be tested then.


    The known facts that your "potential falsifier" would fly in the face of remain even if evolution is assumed false. If you think something must be true, it makes sense that when you think of a falsifier you think of something that cannot happen.
    How do you define a potential falisfying test for evolution then? Give an example.

    Care to explain how evolution had gotten tested and accepted in Darwin's time, even when special creation was the preferred theory, then?

    I don't think I've ever seen you address that. That goes to the crux of the matter that you seem to think that scientists protect the theory.


    By the way, do you think that heliocentrism can be falsified using whatever criteria you use for a true falsification test?

    ReplyDelete
  52.      "How do you define a potential falisfying test for evolution then? Give an example."
         There is no such thing. Any observation we might make can be reconciled with evolution. I can no more give an example of a falsifier for evolution than I can give one for creationism.
         Heliocentrism is an empirical observation, not a scientific theory. Similarly George W. Bush being president is not a scientific theory. It is an empirical observation.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @dan--

    I posted a reply to you; did you delete it?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dan, if you want to argue for irreducible complexity, then goto the post at the bottom of the page that I first linked, here

    And if you want to argue against the second law of thermodynamics, then this is what you say:

    If the universe were configured in the most natural manner that we have an expectation for:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148

    ... then the second law of thermodynamics would prohibit life and every other observed structure in the universe from existing, because the expansion of the universe would occur so rapidly that the energy would quickly become too dilute for any of it to form.

    So the second law of thermodynamic prohibits life, unless there is an anthropic constraint on the forces that enables whateverman's referenced point to be valid.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Pvblivs
    Heliocentrism is an empirical observation, not a scientific theory. Similarly George W. Bush being president is not a scientific theory. It is an empirical observation.
    Only now is it an "emprical observarion". What about when it was first proposed verses geocentrism?

    Besides, most evolutionary biologists would also say that evolution at least includes empirical observation.

    The fact that you can't think of any test that would falsify evolution doesn't mean that biologists can't.

    If you have your own personal reasons why no test they've ever come up with is a true "falsifying" test, that's up to you. Every biologist I daresay, the people who actually study this stuff would disagree with you.

    Did you ever deal with the fact that in Darwin's time, special creation was the accepted "theory"?

    Where was the "confirmation bias" that evolutonary biologists are supposed to have today back then?

    Don't you think that back then, they'd have devised tests that evolution could possibly fail?

    ReplyDelete
  56. It seems we've gotten derailed from the original post topic:

    So, I've just post a link to a previous post I made that deals with it: How ID people don't do the research that they promise to do.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @captain howdy

    Last comment I received from you was this

    I keep them all so I would see it. Did you comment on this post?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Reynold:

         Before it was empirically observed heliocentrism was a conjecture.
         "Don't you think that back then, they'd have devised tests that evolution could possibly fail?"
         If such a test were possible, yes. For that matter, if such a test were possible, I expect someone would do it today. But, it is consistent with any observation we might make. The criterion is simple. A potential falsifier is valid if evolution (large-scale evolution, here) predicts that it will not happen, but such a prediction cannot be made without evolution.
         I will use geocentrism and heliocentrism as examples. As long as all observations are made from the surface of the earth, there is no possible observation inconsistent with either idea. There are observations that seem to favor one idea over the other. But only a change in perspective can resolve it. With the change in perspective, it becomes a direct observable.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Pvblivs said...

    Reynold:

    Before it was empirically observed heliocentrism was a conjecture.

    Same with evolution.

    "Don't you think that back then, they'd have devised tests that evolution could possibly fail?"
    If such a test were possible, yes. For that matter, if such a test were possible, I expect someone would do it today. But, it is consistent with any observation we might make. The criterion is simple. A potential falsifier is valid if evolution (large-scale evolution, here) predicts that it will not happen,
    For example, fossil vertebrates in precambrian strata, or no discernable pattern in the fossil record (ie. no patterns in the fossil record that allows any lineages to be even guessed at), etc.

    but such a prediction cannot be made without evolution.So what? They can still be tested. Just like any other scientific theory.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>