Let's kick this year off right with a knock down drag out fight between truth and perceived truth. We will let this 8 part debate be the opener.
ID Proponents: William F. Buckley Jr., Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski.
Evolutionist: Barry Lynn, Eugenie C. Scott, Michael Ruse, and Kenneth Miller.
I am not a huge fan of this debate and it did go on tangents at times. I will say I enjoyed Berlinski and his confident arguments. Since he is not a Christian no one can claim his "Christian Propaganda". I was amazed that Scott said that ICR frustrated her because they always claim that (x) didn't happen and it then takes much longer to explain that (x) did happen. So her frustrations are that we don't take it on faith of mankind about evilution, plus that is the very same thing done by atheists and (x), in that case, is God. At least the sides do seem to be balanced where you have a professing Christian who believes in evolution (Lynn) and a non believer who rejects evolution (Berlinski).
Since I am not satisfied with the results of the closing arguments, and since this is my arena, I will allow Berlinski an additional 5 minutes as a closing:
Once again atheists have sought to silence christian opinions by taking down this video. Ah, who will have the last word? ...God.
This clip was part of a 22 part interview that I recommend as part of a journey towards truth.
tinyurl.com/IDFalsifier
I once watched the whole thing and, you're right, tangents a-plenty!
ReplyDeleteI thought Kenneth Miller was particularly good - mainly because he always looks like he's enjoying talking about his subject.
William Buckley kind of rambles incoherently for a while and doesn't really seem to have a point.
Berlinski's not bad and it's great that a non-theist is taking that anti-evolution side; it makes things far more interesting. I've not seen the interview before so I may have to watch that now...
I'm watching this, but in school and college, I learned that evolutionary theory is both a scientific fact and theory. I was never taught any reason to doubt that.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I understand, scientists are in firm agreement as well as to validity of the theory of evolution. I don't see why there would be a debate about this at all?
Debate and discussion has no place in the scientific community. We have to blindly follow the scientific consensus and peer-review process. That's how things work.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI thought you had previously moved away from ID because you favoured just out-and-out admitting that it's Creationism you want taught in schools, not some namby-pamby ID stuff?
Just out of interest, what would the curriculum of an ID class look like? What would they actually teach?
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDelete"We have to blindly follow the scientific consensus and peer-review process. That's how things work."
And if anyone disagrees, we just expel them, right?
ExPatMatt said...
ReplyDelete"And if anyone disagrees, we just expel them, right?"
No, we ask them to submit their findings to the peer-review process. If it fails the peer-review process, we ignore them.
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeleteDebate and discussion has no place in the scientific community.
OK, let's go with that, so why are so many questioning evolution then? If it were so cut and dry there would be no question.
We have to blindly follow the scientific consensus and peer-review process. That's how things work.
Scientific consensus is highly problematic because it has been notoriously unreliable. For example in 1960 geosynclinal theory was the consensus explanation for mountain formation. It was "one of the great unifying principals of geology" according to authors of 'Geological Evolution of North America.'
BTW it was utterly abandoned after ten years of declaration and replaced with plate tectonics.
peer-review process? It was written that: "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities. "
ExPatMatt,
ReplyDeleteI thought you had previously moved away from ID because you favoured just out-and-out admitting that it's Creationism you want taught in schools, not some namby-pamby ID stuff?
Touché my friend, but we still need to address evilution. Technically though, Creationism (my belief) still falls under the umbrella of ID. Right?
"No, we ask them to submit their findings to the peer-review process. If it fails the peer-review process, we ignore them."
ReplyDeleteAh, so what disagreements with the theory of evolution have been submitted for peer review then?
There must be some because, apparently, there's some sort of debate/controversy going on at the minute.
Dan, any clues?
"OK, let's go with that, so why are so many questioning evolution then? If it were so cut and dry there would be no question."
ReplyDeleteIt is cut and dry.
"Scientific consensus is highly problematic because it has been notoriously unreliable."
I don't think scientific consensus has been notoriously unreliable. The scientific consensus repeatably makes the most logical deductions based on known facts at the time.
"For example in 1960 geosynclinal theory was the consensus explanation for mountain formation. It was "one of the great unifying principals of geology" according to authors of 'Geological Evolution of North America.'
BTW it was utterly abandoned after ten years of declaration and replaced with plate tectonics."
Geosynclinal theory was not totally abandoned. It just isn't the explanation for all mountains. A geosyncline is still a basin that gets deformed into a mountain region.
"peer-review process? It was written that: "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities."
I think you have a good point, but it's still not our place to decide these things.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Technically though, Creationism (my belief) still falls under the umbrella of ID. Right?"
I don't know, does it? I mean, when you're dealing with omnipotence; who's to say that God couldn't design a universe where design could never be detected?
Besides, has anyone actually defined what ID is yet? I know what it stands for, but what is it? What are it's goals? In what fields does it operate? What benefits are perceived for humanity through a study of it's core principles?
Or is it just Creationism in a cheap tuxedo (as you've mentioned previously); in which case it doesn't really matter, it's a religious belief, inspired by an, apparently, Holy Book that has no evidence to support it's hypotheses.
So what's the point?
D-"Technically though, Creationism (my belief) still falls under the umbrella of ID. Right?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know, does it?...
Besides, has anyone actually defined what ID is yet?
... it's a religious belief, inspired by an, apparently, Holy Book that has no evidence to support it's hypotheses.
The great difference between ID and Creation Science, then, is that ID relies not on prior assumptions about divine activity in the world, but on methods developed within the scientific population for recognizing intelligence.
ID relies... on methods developed within the scientific population for recognizing intelligence.
ReplyDeleteFascinating statement, this. I wonder, Dan, just what are these methods for recognizing intelligence?
In various ad hoc discussions/debates, I've questioned before our ability to actually detect intelligence (especially to infer an intelligent designer from an object alleged to have been intelligently designed), and to date there really isn't an answer, so far as I can tell. When humans first encounter a new group of humans with their own language, there must exist a certain period of "intelligence determination" -- wherein each group assumes the other to be dumb, or otherwise unable to communicate -- and since in the case of a so-called "intelligent designer," we'd also tend to assume some superlative intelligence, we'd be the "dumb" ones, and at a distinct disadvantage with respect to discovering, determining, or quantifying the intelligence conveyed in an object's "design."
Consider: SETI analyzes radio sources for signs of intelligence, but whenever we hypothesize sending information to alien species (as in science-fiction, for example) we seek to send information in recognizable bits -- prime numbers, digits of pi or other fundamental irrational numbers, gene sequences, etc. -- but all of them rely on assumptions that a) we can detect an intelligent signal/response, and b) that the signals in question have a direct correlation to some system of our own (or of the aliens').
Until we can show that we can identify an intelligent source, it is a perfect waste of time postulating attributes and/or doctrines espoused by such a source. Since, to my knowledge, this hasn't yet been done -- that is, we haven't yet shown an ability to identify an intelligent source -- this hand-waving and posturing concerning the "debate" over "intelligent design" is absolutely pointless.
Still don't believe me? Try decrypting the following string:
This message is poorly encrypted.
If you can't decrypt it, then you can't identify intelligence. Just because something appears designed doesn't mean it is designed, and even if it happens to be designed, there is no reason why we should expect to be able to accurately determine any meaning (assuming some meaning is purposed) behind the design, much less the attributes, qualities, and doctrines espoused by the designer.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Dan, just what are these methods for recognizing intelligence?"
Great question, and at the moment I cannot answer it. Even though at this very moment it's beyond my pay grade, I am seeking to answer that exact question.
Can you tell me the answer to what is evolution theory? Like Berlinski asked at 05:00, where is the theory beyond it's name, in that saying "things change" is not a theory. Does it go beyond the mantra of 'random mutation through natural selection' or is there a theory that a physicist would recognize or and engineer can implement?
We needs spines here not just a bunch of yes men. An excellent point that Berlinski said with the follow up here is"100 years of fraudulent drawings suggesting embryological affinities that don't exist. That is just what I expect if biologist were struggling to maintain a position of power in a secular democratic society." Pressure, Power, Politics is an issue here.
And if you Stan, wrote "This message is poorly encrypted" then obviously we can't identify intelligence. :)
"Does [Evolutionary Theory] go beyond the mantra of 'random mutation through natural selection' or is there a theory that a physicist would recognize or and engineer can implement?"
ReplyDeleteYes. I engineer software for a living and often employ genetic algorithms for solutions to problems I can't normally come up with on my own because there are too many variables.
A genetic algorithm is man-made form of evolution in which I use genetic code to describe a solution and the computer then tests solutions and "breeds" solutions together and introduce changes to create optimum solutions.
I've used this to implement AI, server structures, and so on. I've also seen it used in the design of cars, airplanes, and similar devices.
Evolutionary theory also has very practical purposes in the medical field as a lot of drugs, particularly those that deal with HIV, use biological evolution to its advantage... causing the HIV virus to mutate and exploiting that mutation.
Great question, and at the moment I cannot answer it.
ReplyDeleteIf you cannot answer it, then I wonder at your assertion that such methods exist within the scientific "population." That statement was made with a certain amount of confidence, it seemed to me, but if you are now retracting all or part of it, I am listening.
Can you tell me the answer to what is evolution theory?
What is the Theory of Evolution? For someone so hip on intentionally misspelling it as "evilution," I had assumed you knew already. Simply put, it is not that things change, but how things change. As Kaitlyn has so succinctly put it, the theory has applications in many fields, and most of these can be most easily appreciated by using evolutionary algorithms to flesh out answers.
Does it go beyond the mantra of 'random mutation through natural selection' or is there a theory that a physicist would recognize or and [sic] engineer can implement?
What, are you new? Can a physicist recognize Cell Theory as a bona fide theory? In structure, and as befitting the scientific definition of the term, yes, the Theory of Evolution is a theory, which a physicist could recognize as such (by its structure, if not its composition -- physicists are not especially interested in biological processes beyond the physics involved). As to an engineer making use of it, well, there are many types of engineers, few of which would find any use for the Theory of Relativity, or especially the Special Theory of Relativity. Should they be discounted, then?
We needs spines here not just a bunch of yes men [and women].
Like with regard to Creationism, when Darwin first proposed his theory?
An excellent point that Berlinski said with the follow up here is "100 years of fraudulent drawings suggesting embryological affinities that don't exist. That is just what I expect if biologist were struggling to maintain a position of power in a secular democratic society."
And the fact that mistakes have been made, and will undoubtedly continue to be made, proves what, exactly? I forget. What was the reigning paradigm for millennia, prior to the Theory of Evolution being offered up?
Pressure, Power, Politics is an issue here.
Oh, yeah, right. I'll try to remember next time it comes up...
--
Stan
"OK, let's go with that, so why are so many questioning evolution then?"
ReplyDeleteStraw man.
Only fringe fundimentalists question ToE.
ToE can easily be falsified, yet it hasn't been.
Scientists that argue against the ToE make up less that 1/2% of the natural science community and they do so with philosophy, not science.
Fail.
I frequently visit science blogs, and I noticed they all love evolution. Every single one of them. Maybe it's because the evidence is growing so fast that one person couldn't possibly keep up with it.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn:
ReplyDeleteA peer review process can result in dogma. Essentially, it means letting those already "in" dictate what gets heard and what doesn't. Remember, execution of heretics also relied on peer review.
There are, of course pros and cons. The existing scientific establishment, with its knowledge base, is likely best suited to being able to evaluate any findings. But, should any biases creep into the scientific community, peer review will exacerbate, rather than dispel them.
If you blindly follow even science, you turn it into just another religion. If you say that everyone should ignore anything the establishment rejects or fails to consider, you are effectively saying, "if you knowledge and evidence suppressed, just say the word and no one will listen to that knowledge or evidence." That is a very dangerous proposition. Although, at this time, I see no reason to believe that the scientific community is advancing what it does not believe on this topic, I will not extend any open invitations.
Froggie:
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that large-scale evolution is falsifiable. Specifically, I think it can be reconciled with any possible observation that cannot be ruled out without appealing to large-scale evolution. I have seen many people say that it would be easy to falsify. When they give an example at all, they give something that has already been safely ruled out as a possible observation (e.g. fossils exhibiting an order contrary to existing findings.)
"If you blindly follow even science, you turn it into just another religion."
ReplyDeleteAll I'm saying is that science is a process, not a set of ideas, and certainly not a religion. We should let the process play out. We can be a part of the process or opt-out of the process.
Discussion and debate really don't have role in this process. If I have a differing idea, that's wonderful. I can submit it for peer review. But until my idea has some level of credulity within the scientific establishment, I have no reason to go to debates or discuss it with the public.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to falsify large-scale evolution, all we have to do is look at our chromosomes.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, and chimpanzees have 24 pairs of chromosomes; for evolution to be true, a chromosome either split for chimpanzees or two chromosomes fused for humans.
If we cannot find a fusion or separation point, then evolution is falsified.
Kaitlyn:
ReplyDelete"If we cannot find a fusion or separation point, then evolution is falsified."
Really? Here's a challenge for you. Find a paper among the research in which scientists said they would scrap evolution if they failed to find such a fusion or separation point. (And rethinking the path evolution took to say that humans' relations must be more distant doesn't count.) Claiming that as a potential falsifier now is quite safe, as the fusion point has already been found.
Pvblivs, are you an evolution denier? If yes, what alternatives do you suggest? Your god fairy's magic? If that's your alternative, do you have any evidence for this magic? By evidence, I don't mean your Bible or your total ignorance of science.
ReplyDeletePvblivs, biologists predicted there would have to be two chromosomes fused for humans if it was true we shared an ancestor with chimps. The prediction was correct. Evolution passed the test. Evolution is a bloody fact. Grow up and accept it.
ReplyDeletein the previous post, Dan got spanked by his lil friend, Dani'el.
ReplyDeleteAm I the only one laughing at that?
Before Pvblivs gets dumped on too heavily, his main point is that evolution tends to receive dogmatic approval in the scientific community, and in order to present -- or, "heaven" forbid, get published in a peer-reviewed journal -- any material which runs contrary to the sacred cow which masquerades as the Theory of Evolution, one must climb the equivalent of Olympus Mons (look it up) to do so.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, however, both Pvblivs and Kaitlyn are correct in noting that debate and discussion have little role to play -- a proposed idea will sink or float on its own. If the data support a proposal, and if an existing theory is falsified by data which the new proposal explains adequately, then eventually the new proposal will become the prevailing theory.
Should we allow astrologers to publish in peer-reviewed journals? Flat-earthers? Geocentrists? Recall that the theories which have caused the downfall of these ancient beliefs had to bubble through the sludge to prevail, and that this process effectively killed those old models. No one would today seriously propose a new theory which reinstated the earth as the center of the universe, because geocentrism has failed while heliocentrism (that is, specific only to our solar system) won the explanatory battles as well as the evidence battles. In the same vein, the Theory of Evolution -- in the broad sense, certainly -- has defeated young-earth creationism, and continues to scoff at ID, OEC, and other pseudo-sciences.
The Dans may well deny it all they want, but the multiple converging lines of evidence for an old universe are beyond controversy in all but the most blissfully ignorant of minds. Evolution has occurred, but many of the details are still available for refinement. If the Dans and their kind would like to contribute to the discussion and speak to those refinements, outstanding. But to deny the evidence of an old universe, and the fact of variation through random mutation -- guided by natural selection through environmental pressures -- with descent from a common ancestor; to deny this is to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic.
...but don't let me stop you.
--
Stan
Hello, Bob. I offer alternatives. I have said before that I consider evolution to be plausible. It's just not testable. Biologists suggested that finding such fusion would support evolution. And it does. If evolution is assumed false, we can think of no reason for it to be there. But, had it not been found, I have no reason to believe that anyone would have declared evolution falsified.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: That should read, "I offer no alternatives." I do not pretend to know why there is such diversity of life. I simply oppose all dogmas.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Stan, I don't need to look it up. My Latin may be very limited. But that is very much in my vocabulary.
Word verification "veritti." Coincidence?
Heh. The "look it up" parenthetic wasn't for you, and if "veritti" is apt, then so was my original word verification for that post: "dirge".
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Pvblivs wrote: I simply oppose all dogmas.
ReplyDeleteDo you oppose gravity? Do you oppose our planet's orbit around the sun?
I think you're only interested in wasting people's time.
What part of "biologists predicted there would have to be two chromosomes fused for humans if it was true we shared an ancestor with chimps. The prediction was correct. Evolution passed the test." don't you understand?
If you can't understand the most simple concepts, why should anyone waste time talking to you?
It's very obvious to me wasting other people's time is your hobby.
Pvblivs wrote "I offer no alternatives."
ReplyDeleteI know what your problem is. You're a compulsive liar.
Bob:
ReplyDelete"What part of 'biologists predicted there would have to be two chromosomes fused for humans if it was true we shared an ancestor with chimps. The prediction was correct. Evolution passed the test.' don't you understand?"
It's not a question of my understanding what your statement said. It is simply not true. Scientists considered such a fusion a possible result that would support their idea. If it turned out not to be there, it would not have been a death knell. But you're welcome to try to prove me wrong. If you can find anywhere in the research a statement that failing to find that would falsify evolution, you may present it. As it stands, it just looks like another "confirm or inconclusive" search.
"Do you oppose gravity? Do you oppose our planet's orbit around the sun?"
I said I oppose dogmas, not empirical observations. I can observe gravity myself. (I release an object at shoulder-height and it falls. Heliocentrism is also an empircal observation, although that requires equipment not at my immediate disposal.
"I know what your problem is. You're a compulsive liar."
Spoken like a true fundamentalist. I have gotten the same accusation from Daniel. You're not that different, really. You cling to a different set of dogmas. But you dismiss anything you see as challenging your sacred beliefs in the same way.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteThere is so much evidence for evolution that I think you're right... data that would contradict evolution would be seen with great skepticism just as data that would contradict any well-understood theory would.
Evolution can be falsified, the problem is that is has passed every test thrown at it. So if millions of facts support evolution and one doesn't, you're right, that alone is not enough to falsify it.
There's almost no way to falsify evolution since it has reached a critical threshold of being so well supported as becoming essentially a fact among biologists.
Everyone: don't mind Pvblivs. He simply has an idiosyncratic definition of what constitutes "science", and anything that cannot be observed to happen within his lifetime (macroevolution, cosmology, tectonic drift, etc.) doesn't count for him.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn: yes, evolutionary programs that have successfully produced designs are a good example of the power of mutation plus selection to achieve novelty. I've mentioned them before here, but somehow Dan et. al. still don't see how they show that something new can come from evolution.
Dan and ExPatMatt: Kaitlyn questioned the utility of debating evolution at all. Her point (as I understand it) was not that evolution is somehow above debate, but that such debates are not the proper forum for science. I personally have mixed feelings about such debates. On the one hand, many people (our two Dans here, for instance) have a worldview which summarily dismisses evolution, and a debate in such a format is probably the only way to get them to listen to our side at all.
On the other hand, the mere existence of such debates can lead to a false impression: that there is a debate among scientists about whether evolution occurred, and occurs, at all. The truth, as others have pointed out, is that while there is, of course, disagreement about many particulars (for instance, whether flight in birds evolved from the ground up or from the trees down), it is as Kaitlyn said: evolution is both a theory (an overarching explanation that fits the facts) and a fact (accepted as a description of the way things are). If one is not immersed in the scene, it would be easy to get the impression (which is no doubt exactly what the evolution-deniers intend) that there exists real scientific doubt about the fact of evolution. But there is not: a vast majority of scientists support it. Believing that evolutionary theory is in trouble, if one's main source of information is AiG, Ray Comfort, and such debates, is like believing that heliocentrism is in trouble, if one reads nothing but flat-earth literature.
Zilch:
ReplyDeleteAllow me to clarify what you have said for everyone. "Don't listen to Pvblivs. He is a heretic. He will fill your mind with heresies and lead you away from the true faith." Now, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from misrepresenting me. You are acting a bit like Ray who sets up straw men even after being corrected. And he is busy telling his sheep "what [you] really think."
My criterion for science is really the standard one. A theory must be falsifiable. That is, it must make a prediction such that, if the prediction fails, the theory is deemed wrong. Evolution does not do this. No test has ever put it on the line. Before experiments, it is always "if evolution is true, this may happen and will support the theory." If the event does happen, people will later claim that it was a full prediction that could have falsified evolution. Some people insist that evolution is falsifiable but can only produce sham examples, safe tests. Others will say that evolution is a different kind of theory and that falsifiability is not important, Clostridiophile did this. Many put their finger in their ears and say "la, la, la, I can't hear you." And some of them tell others not to listen either.
I have challenged you, before, to show me anything where before the testing was done an outcome that could not be ruled out without assuming large-scale evolution was identified that would falsify the hypothesis. You have failed to do this. Instead, you tell people not to listen to me.
Everyone:
I submit the examples as demonstration that belief in large-scale evolution has, indeed, become a religion. You have witnessed an attempted excommunication. Whether it was successful will remain to be seen.
Such ruffled feathers...
ReplyDeletePvblivs, before you get too silly with Zilch, recognize that your own rephrasing of his original statement is itself a straw man.
No, he didn't say, "Don't listen to Pvblivs," he said, "Don't mind Pvblivs" (emphasis mine). He doesn't mean you should be "summarily dismissed," as the Dans treat evolution, but that you are not the same as the Dans -- you simply put forth a tenuous opposition to evolution which is, as he says, idiosyncratic.
Whether or not I've misrepresented Zilch remains to be seen, but you are clearly assuming the worst -- it's as though you are begging to be martyred or something.
Settle down. I don't fully appreciate your opposition to evolution, but that's probably because a) I don't really see a point to your quibbles, and b) I don't see a threat. Unlike the Dans, you don't openly endorse ignorance, and I daresay you're no young-earther. You just retain excess skepticism regarding what most of us regard as well-established scientific facts.
Anyway, stop the bitching and let's get to the moaning.
--
Stan
Pvblivs: Stan represented me very nicely. I am not warning people not to listen to you at all- in fact, I enjoy listening to you, because you are a careful thinker and have an interesting viewpoint. As I've said before, I don't think your standards are useful, because they cast doubt on theories that are established beyond a reasonable doubt, so they are not really of any service to science. If we were to listen to you, we would have to defenestrate not only evolution, but plate tectonics, cosmology, archaeology- anything that involves any reconstruction of the past beyond your lifetime.
ReplyDeleteBut you are not the arbiter of what counts as science, so we can all relax. And just imagine what science would be like if Dan could have his way! No evolution, no geology, no cosmology, no neuroscience, no metallurgy... (okay, maybe metallurgy)
In any case, I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, and luckily, I don't have the power (or the desire) to tell anyone else whom to listen to and whom not. So let a thousand flowers bloom.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Stan:
ReplyDeleteI have heard "don't mind X" in the sense of "pay no attention to what X has to say" often enough. But if I jumped to conclusions, I apologize. It is not my desire to be ostracized; and I called on what I saw as such an attempt in order to block it. While majar religions openly shun heretics, people who consider themselves not so affiliated like to tell themselves that is not what they are doing. It's a little like the fact that people will often buy a product because of the pretty packaging, but if you draw attention to that, they will rethink the purchase.
Define what a religion is. List the properties of Biological Evolution. See if they compare up.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn:
ReplyDeleteI regard as religion any belief or set of beliefs held and perpetuated on the basis of authority rather than observation.
How is religion different than faith then?
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn:
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, they are interchangeable. The only difference is that a personal faith is not necessarily perpetuated at all.
So, it's fair to say that you think evolutionary theory or at least a belief in evolutionary theory is a form of faith?
ReplyDeleteDoes belief in other scientific theories like general relativity, Newton's laws, etc... constitute a form of faith as well? Or is evolution kind of a oddity in this respect?
I'm not trying to pin you down, I'm just trying to understand what you are arguing.
I will watch this whole debate as time allows. However, I must admit that Berlinski pretty much lost me right at the beginning of his segment when he said "I know dozens of mathematicians who scratch their heads at evolution" and later added "physicists" and "speculative biologists" (whatever that means) to his list of Darwin-doubters. Uh, so what else is new? Why should mathematicians be expected to know any more about evolution than, say, greengrocers? Berlinski might have pointed out the funny case of the mathematician Dr. N. Wickramasinghe, and the astronomer Dr. Fred Hoyle, who claimed (along with some others) in 1985 that Archaepteryx was a fake! Apparently, their opposition to evolution was so deep, and so misinformed, that they couldn't even accept that yes, there are fossils of transitional forms.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn:
ReplyDeleteBelief in general relativity, for someone unable to perform the relevant expiriments, is a type of faith. However, general relativity makes specific predictions. Given where gravitationally interacting objects are and how fast they are moving at an initial time, general relativity makes a specific prediction of where they will be and how they will be moving at a later time. If the objects turn out to be somewhere else, the results cannot be interpreted to fit. So, evolution is an oddity among things called "theories." Even small-scale evolution isn't really a theory; it's an empirical observation. If the evironment for some population changes, one can predict that there will be some adaptation. But there is no way to predict what that adaptation will be.
I also make an interesting note of your example. General relativity is not taught in public schools -- at least not until college level. Yet, somehow, the "system" thinks that it is important that elementary school children believe in evolution. It is also an oddity in that regard.
Yet, somehow, the "system" thinks that it is important that elementary school children believe in evolution. It is also an oddity in that regard.
ReplyDeleteNot "believe" Pvblivs, but "know about."
Relativity is taught in high and middle school around here by the way.
Evolution looks like an oddity compared to relativity because it deals with less predictable entities, living things. While physics is a "hard" science, meaning it is about things that can be more accurately modeled.
Social sciences should look even more odd than biology, since the "system" is even harder to be put into an accurate model. (Yeah, I know, the classification of hard to soft sciences is misleading, as has been stated by better minds than mine many many times.)
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteI am astounded to read and conclude that what I told you about the context of that study on the chromosomal fusion you just ignored?
G.E.
I think what Pvblivs is arguing is that since we the peasants cannot do our own DNA or fossil extraction, we almost always have to read about experiments done.
ReplyDeleteIn this sense, we have to take it on authority that evolution has been validated by scientists.
In other words, most of us have to accept the results of evolutionary studies on good faith.
Am I wrong here?
By the by - the reason evolutionary biology is taught in middle school and high school is for the same reason we teach students the periodic table of elements. Evolution is the foundation and framework of modern biology.
Get education:
ReplyDeleteWhat I saw looked very much like the "safe bet after the fact." After the fusion point was found, you come up with reasons why its absence would be detrimental to evolution. The fact is that I have no reason to conclude that had no fusion point or other explanation been found that scientists wouldn't simply decide that chromosome counts were more variable in animals than previously though but that it didn't affect evolution. If you show me where they said, in advance, that if they found nothing it would end large-scale evolution, I will reassess. If you only give me 20/20 hindsight (how it would make sense that you need to find something (now that you have found it)) I can only conclude a safe bet. Quote the plans for the experiment. Show me where those say finding something there is critical to evolution.
Kaitlyn:
Except that I haven't been able to find anything where a potential observation could ever falsify it. "Potential falsifiers" are always identified after they are safe. Simply put, while I consider large-scale evolution plausible, I consider the proposition that it has been put to any meaningful test implausible. You see, even if I could dig up the fossils myself, it would still be "confirm or inconclusive." Finding a particular transitional fossil is taken as confirmation. Failing to find one is not taken as disconfirmation.
I can think of two discoveries that would falsify evolution right off the bat that have not been "disproved" yet. Remember the croco-duck that Ray Comfort showed people? Finding a species that crosses lineages on the tree of life would falsify evolution.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, finding a unique, multicellular life form on Earth with a unique genome not shared with any other creature on the planet would falsify evolution if it didn't come from space.
So there we go, two not-after-the-fact ways to falsify evolution that have not already been eliminated as possibilities by prior research.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteYour comment only further shows me you did not read my comments before. I have no time now to restate them. Nor do I see a good reason to do it. It seems I would need a new way of explaining if your lack of understanding was due to some fault on how I explained the issues.
So be it. It was a safe bet then until I have the patience to show you yet again.
G.E.
Kaitlyn:
ReplyDeleteEven under the assumption that evolution is false, the likelihood of a crock-a-duck turning up now is comparable to that of the sun rising in the west. If it was there to be found, it would likely have been found already.
Get education:
I see. Not agreeing with you is the same as not having read what you wrote. I must not have read that last comment either (in your mind.) The fact is that you don't need a new way of explaining it. You need to show that failure to find what they were looking for was identified as a possible disconfirmer before they found what they were looking for. I don't need any explanation about why that it is a valid potential falsifier identified only after you know it won't happen.
Pvblivs said...
ReplyDelete"Even under the assumption that evolution is false, the likelihood of a crock-a-duck turning up now is comparable to that of the sun rising in the west. If it was there to be found, it would likely have been found already."
This is the sort of thing Darwin wrote about when he speculated, based on his new-fangled theory of evolution what should and what not should be found in the fossil and living biological record! How much time has passed is irrelevant. Fossilization is rare, and there's always a chance we'll unearth enough "mysterious" fossils to turn evolution on its head.
Under your logic, certainty runs in reverse. The more evidence and avenues found to support evolutionary theory are found, the more evolution becomes a matter of faith? Come on. Evolution is one of the most well understood and well supported theories science has ever come up with. And you're claiming that because this is the case, evolution is a faith. Give me a break.
[T]he likelihood of a crock-a-duck turning up now is comparable to that of the sun rising in the west.
ReplyDelete...which is precisely why the theory of heliocentrism is today taught as fact to elementary school students, and why the theory of evolution is likewise taught as fact to the same students.
I insinuated earlier that you are not a young-earther -- are you or are you not? Do you deny the many converging lines of evidence which stipulate that the earth/solar system/universe is very, very old (in human terms)? I recognize that you offer no alternative to evolution, but in maintaining your extreme skepticism regarding it, do you ally yourself with creationists?
Are you aware that the scientific "reason" that the earth orbits the sun is due to the quite incorrect Newtonian theory of universal gravitation? Since gravity is not even remotely understood in any real detail (aside from the use of Newton's empirically-derived, but otherwise arbitrary "constant", or even Einstein's more valuable, but still quite incorrect Relativity), shouldn't we remind students that heliocentrism may be false? Shouldn't we remind them that the evidence in support of heliocentrism is so overwhelming that the notion that it might be falsified is highly dubious, and that therefore we must not accept it as fact, else in doing so we are succumbing to a fallacious appeal to authority?
I've noted before that I understand your skepticism, but as I've also noted, I fail to see the point. The evolutionary model for explaining the diversity of life is the current reigning paradigm, and for better or for worse it is that which should be taught. If we teach students that [whatever current reigning paradigm] might be false, and that they should seek out evidence in favor or in denial of [the current reigning paradigm], then how do we progress in an educational environment? Surely not every student has the aptitude and discipline to become a bona fide scientist, true? Not every student can grasp calculus, or physiology, or economics, etc., so how can we expect them to master every field so that they can determine for themselves whether [the current reigning paradigm] is correct or not?
Indeed, if students are taught to question every assertion, statement, theory, or fact made by an instructor, exactly how is that student to be expected to learn anything?
The point is that there is a difference between healthy skepticism (e.g. "David Copperfield's 'magic' is explainable by natural means") and excessive skepticism, which is virtually synonymous with willful ignorance (e.g. "The earth only seems round, but that theory may be incorrect -- there may be an invisible, undetectable, and instantaneous wormhole which sends us to 'the other side' of a flat earth, and so flat-earth theory should not be discounted, nor should round-earth theory be promoted as fact"). I think we both know on which end of the spectrum the Dans lie, and I'm sure you are quite aware of just where on that spectrum many of us believe you lie.
As a latent non-conformist myself, I won't be so pretentious as to request conformity, but I do think you can relax your overdose of skepticism just a little here. After all, if you find evolution "plausible," and if you "offer no alternatives," then from exactly where does your skepticism spring, anyway? Is the Theory of Evolution too easy? Is it not elegant enough? Aside from the apparently (but not actually) dogmatic acceptance of it, just what objection(s) do you have to it?
--
Stan
Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteI don't need any explanation about why that it is a valid potential falsifier identified only after you know it won't happen.
Yes, and I did explain that, and how it was a potential falsifier before it was solved ... Also, please re-read your answer to me and tell me that you are not engaging into some sort of "skeptical fundamentalism." You can only be right that we only show the results once we know "evolution is safe." By I have shown you huge falsifiers that were clearly described BEFORE knowing the answer, and corrected on the presentation of the chromosomal problem to show you, again, that it was known BEFORE the problem was solved, and that it was not as simple as a "missing chromosome." But, your conviction is so deeply ingrained that you will not try and understand it.
So be it. But I will remember this before trying to answer your claims. I might explain for the benefit of others, knowing that it is wasted in you.
G.E.
Stan:
ReplyDeleteHeliocentrism is an empirical observation, not a theory. More importantly, the sun could be (and was) predicted not to rise in the west long before anyone though of heiocentrism. Citing it as a potential falsifier is a sham. I may as well say that it is a "scientific theory" that the White House is in Washington D.C.
My skepticism is inherent. I am skeptical about pretty much everything. The fact is, most people don't need to "know" that the world is round or that it orbits the sun. It wouldn't change anything in their personal lives between it being true or false. If it actually made a difference, in my personal life, whether large-scale evolution was true or false, I would seek to resolve the issue. I do have an objection to dogma being taught in schools. Since evolution does not appear to have a model (it retroactively "predicts" whatever happens to be found) I think it looks like a dogma. I do not see where, at any time a potential falsifier was identified before being ruled out. I have asked anyone to show me where such a falsifier has been identified before being ruled out. The only things I have gotten back are "falsifiers" which, if they turned up, would mean our entire reality was an illusion (e.g. the crockoduck) and "falsifiers" which were identified after being ruled out with long explanations as to why I should consider it a falsifier anyway.
I accept, as an empirical observation, that the world is round. I would reject anyone saying that it was a scientific theory. It isn't one. Scientific theories about gravity predict the empirical observation that the world is round. The world being round is not itself a scientific theory. It is an observation. Small-scale evolution is an observation. Large-scale evolution is a reasonable extrapolation from that observation. If our observational powers stretched over eons, we might have large-scale evolution as a known observation. But, then, that is what it would be -- a direct observation, not a theory.
I am quite aware that many of you believe I have unwarranted skepticism. But, then, the Dans believe that you have unwarranted skepticism. The Dans (assuming they are not playing roles) have little to any skepticism. They believe what they believe and refuse to consider the possibility that it might be false.
Pvblivs:
ReplyDeleteI do have an example of a prediction which evolution made, which if incorrect would have falsified it.
As I am not a biologist, and as I have not received instruction in the evolutionary process beyond a high school biology course in the early nineties (taught by a known drunk who kept copies of his multiple-choice-only exams in the upper right-hand drawer of his desk), I am no scholar, and I cannot offer examples without first looking into them. That being said, through my interest in the reactionary criticism of evolution, I have taken the time to research it, insofar as I have had the time and/or patience.
So, without further adieu, here is my example:
When Darwin first proposed his theory, one of the main criticisms against it was that there wasn't enough time for the process to have produced such diverse life as we can easily witness. At the time, the sun was thought to combust, as through burning coal, and it had been calculated by William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) that a coal-burning sun would last only ~5,000 years, which satisfied biblical literalists, but not Kelvin. He then considered the sun to have cooled from its formation (by the condensing of gas), and calculated its age at ~30 million years old.
While far older than the ~6,000 years the Dans might claim, it wasn't remotely close to the timescales required by Darwin, and it wasn't until the process of nuclear fusion was discovered that the age of the sun correlated with the timescales required by the ToE.
Had it been otherwise, Darwin would've been wrong, and evolution would've been rightfully dismissed.
Good enough? That's just one example, I know, but it is an example, and as far as I can tell it satisfies your criteria. I'll happily admit that evolution is largely a set of empirical observations, and thus it should be in a class with heliocentrism (which, when proposed, was not an empirical observation) as observable phenomena which we consider fact.
Anyway, I've asked a few times, but it's evidently been ignored, so I'll ask a bit more forcefully this time in the hopes of an answer: Are you a young-earther?
I'm curious, especially since you recognize that, despite your skepticism regarding evolution, you offer no alternatives.
--
Stan
Stan wrote:
ReplyDelete"I'm curious, especially since you recognize that, despite your skepticism regarding evolution, you offer no alternatives."
Just because someone may or may not have alternatives does not make Evolution correct or even plausible.
Stan wrote...
"When Darwin first proposed his theory, one of the main criticisms against it was that there wasn't enough time for the process to have produced such diverse life as we can easily witness."
Exactly how much time is needed? Did Darwin give any numbers or are we applying current facts to Darwin's theory to make them fit?
If tomorrow, we found out that the Earth is a billion years younger than we thought it was, would that disprove evolution or would we just apply those new numbers to Darwin's theory and say, "ahh, it works, Darwin was right all along!"
That's what I thought. ;)
Oh, come on, Kaitlyn -- you're not even trying any more.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone may or may not have alternatives does not make Evolution correct or even plausible.
Pvblivs has repeatedly stated that he finds evolution plausible, and this is, I think, quite honest of him. The Theory of Evolution is plausible, and anyway, it's irrelevant to my question posed: I just wonder as to Pvblivs' stance concerning the apparent age of the earth/solar system/universe.
Anyway, I'm not the one constantly proposing false dichotomies, and I'm certainly not doing so now. Sure, I support evolution as the currently accepted biological model, even to the point that I would say it is fact, but I'm by no means suggesting that Pvblivs' failure to offer an alternative is in any way supportive of evolution (indeed, it is not a "failure," per se, but instead it is an indication of his integrity).
Exactly how much time is needed? Did Darwin give any numbers or are we applying current facts to Darwin's theory to make them fit?
Careful there, you said "current facts," but I'm sure you meant current "theories," or "hypotheses," or possibly even "facts according to the current scientific consensus."
An easy-to-read, and even somewhat amusing treatise on the subject can be found here, but if you're really interested in the mid-19th-century debate, this Google search is a good place to start. Suffice it to say, Darwin himself was concerned both with Lord Kelvin's prestige and with his calculations, and he recognized that his hypothesized rate of evolutionary change within species was far too slow if Kelvin's calculated age(s) were correct.
If tomorrow, we found out that the Earth is a billion years younger than we thought it was, would that disprove evolution or would we just apply those new numbers to Darwin's theory and say, "ahh, it works, Darwin was right all along!"
If you want a prophecy, you'll have to ask Dani'El -- he's the resident fortune-teller. I'd say that the current ages are pretty well established, and that I don't know what specific ranges of ages fit the evolutionary model, but as Pvblivs has noted concerning the "crocoduck" or the pre-Cambrian rabbit, these examples of possibly falsifying discoveries are safe bets. The apparent age of the earth/solar system/universe is likewise a safe bet, in my view.
Anyway, the point is that Darwin's theory required more time than was available according to a leading physicist, and according to the known processes at the time. If the process of fusion had for some reason produced an apparent age of the sun which was significantly less (say, off by one or more orders of magnitude), Darwin would've been sunk. Instead, everything seems to agree with the ages his theory required. Yeah, that's an example of a potentially falsifying scenario which turned out to support evolution.
By the bye, what's the trouble with "safe bets" anyway? It's still a bet, and it still could screw you over. If you don't believe me, look up Bernard Madoff. Just because the sun is a veritable certainty to rise in the east tomorrow (holy shit I need to go to bed...) doesn't mean that if it ever failed to do so that heliocentrism, naturalism, and a whole load of sciences and theories would be obliterated in one fell swoop. If the sun rose instead in the west, or simply disappeared, or exhibited some other fluke behavior, what then? Safe or not, a bet is a bet, and even though the odds of life on an extra-solar planet are something like 1 in 10^100 (according to a brochure promoting an ID lecture I attended a few years ago), that number is not zero. Buying a lottery ticket is a bad idea for everyone except the winner(s), right?
I'll tell you what -- a major difference between myself (and Pvblivs, I'm guessing) and the Dans is that I'm willing to accept evidence which denies my current paradigm, if (and only if) that evidence is truly compelling, and survives rigorous scrutiny. This is not a double-standard -- any evidence supporting my paradigm is subjected to the same scrutiny, but it clearly differs from the various repeated remarks by the Dans, which have the following form:
I will never doubt my interpretation of the bible as god's word, regardless of the evidence against it.
A more specific example of something they'd likely say is this:
Noah and the seven family members with him on the ark were quite able to manage a floating zoo for over a year without electricity, refrigeration, or a sail, which zoo consisted of no fewer than two of every animal [kind] which has ever graced the surface of the earth (or seven [pairs] of many, including all birds). Noah was a ~600-year-old zookeeper/shipwright, and I don't care how ridiculous you think it was, or what evidence you have against it.
Anyway, regarding a billion-year-younger earth, being off by a factor of 1.1 is a lot easier for the many sciences which agree with an old earth/solar system/universe to deal with than it is our YEC friends, who need a discovery to alter the apparent age of the earth by a factor of somewhere between 450,000 and 750,000... or to find the age of the universe to be younger by a factor of over a million...
Evolution may turn up wrong (it has been pretty constantly refined since its inception... you know, like astronomy), but in this, a dichotomy is warranted: if the Dans' model, in which the earth is the oldest material object in the universe, is correct, then nothing can be older than ~10000 years. If a hypothetical discovery is made tomorrow, which puts the age of the earth at ~3.5Gy, the Dans would still be wrong by a factor of about 400,000, give or take. Given that there are multiple lines of evidence in favor of an old universe, it would take more than one discovery, or an extremely compelling one, to turn all the applicable sciences on their heads.
So if you come up with that extremely compelling discovery, let me know...
That's what I thought. ;)
--
Stan
Wow, Stan, I'll never doubt evolution again!
ReplyDeleteI guess the fact that I was parodying Pvblivs wasn't clear enough. ;)
I guess the fact that I was parodying Pvblivs wasn't clear enough. ;)
ReplyDeleteNah, I was just in a zone... A zone in which I neglected the need to sleep in order to respond to every blog entry which seemed interesting...
That, and I try to avoid smileys, and wasn't sure what role you were playing today...
:)
I'm glad I so successfully convinced you, though.
--
Stan
[Pvblivshing]
ReplyDeleteNo Stan, the problem is that we only know if that potential falsifier AFTER it was solved. After it was known that evolution was safe.
(Pvblivs thing is something similar to a presuppositionalism a la Sye whereas anything you tell him, despite how it can sound like an excellent falsifier, it is not because they did not let us know until after the fact. This will be true for anything we come out with because the test was done already. In other words, we are guilty because the hardest tests are a thing of the past. Since we do not know of anything NEW that could potentially falsify evolution, and anything in known fields he will deem as "sure bets," then there is no way around, we are guilty even if we demonstrate the contrary, because he has a prepared answer for that too.)
G.E.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteIf a hypothetical discovery is made tomorrow, which puts the age of the earth at ~3.5Gy, the Dans would still be wrong by a factor of about 400,000, give or take.
Look there could be a possibility of my interpretation of the Bible being wrong. I am a YEC because that is what is claimed in Genesis and the Ten Commandments (4th) so yes I would have a great deal of questions for God when I did see him about that. I say that because my belief in YEC has nothing to do with my Salvation at all. I am saved no matter what I believe about the detail of this universe, right or wrong. Besides believing it's false, evilution pushes people away from God. Remember how to judge by its fruit? Well, to me that is horrible fruit and must be false or not of God.
Given that there are multiple lines of evidence in favor of an old universe, it would take more than one discovery, or an extremely compelling one, to turn all the applicable sciences on their heads.
That goes for us too you know. Show me compelling evidence that I cannot even wiggle out of and I will be forced to admit that I was wrong. For now, I have so much wiggle room I feel like an ant on a California King mattress. How could scientists let doubt enter in to the equation for so many people even scientists themselves unless the jury is still out. Are fundies, under God, that much more powerful then the elite scientists of the world? Unfair as it seems, because of God's grace, I have all the time in the universe to find out the truth, you only have until you die.
Please don't die!
Get education:
ReplyDeleteMy point to you was that the potential falsifiers were all identified after they were safe. If you can quote from the material leading up to the study and show me that the falsifier was identified in advance (not that the falsifier seems to make sense) I will accept that.
Kaitlyn:
You parody me like Ray Comfort parodies atheists.
Stan:
No, I am not a young-earther.
Well, was evolution actually dismissed as falsified when the sun was thought to be younger? If it had been, a name of a re-discoverer would probably be attached. It seems that it was regarded as a detail that they needed to make fit. But it gets into what I don't trust about the falsifiers. While something that has shown to fit is proclaimed as a "potential falsifier," if the evidence does not fit, it is only a difficulty that needs to be worked out. Still, the criterion is the same. If Darwin's work, or the work of any supporter of evolution prior to the discovery of fusion states that, should it not prove possible that the sun is 4 billion years old then evolution must be in error, then that qualifies. I just need the quote and the source.
"Show me compelling evidence that I cannot even wiggle out of and I will be forced to admit that I was wrong."
ReplyDeleteHow about the fact that we are apes?
Dan first:
ReplyDeleteI am a YEC because that is what is claimed in... the Ten Commandments (4th)
What?! What the hell does remembering the Sabbath have to do with the age of the universe?
(Hold your horses -- I can very easily derail your current train of thought)
I know, I know, god created in six [days] and rested, thus the seven-day week, and the invention of the weekend (one thing for which I have Christianity to thank is that it failed to convert many Jews, and thus both Saturday and Sunday are revered... Now if only some major religion would claim two or three more).
The problem with attributing a literal-six-day creation period to the 4th commandment is that you also have the example of the Sabbath year -- so perhaps god created the universe in six years rather than days -- and we cannot forget the year of Jubilee -- perhaps god created the universe in 49 years, or 42 (Hitchhiker's, anyone?).
If you really want to get silly with things, there are the "Seven Dispensations," which are unequal epochs, which means that the six periods depicted in Genesis 1 could easily have totaled far more than 144 hours.
No, the 4th commandment says nothing regarding the age of the universe. It merely points out that after six periods of labor, one period should be set aside for rest. The use of the day is pure allegory here, as you are forced to admit the Sabbath year is also allegory. I'll count that as a point.
[E]vilution [sic] pushes people away from God. Remember how to judge by its fruit? Well, to me that is horrible fruit and must be false or not of God.
That's preposterous. Since by your own admission, there is "wiggle room" under which an old-universe model could very well be true, and since even you recognize that multiple lines of evidence converge on precisely that model, the only reason "evilution," Big Bang cosmology, or whatever other evil old-earth claiming theories are said to bear "bad fruit" is because they point people away from your dogmatic view(s) of god.
Evolution has been assimilated into the doctrines of the RCC (I know, they're not True Christians™, but this nonetheless shows that doctrinal changes can occur within even the most dogmatic institutions), and there are many professing Christians who are OECs. I'd be absolutely remiss if I didn't here plug The Great Debate, a video debate in which AiG founder Ken Ham and his lackey Jason Lisle debate two OEC Christians (whose names I've forgotten).
It doesn't lead people away from god, just away from an outmoded set of interpretations of the bible. It leads people away from god-in-a-box, and exposes them to god-outside-the-box -- a god who does things in a decidedly non-anthropomorphized fashion.
Anyway, I digress...
Show me compelling evidence that I cannot even wiggle out of and I will be forced to admit that I was wrong. For now, I have so much wiggle room I feel like an ant on a California King mattress.
Of course you have wiggle room! It's because you defer to the supernatural for anything which cannot be explained naturally! Your god is like Genie from Aladdin -- "Phenomenal cosmic power... itty-bitty living space." Let him out, already.
What seems oblivious to you is the fact that if you relaxed the literal interpretations (yeah, I know, "plain reading of the text" blah blah blah), you'd have unbounded wiggle room. The only difficulty is in accepting that Moses, and the four guys who wrote under his pseudonym, didn't know what they were talking about, or blissfully embellished that which they personally witnessed. You actually gain wiggle room in the process, and your precious salvation story can remain intact -- hell, it can even become an easier pill to swallow (careful, or you'll become a "Liberal Christian")!
How could scientists let doubt enter in to the equation...?
Because science strives toward honest observation of natural phenomena. Science actually quantifies uncertainty. In the course of a college physics experiment, I was told that I could not cite "human error" as the source for uncertainty in our measurements. Why? Because if that were the case, we failed to properly set up the experiment (which was absolutely the case). Science seeks to eliminate error on the part of the observer, but to honestly quantify the error inherent in the observation.
Science, true science, admits the uncertainty -- they even have a Principle named after it -- and isn't afraid to say, "We don't know" rather than assert "goddidit."
Hmph.
--
Stan
Now to Pvblivs:
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not a young-earther.
I thought not. This being the case, your staunch skepticism of evolution seems even more unwarranted, but once again, my judgment that your skepticism poses no threat to science seems correct. My saying, "It's okay for you to be skeptical of evolution," had no bearing on your skepticism, of course, but in the absence of an alternative, at least one of us will go ahead and accept evolution under the caveat that if a new, better theory explaining the diversity of life ever surfaces -- however unlikely that may today be -- that I'll change allegiance. I follow the data where it leads, and I suspect you do, too.
If Darwin's work, or the work of any supporter of evolution prior to the discovery of fusion states that, should it not prove possible that the sun is 4 billion years old then evolution must be in error, then that qualifies. I just need the quote and the source.
It's worth pursuing. I've found an article in the August 1989 issue of Scientific American by Lawrence Badash titled, "The Age of the Earth Debate," whose abstract states the following:
Over the past three centuries, scientists' estimates of the age of the earth have increased dramatically. The biblical creation time scale of a few thousand years was refuted by some naturalists of the 18th century on the grounds that geological processes would have required millions of years to shape the existing landscape. Charles Lyell suggested in 1830 that the earth might have existed for hundreds of millions of years. In 1862, the physicist William Thompson (later Lord Kelvin) calculated the earth's rate of cooling and derived an age estimate of 40 million to 200 million years. Geologists initially considered Kelvin's estimate too short, but they later accepted it. In the early 1900s, Ernest Rutherford and Bertram Boltwood developed the first radioactive dating techniques, and Arthur Holmes refined the methods and gained wide acceptance for them. Based on radioactive dating of meteorites, scientists now believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
(Any errors are likely mine through re-typing)
Although the full text is not available online, this article was cited by one to which I had linked further up the page, and its title and abstract appear promising.
How about this article, in which Stenger quotes Darwin (page 6):
Thomson's views on the recent age of the world have been for some time one of my sorest troubles.
Stenger continues himself by saying, "If Thomson's calculations had been correct, Darwinism would have been falsified."
This page lists summaries of responses to what appear to be essay study guides for a history course. The relevant section is #2, Joe D. Burchfield, "Darwin and the Dilemma of Geological Time." There are quotes and apparent citations, but the bibliography is not included. It reads as a credible source, but, if you'll pardon the harmless jest, I'm sure you'll remain skeptical...
Finally, this article discusses precisely the source of your ire, by detailing various instances of possible falsification which all failed. The article doesn't go into nearly as much detail as either of us would like, but it is yet another good starting point.
Regardless, I would still claim that, since On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859, and since Kelvin published On the Age of the Sun's Heat in 1862 in an explicit effort at falsifying Darwin, that evolution survived at least one possible falsification, and in at least this case Darwin was vindicated:
What then are we to think of such geological estimates as 300,000,000 years for the “denudation of the Weald”? Whether is it more probable that the physical conditions of the sun’s matter differ 1,000 times more than dynamics compel us to suppose they differ from those of matter in our laboratories; or that a stormy sea, with possibly Channel tides of extreme violence, should encroach on a chalk cliff 1,000 times more rapidly than Mr. Darwin’s estimate of one inch per century?
May I have a cookie?
--
Stan
P.S. -- Word verification: "crogrou"; it's not a "crocoduck," but it's close to a "crocogrouse."
Find a paper among the research in which scientists said they would scrap evolution if they failed to find such a fusion or separation point.
ReplyDeleteKen Miller says as much here
http://uk.youtube.com
/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
Note how the theory of chromosome fusion is constructed