Richard Lewontin (1929 – 2021)

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 5, 2021

Darwinism, Naturalism}

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

Evolutionary biologist, perhaps best known for:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons” at New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997), a review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Random House)

We shall see.

Comments

Bob states, "*sigh* No, I’ve never claimed that." Yet at the bottom of post 43
as you’re citing Kuhn and Lakatos, you should read up on their criticisms of Popper. Falsification doesn’t work, either historically or logically. never mind Darwinism, it would say that most p of physics is not science – Newton was falsified, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified but in all these cases the theories weren’t discarded. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/richard-lewontin-1929-2021/#comment-733891
Save for deleting the p, which I charitably assumed to be an error on your part, I quoted you verbatim. Again, Einstein has certainly not been falsified, and thermodynamics, in its modern form, has also certainly not been falsified. Yet that is what you directly implied in your post. Again, those are blatantly false claims on your part and you gave no indication otherwise. Indeed, you tried to defend your false claim that thermodynamics is falsified. If you want to walk those claims back, the best thing for you to do is to admit you were wrong in your claims, (as they are clearly written), and/or clarify exactly where you personally stand, and where what you wrote didn't accurately reflect what you really meant to say. It is not to deny that you ever made the claims. False claims that are right there for everybody to read. At least that is how most people who are not Darwinists would try to handle it. I guess being a Darwinist means never, ever, admitting you were wrong, even if you are caught red handed being wrong.bornagain77_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

ba77 -
You claimed that “most of physics is not science” because “,,, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified”.
*sigh* No, I've never claimed that.Bob O'H_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Bob you are not understanding what you wrote. You claimed that “most of physics is not science” because ",,, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified". Your claim is blatantly false. Einstein has never been falsified, and it is more appropriate to say that thermodynamics was 'slightly' modified to include mass-energy into one term rather than claiming it has been outright falsified as a theory and replaced by another brand new theory.(As Einstein replaced Newton's falsified theory with his brand new, unfalsified, theory) i.e. The modern conservation law, via the slight modification, is unfalsified! i.e. No mythical planet Vulcan needed! Now if you really want to talk about the insanity of 'inventing planets' solely in order to save a theory from falsification, I suggest you look no further than your own pseudoscientific theory of Darwinian evolution. For instance, 'punctuated equilibrium' amounts to a "my dog ate all my transitional fossils" excuse for why the fossil record does not conform to Darwinian expectations.bornagain77_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

ba77 - you're not understanding my point. Falsification doesn't necessarily lead to rejection. Newton was falsified by astronomical observations and the resolution wasn't to abandon his theories, but to invent another planet. Which, if you think about it, is nuts. "Our theory doesn't work, so let's keep the theory and instead invent a large ball of rock". How can a falsificationist defend that approach to falsification?Bob O'H_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
Oh, I just remembered a falsification of the first law of thermodynamics – E = mc^2. The first law says that energy remains constant, but we now know it and mass can be inter-converted.
Please provide an academic reference to support your claim.ET_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
My point is that falsification of theories doesn’t lead to them being abandoned.
That all depends on what was falsified. It also depends if the concept was a theory or not. For example, evolution by means of blind and mindless processes doesn't even qualify as a theory.ET_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT}

One wonders if Bob even reads his own posts. Bob's original claim was, “Falsification doesn’t work, either historically or logically. never mind Darwinism, it would say that most of physics is not science – Newton was falsified, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified but in all these cases the theories weren’t discarded." Yet Einstein has not been falsified. And the modern version of thermodynamics, i.e. conservation of mass energy, has also not been falsified. Moreover, it was the falsification of Newton's theory, (i.e. disagreement between the mathematical predictions of Newton's theory and experimental results), that was one of the primary reasons that led Einstein to formulate his non-falsified theory of General Relativity. In that instance, falsification worked just like it was suppose to work in science, and led to a far deeper understanding of the universe with relativity. Bob objects that Newton's theory, despite being falsified, is still around and was not discarded. Yet everyone knows that Newton's theory is not the correct description of gravity. The only reason that Newton's theory continues to 'hang around' physics departments is that, in most instances, save for in strong gravitational fields, it is much easier to calculate planetary motions using Newton's simpler equation than by using Einstein's more complex general relativity equation. In regards to thermodynamics, it was the realisation that matter and energy can be converted to one another, (via e=mc'2, i.e. special relativity), that led to the two 19th century laws, (i.e. the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy), being combined into the one modern law, (i.e. The conservation of mass-energy). In fact, it was not so much a falsification of the law of conservation of energy as it was merely a 'unification' of the two original laws into the one modern conservation law,,,, a law which has not been falsified. (at least it has not been falsified since its spectacular falsification in the Big Bang itself) So again, 'falsification' in that instance worked just as it was suppose to work and led to a 'new' conservation law that has not been falsified. A law that has given us a much deeper understanding of the universe. But Bob falsely claimed that both relativity and thermodynamics has been falsified, and moreover, Bob claimed that "most of physics is not science" because relativity and thermodynamics has supposedly been falsified. Bob claims about thermodynamics and relativity being falsified, as he originally intended his claims to undermine physics as a true science,, are blatantly false claims. Physics and the principle of falsification get along quite well Bob, and certainly does not need any advice from a Darwinist, such as yourself, who ignores the principle of falsification whenever it suits him and who continues to cling to a outdated 19th century theory, despite that theory being falsified time and again in its core presuppositions. (see post 29 for a few falsifications of core Darwinian presuppositions, that Darwinists continually to ignore).bornagain77_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PDT}

ba77 -
Yet, the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of mass were based on our 19th century understanding of physics. The modern understanding is that mass and energy are effectively the same thing, (i.e. e=mc2), and can actually be converted to and from each other.
Indeed. The original law was falsified by Einstein (it may already have been falsified). But it wasn't abandoned - it was modified.
First, I’ve NEVER seen anyone else ever try to claim that. Secondly, you used special relativity to try to do it, yet earlier in the thread you had falsely claimed that relativity has, itself, been falsified. So why are you using a theory that you claim has been falsified to try to falsify another theory? Seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.
Err, no. My point is that falsification of theories doesn't lead to them being abandoned. The falsification is dealt with in other ways, e.g. by inventing a new planet.Bob O'H_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT}

Jerry, you are not that smart, but you'll a little smart. Keep fighting the good fight.Jack_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Earth to Bob O'H- There isn't any scientific alternative to Intelligent Design. There aren't any observations that support materialism. The only observations that support evolution by means of blind and mindless processes are deformities and genetic diseases. You are being a hypocrite.ET_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Bob, there are a few interesting things in your trying to claim the conservation of Mass-Energy has been falsified. First, I've NEVER seen anyone else ever try to claim that. Secondly, you used special relativity to try to do it, yet earlier in the thread you had falsely claimed that relativity has, itself, been falsified. So why are you using a theory that you claim has been falsified to try to falsify another theory? Seems like you are cutting off your nose to spite your face to me. But anyways, and thirdly, aside from that minor quibble, if you really wanted to demonstrate that the conservation of Mass-Energy has been falsified, a much easier way for you to have done so is by appealing directly to the Big Bang. I cannot think of a more spectacular violation of the conservation of Mass-Energy than the fact that all the mass-energy of the universe was instantaneously created approx. 14 billion years ago. But then again, by appealing to that spectacular falsification of the conservation of Mass-Energy, you would have severely undermined your own atheistic worldview in the process. So I guess, (since it clearly seems that you would much rather be an atheist than ever be honest with the scientific evidence), that explains why that particular, spectacular, falsification of the conservation of Mass-Energy slipped your mind.
Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. “My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” - Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” - Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), ? "The question of 'the beginning' is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians...there is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing" - George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time, 1993, p.189. - George Smoot is a Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE "'Let There Be Light' should actually be translated 'Be Light!'. In other words, it was not a request." - Hebrew Essentials with Danny Ben-Gigi
bornagain77_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
So is Bill Dembski a fool or a liar in your book? Are the other people on this site fools or liars? Seriously, this is the whole basis of the explanatory filter – remove evolution as an explanation, and infer design by abduction.
WRONG! First, and foremost, Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Intelligent Design is OK with organisms being intelligently designed with the ability and information required to adapt and evolution. Genetic algorithms exemplify evolution by means of intelligent design. They are goal oriented, targeted searches. Second, the explanatory filter is just standard operating procedure. It forces you to follow Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning. Archaeologists have to eliminate nature as a cause of the effect they are investigating. And they also have to find signs of work, ie a specification. It is NOT enough to eliminate blind and mindless processes. As Dembski has written, there still must be some specification met. It's a very simple flow chart, Bob. You have to misrepresent it on purpose. Why do you do that? And it STILL remains that according to the standard operating procedure you and yours have all of the power to refute ID's claims. And yet you can't. I understand why that bothers you.ET_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

Bob claims, "I just remembered a falsification of the first law of thermodynamics – E = mc^2. The first law says that energy remains constant, but we now know it and mass can be inter-converted." Yet, the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of mass were based on our 19th century understanding of physics. The modern understanding is that mass and energy are effectively the same thing, (i.e. e=mc2), and can actually be converted to and from each other. The real conservation law is conservation of mass-energy.
Conservation of mass-energy ,,, the English physicist J.J. Thomson showed in 1881 that the energy stored in the fields around a moving charged particle varies as the square of the velocity as if there were extra mass carried with the electric field around the particle. Herein lie the seeds of the general mass–energy relationship developed by Einstein in his special theory of relativity; E = mc2 expresses the association of mass with every form of energy. Neither of two separate conservation laws, that of energy and that of mass (the latter particularly the outcome of countless experiments involving chemical change), is in this view perfectly true, but together they constitute a single conservation law, which may be expressed in two equivalent ways—conservation of mass, if to the total energy E is ascribed mass E/c2, or conservation of energy, if to each mass m is ascribed energy mc2. The delicate measurements by Eötvös and later workers (see above) show that the gravitational forces acting on a body do not distinguish different types of mass, whether intrinsic to the fundamental particles or resulting from their kinetic and potential energies. For all its apparently artificial origins, then, this conservation law enshrines a very deep truth about the material universe, one that has not yet been fully explored. https://www.britannica.com/science/principles-of-physical-science/Conservation-of-mass-energy#ref366373
Moreover,
The Conservation of Mass-Energy There is a scientific law called the Law of Conservation of Mass, discovered by Antoine Lavoisier in 1785. In its most compact form, it states: matter is neither created nor destroyed. In 1842, Julius Robert Mayer discovered the Law of Conservation of Energy. In its most compact form, it it now called the First Law of Thermodynamics: energy is neither created nor destroyed. In 1907 (I think), Albert Einstein announced his discovery of the equation E = mc2 and, as a consequence, the two laws above were merged into the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy: the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant. Generally, textbooks would add, as I am doing, that mass and energy can interconvert. An interesting historical footnote: during the radioactive decay called beta decay, tremendous amounts of energy were being produced. This was expected, but what was not was that the energy amounts released varied widely for the exact same decay process. The amounts should always have been the same. This was very puzzling to the early researchers and I believe it was Niels Bohr who proposed that the Law of Conservation of Energy was being violated. Of course, this turned out to not be the case. The correct answer was a new particle called the "neutrino," proposed about 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli. The neutrino was finally detected in 1952 (I think) and the discoverers were able to inform Pauli, then near death due to cancer. By the way, the neutrino is a very, very important particle in modern science. You may wish to research how neutrinos were useful in learning about Supernova 1987A. The Law of Conservation of Mass is still a useful idea in chemistry. This is because the energy changes in a chemical reaction are so tiny that they did not affect any measurements. 100 kJ is a typical value for the energy involved in a chemical reaction and it is only about 10¯9 gram. Only recently has such a small amount been able to be accurately measured. The mass loss or gain due to energy loss or gain in a chemical reaction may someday be something that is routinely measured. https://www.chemteam.info/Thermochem/Law-Cons-Mass-Energy.html
bornagain77_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

:) Darwinism is working with ID tools and darwinists say ID is pseudoscience? Hahaha! How in the world would have own goals/purpose some non rational life forms when we as rational beings don't have goals to "convince" cells/organs/systems do their job. This is a automated task that have preseted goals into ALL processes that take place. Everything happening in living systems point to a clear goal. Randomness, chance has no goals and point to no goal while living organisms point to a purpose, have many complex mechanisms that concur to attain a clear target. You can't have a theory of evolution without an apriori concept of purpose. Of course Darwin tried to inject randomness but only after he rationalized "the purpose" of living beings (in order to start the story of evolution you need a rational hook). ;)Sandy_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

I know that some have used esoteric mathematical techniques to show that some things are impossible or incredibly improbable. But that is one tool only used by people looking at science. It is not a necessary tool for ID to evaluate scientific findings. ID is about looking at the findings of science and coming to the best explanation. One is that the DNA to protein process while amazing cannot explain evolution. So one has to look elsewhere. No Free Lunch theorems are not necessary for this. I have no idea if they are sufficient to make such a conclusion.jerry_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

I guess it’s not a surprise that it comes out of left field for you if you’re not aware of the basics of the maths behind ID
As far as I know there is no math behind ID. I know logic is used to estimate probabilities of natural events but beyond that, what math? Dembski started this site but he is only one person and he has had a flawed vision at times. So he hardly represents ID. By the way I once was banned from this site because I criticized Dembski's weak understanding of the issues or his inability to explain them. He did not seem to understand the differences between micro and macro evolution and the implications. Or at least he did not use it in laying out the problems of evolution as taught in the universities. Consequentially he was often ineffective.jerry_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Oh, I just remembered a falsification of the first law of thermodynamics - E = mc^2. The first law says that energy remains constant, but we now know it and mass can be inter-converted.Bob O'H_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 44 -
The NFL theorems are not ID. ... They may or may not have implications for design of something. I am certainly not an expert.
Indeed. If you were an expert, or even if you had read Demski's book you would know that the NFL theorems form the basis of the argument that a search can be no better than random, unless there is an intelligence behind it. I guess it's not a surprise that it comes out of left field for you if you're not aware of the basics of the maths behind ID
Also equating ID with creationism is a logical fallacy. Why do that?
That's something to ask your fellow cdesign proponentsists. ba77 - I'll get back to you (it's too late to search now). But I didn't say they were "truly falsified", just falsified. What is interesting is how scientists react to apparent falsification: a Popperian should reject the theory. But that's not always what happens, hence even well established theories have falsifications.Bob O'H_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

Bob claims, ",,,, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified,,," [citation please]
Criticism of the theory of relativity Excerpt: "The theory of relativity is considered to be self-consistent, is consistent with many experimental results, and serves as the basis of many successful theories like quantum electrodynamics. Therefore, fundamental criticism (like that of Herbert Dingle, Louis Essen, Petr Beckmann, Maurice Allais and Tom van Flandern) has not been taken seriously by the scientific community, and due to the lack of quality of many critical publications (found in the process of peer review) they were rarely accepted for publication in reputable scientific journals." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#Status_of_criticism Has the Second Law Been Falsified? Victor Stenger September 1, 2002 Excerpt: So, has a violation of the second law of thermodynamics been demonstrated in an Australian laboratory? Hardly. https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/has-the-second-law-been-falsified/ Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;?In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it to collapse in deepest humiliation.” - Eddington
I'm certain that if any of those theories would have been truly falsified, as Bob has claimed, then that would have rocked the scientific world.bornagain77_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

The NFL theorems are not ID. At best they may be one of a thousand tools that people use to analyze scientific data. They may or may not have implications for design of something. I am certainly not an expert. But your statement is still gobbledygook. It comes out of left field, an American expression for nonsense. I have never seen these theorems discussed on this site despite Dembski writing a book titled “No Free Lunch.” Dembski wanted to use mathematics to prove design. I have no idea of the status but it’s absurd to cite it. Even if he was successful, it would just be one of those thousand tools. If you have any information on why they are essential to the design inference, feel free to point out the discussions and why. They don’t show up in the archives except for a couple odd extraneous threads. Also equating ID with creationism is a logical fallacy. Why do that? You know it’s wrong to suggest that.
If ID wants to be a science, it really has to distance itself from creationism. One way to do this is to make a public commitment to methodological naturalism (which doesn’t mean making a commitment to materialism, only to basing your science on what can be observed in the natural world
As you said ID does this. It actually is better at science than the universities are. If it doesn’t, please provide examples.jerry_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 34 - the infinite fitness surfaces comes from the NFL theorems. Just because you don't know about something or don't understand it doesn't mean it's gobbledygook. ET @ 39 -
Total nonsense. ID does not model evolution. Only fools and liars say that ID’s basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”. You are pathetic.
So is Bill Dembski a fool or a liar in your book? Are the other people on this site fools or liars? Seriously, this is the whole basis of the explanatory filter - remove evolution as an explanation, and infer design by abduction. Jack @ 41 -
I think the problem is on the other side. The academic world is solidly committed, at least publically and institutionally, to an anti-telic position.
I don't think that's quite right. it's committed to an anit-creationist position, because (a) creationism is bad science, (b) science shouldn't rely on a theological position (because, to simplify somewhat, you can't do experiments with God.
Critics of ID generally don’t even know the difference between ID and “creationism.”
Which ID types haven' t helped by conflating the two. There was a trial about it about 15 years ago. If ID wants to be a science, it really has to distance itself from creationism. One way to do this is to make a public commitment to methodological naturalism (which doesn't mean making a commitment to materialism, only to basing your science on what can be observed in the natural world. Weirdly, when ID tries to do science it actually does this, e.g. with information theory, the explanatory filter etc.). ba77 @ 42 - as you're citing Kuhn and Lakatos, you should read up on their criticisms of Popper. Falsification doesn't work, either historically or logically. never mind Darwinism, it would say that most p of physics is not science - Newton was falsified, Einstein was falsified, thermodynamics was falsified but in all these cases the theories weren't discarded.Bob O'H_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

Bob sniffs his academic/atheistic nose and scoffs at Popper's criteria of falsification,
"if you had done Philosophy of Science 101, you wouldn’t be using Popper’s demarcation criterion."
It is interesting that many academic atheists, and particularly Darwinists, will often scoff at Popper's criteria of falsification, yet Richard Feynman himself, primary founder of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), thought that falsifiability was the 'key to science'. i.e. "If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."
"Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it." - Richard Feynman - Richard Feynman Teaches you the Scientific Method https://fs.blog/2009/12/mental-model-scientific-method/
Einstein himself also held falsification in great esteem
“The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says “Yes” to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says “Maybe,” and in the great majority of cases simply “No.” If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter “Maybe,” and if it does not agree it means “No.” – Einstein
Moreover, if any theories have ever survived repeated attempts at empirical falsification, and came out the other end with flying colors, Feynman's theory of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Einstein's theories of relativity are those theories.
The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science - May 5, 2011 Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science? It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity. In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is: g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28) Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that). http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/
It is no wonder that Darwinian atheists, such as Bob, would try to belittle falsification, besides Darwin's theory, (as was pointed out in post 29), being falsified time and time again by empirical observation, Darwin's pseudoscientific theory also simply has nothing to compare with QED in regards to being empirically testable and potentially falsifiable. As Berlinski notes, "Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003
Darwin's pseudoscientific theory simply has nothing to offer in comparison to QED and Relativity. Moverover, even if we, for the sake of argument, grant Bob's contention that Popper's falsification criteria is not a reliable guide for demarcating whether a theory is truly scientific or not, we find that Darwinian evolution still fails to qualify as a science. Imre Lakatos, who was a student of Karl Popper, and who is also regarded as another prominent philosopher of science in the 20th century, basically tried to tiptoe around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science,,,
A Philosophical Question… Does Evolution have a Hard Core? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the disruptive effects that its application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion. you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
,,,and although Lakatos tried to tiptoe around the failure of Darwinism to have a rigid demarcation criteria in science, Lakatos was at least brave enough to state, "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific" Lakatos also stated that "a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena." 20 years after Lakatos' challenge to Darwin as a valid scientific theory, Helena Cronin found that "Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.."
Imre Lakatos - Pseudoscience - Darwin's Theory According to the demarcation criterion of pseudoscience originally proposed by Lakatos, a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories, which predict novel fact(s).[21] Progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted. As he put it: "A given fact is explained scientifically only if a new fact is predicted with it....The idea of growth and the concept of empirical character are soldered into one." See pages 34–5 of The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978. Lakatos's own key examples of pseudoscience were Ptolemaic astronomy, Immanuel Velikovsky's planetary cosmogony, Freudian psychoanalysis, 20th century Soviet Marxism,[22] Lysenko's biology, Niels Bohr's Quantum Mechanics post-1924, astrology, psychiatry, sociology, neoclassical economics, and Darwin's theory. Darwin's theory In his 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture 1[23] he also claimed that "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific". Almost 20 years after Lakatos's 1973 challenge to the scientificity of Darwin, in her 1991 The Ant and the Peacock, LSE lecturer and ex-colleague of Lakatos, Helena Cronin, attempted to establish that Darwinian theory was empirically scientific in respect of at least being supported by evidence of likeness in the diversity of life forms in the world, explained by descent with modification. She wrote that "our usual idea of corroboration as requiring the successful prediction of novel facts...Darwinian theory was not strong on temporally novel predictions.." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imre_Lakatos#Pseudoscience
Thus according to Lakatos' criteria of novel predictions, Darwin's theory is, again, found to be a pseudoscience and not a real scientific theory. Another prominent philosopher of science of the 20th century, Thomas Kuhn, who introduced the term 'paradigm shift' into American culture, also noted that when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict."
Thomas Kuhn Excerpt: Thomas Samuel Kuhn (/ku?n/; July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996) was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom.,,, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn Inquiry-Based Science Education -- on Everything but Evolution - Sarah Chaffee - January 22, 2016 Excerpt: As Thomas Kuhn wrote in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, when faced with an anomaly, a theory's defenders "will devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/01/inquiry-based_s102534.html
And in regards to a theory making predictions that are shown to be false and then making up ad hoc theories to try to cover up those falsified predictions, then by that ‘ad hoc’ criteria laid out be Kuhn, Darwinian evolution more than qualifies as a pseudoscience rather than a real science. Here is a site, that was put together by Dr. Cornelius Hunter, that goes over many of the failed predictions of Darwinian evolution.
Darwin’s (Failed) Predictions – Cornelius Hunter https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
As Dr. Hunter states in the following article,,, “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.”
Here’s That Algae Study That Decouples Phylogeny and Competition – June 17, 2014 Excerpt: “With each new absurdity another new complicated just-so story is woven into evolutionary theory. As Lakatos explained, some theories simply are not falsifiable. But as a result they sacrifice realism and parsimony.” – Cornelius Hunter http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/06/heres-that-algae-study-that-decouples.html
In regards to defenders of Darwin's theory making up ad hoc 'just so stories' in order to cover up embarrassing falsified predictions, it is humorous to note that the only thing that anyone can ever seem to catch ‘evolving’ in the real world is the theory of Darwinian evolution itself. As Dr. Hunter notes in the following article, Darwin’s pseudoscientific theory is forever plastic and is able to explain completely contradictory results with equal ease.
“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.” - Cornelius Hunter - Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine - December 2, 2010
As should be obvious, if your theory can explain completely contradictory results with equal ease, then it is, for all practical purposes, completely useless as a scientific theory and is more properly classified as a pseudoscience. Thus is short, and in conclusion, by Popper's falsification criteria, by Lakatos' 'novel prediction' criteria, and by Kuhn's 'ad hoc' stories criteria, Darwin's theory fails to qualify as a real science and is found to be a pseudoscience three times over. As they say in baseball, "three strikes and you're out".
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

BOB O'H: And your priesthood are Discovery Institute Fellows. Unlike people who are stuck in the world of entrenched academic groupthink, social and professional pressure, funding pressures, etc., I don't follow or belong to a priesthood. But apparently you agree with the essence of my previous reply to you. Groupthink consensus is not evidence nor an argument. "Science is a big tent, and I can’t see why ID couldn’t join us." I think the problem is on the other side. The academic world is solidly committed, at least publically and institutionally, to an anti-telic position. Critics of ID generally don't even know the difference between ID and "creationism."Jack_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

The sad part about people like Bob O'H is they can't point to anyone doing any blind watchmaker research. They can't say what their position predicts. They can't say how to test the claims they are making. And they definitely cannot say how their position is scientific. All they can do is erect strawmen of ID and attack those. Pathetic, really.ET_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
After all, geology, astronomy, biology etc. are making progress.
Biologists can't even answer the most basic question pertaining to biology- they don't know what determines biological form.
Its models of evolution. The basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”, but it fails to use actual models of evolution. Instead it uses a non-sensical model, and smuggles in an infinite number of fitness surfaces to try to justify this.
Total nonsense. ID does not model evolution. Only fools and liars say that ID's basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”. You are pathetic. Look, Bob, you are obviously totally clueless. You don't understand ID and you definitely don't understand science.ET_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

I don’t think ID “presumes” design, it just doesn’t rule it out.
Exactly. As I tongue in cheek said, ID accepts 99.9999% of sciences findings. Someone once asked me, are you sure of that percentage?jerry_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

“Blume’s Law Concerning the Origin and Function of Living Cells:
The increase in scientific understanding about what the content of cells and their inner workings are is directly proportional to the distance science is from solving the enigma of how cells originated, and how cells control their internal functions. The increase in scientific understanding about what groups of cells do in multicellular organisms is directly proportional to the distance science is from solving the enigma of how cell groups are controlled and coordinated, how they differentiate embryonically, and how multicellular organisms originated
This is a tongue in cheek comparison to Moore’s Law by Blume but about evolution and biology. From Stephen Blume’s book Evo-Illusion. Yesterday I told someone that there wasn’t one expert in the world on evolution. The closest person to an expert on evolution is an ex dentist from Los Angeles. Want to see a good use of Wikipedia? Use it to see origin of term “tongue in cheek” but not if it became political. Then it would be distorted.jerry_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

I don't think ID "presumes" design, it just doesn't rule it out.davidl1_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

RDW said:
I can’t prove whether there is an afterlife or not. However I’m conducting my life as if there will be one. If I’m wrong, I’ll never know it. I hate finding out I was wrong, especially if it’s too late to do anything about it.
I assume you mean, you can't prove it to yourself, as in you are incapable of looking over the evidence? Can't, or just assume you can't?William J Murray_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Its models of evolution. The basic argument is “evolution can’t do this, therefore design”, but it fails to use actual models of evolution. Instead it uses a non-sensical model, and smuggles in an infinite number of fitness surfaces to try to justify this.
No!!!! Besides being gobbledygook (infinite number of fitness surfaces) and lies (uses non-sensical models) it fails to acknowledge that the accepted model of evolution is pseudoscience. ID is actually a philosophy of science that’s better than any philosophy of science in any university on the planet. It accepts 99.9999% of the conclusions of most science but adds logical conclusions to some findings based on observation of how the world works. For example, it eliminates any conclusions in the evolution debate based on DNA. The mechanism of DNA cannot possibly explain how new body parts, essential parts of complex organism could have arisen. Let alone explain how the DNA to protein mechanism could have arisen. Thus, ID is actually much better science.
ID is science plus
Ironically, just the opposite of what Wikipedia describes which actually pushes pseudoscience in its articles.jerry_{July 8, 2021
July
07
Jul
8
08
2021
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply