Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Expelled at Biola — Ben Stein Receives the Phillip Johnson Award

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Last evening I attended a big Expelled event at Biola University in La Mirada, California. Presenters included Ben Stein, Walt Ruloff, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez, Stephen Meyer, and Biola faculty.

Expelled executive producer Walt Ruloff began with a short presentation. He talked about his background in computer technology and how he founded a logistics-optimization software company in his early 20s that became spectacularly successful, primarily, according to Walt, because they thought outside the box and questioned everything.

After Walt sold his company he became involved with the biological research and technology world, and discovered that the exact opposite was the case: people in this field were and are not allowed to ask questions. Walt was totally shocked when it was revealed to him by one of the leading genomic researchers in the U.S., who gets all his funding from the NIH and NSF, that the only way to get funding is to pretend to believe in Darwinian orthodoxy. Even more horrifyingly, this leading genomic researcher (whose face is blacked out and voice disguised in the movie, to protect him from the destruction of his life and career by Darwinists) said that as much as 30% of the research in his field is shelved and never published because it might provide ammunition for “creationists.” In order to stand any chance of being published, interpretations of biological research must be artificially force-fit into the Darwinian paradigm, regardless of the evidence.

Walt decided to do something about it.

Ben Stein talked about his early years in the civil-rights movement, and how he and others in that movement were spat upon, denigrated and vilified, because they dared to challenge the reigning racist orthodoxy.

Caroline Crocker talked about how she was blacklisted in academia for daring to suggest that there might be problems with orthodox Darwinism, even though her students could not detect what her personal opinions were.

Guillermo gave a timeline about his expulsion from academia, for daring to suggest that there might be evidence of design in the universe.

The main thing that struck me about Caroline and Guillermo was that they displayed no hostility or vitriol toward their persecutors. Think about this, and what it indicates about personal character on both sides.

At the end of the evening Ben was presented with the Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth, to a thunderous standing ovation.

While accepting the award, Ben commented that in the end ID will win, because the truth is on our side. He also commented that Americans don’t like to be bullied and told what to think — by anyone.

I paraphrase Ben: “People don’t like to be told that what is obviously true is false.”

Amen to that.

Gil

Comments
C: I find a couple of points in your onward responses that appear at 97 - 98 very illuminating, but not in a happy way: 1] 97: There is no scientific enterprise which discusses non-material realities, whatever those are. Science is and for the last several centuries has been the search for natural explanations of the natural world. Historically false and philosphically question-begging -- as long since pointed out and linked at 101 level. For starters, "several centuries" carries us back to C17, the period of the scientific revolution. As for instance Newton [C17 - 18] and Maxwell [C19] and Kelvin [C19 - 20] or for that matter today's gene gun inventor, Sandford [C20 - 21]exemplify, a great many of the founders of science -- and for that matter many effective or even eminent practitioners to this day [where they are not censored from speaking their minds!] -- affirm that they are exploring the order of God's universe. (As a tid-bit FYI, much of Maxwell's conception of electromagnetism had to do with the way his church was thinking about the doctrine of the Trinity in light of a systems-oriented view!) The classic term for this approach to science was: thinking God's thoughts after him. If you are not familiar with that term, think about what that means about just how deeply censored your education has been. Second, there is a category confusion: when one explains natural regularities one seeks for mechanical necessities that reliably give rise to those low-contingency patterns. But, science also studies high-contingency situations [not least, the accounts of geology and biology of origins try to address such], and so must advert to causal factors competent to account for high contingency -- chance and/or agency. Indeed, the application of statistics [e.g. Fisherian style null-hyp rejecting hypothesis testing and ANOVA] and control vs treatment studies to scientific investigations address precisely the challenge of discriminating chance and intent. Going further, the inference to message in the face of noise in communication science and information theory, has much to do with discerning the characteristics of agency vs chance processes. So, science in fact routinely addresses the three causal factors and understands that contingency, complexity and [functional] specificity are relevant signs of which factors predominate. What is really happening is that by imposing the "natural explanations" criterion, certain factions in science and philosophy are seeking to smuggle in the back door, that if inference to agent action in a particular context might possibly challenge the evolutionary materialist picture of origins, from hydrogen to humans, then it is rejected by being question-beggingly tagged "unscientific." That is tantamount to saying that science is redefined as applied atheism. It also censors inference to the best explanation, by turning it into inference to the best materialistic explanation. But, science properly is an empirically anchored search for the truth about our world. Let us hear the classic definitions of science and its method again:
science: a branch of knowledge conducted on objective [i.e open to independent checking, and factually and logically anchored] principles involving the systematized observation of and experiment with phenomena, esp. concerned with the material and functions of the physical universe. [Concise Oxford, 1990] scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge [”the body of truth, information and principles acquired by mankind”] involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. [Webster's 7th Collegiate, 1965]
2] There is no scientific enterprise which discusses non-material realities, whatever those are. Kindly explain to me the precise nature of mathematical and informational entities . . . 3] If you [Vivid] go back and read kf’s posts here, and his always linked, I think you will see that he is familiar with all the evidence and finds it sadly lacking. There is nothing I or anyone else can produce that would change his mind . . . I find this return to an ad hominem, in the teeth of my protest above at 84, all too sadly telling:
Notice, how C then tried to frame his response: to say that it is my standard of proof that is the problem. Sadly, I am simply asking for the common garden variety standard of proof that dynamical theories in — for instance — physics are routinely expected to meet: a theory of change must be reasonably able to show how the changes in question happened relative to reasonable starting points and factors at work across time. [Cf for instance Newtonian dynamics, the classic example of a theory of initial conditions, factors affecting changes, and resulting rates and accumulations of change. Of course N invented calculus long the way as the mathematics of rates and accumulations of change. Similarly, dynamical models in Economics tend to use sets of difference equations to handle stepwise approaches to change — now of course a major field of study, digital filters. Even the Finance of the time value of money and related instruments is a case in point.] What does that tell us about what is going on in biology, and has been going on for many decades? (Especially since there are many biologists who want to claim that their theories of macro-scale evolution are as well established as theories of gravitation.)
4] He knows how many bits were in the first self-replicating molecule for God’s sake. Nobody else can imagine what it was, and he’s counting its bits! C, this strawman caricature is really disappointing. You will kindly note that I have pointed out that observed life forms exhibit DNA chains of from 300 - 500,000 base pairs to approximately 3 bn. That is a fact, and it is a further fact that the lower end are "too simple" i.e. these are organisms which depend on others to provide essential nutrients that they lack the ability to internally create. [Indeed, ~ 1 mn bases is more like a reasonable estimate, but I am being generous.] I have then pointed out that this is the empirical data that has to be accounted for: a config space of order at the absolute low end, beyond which life functionality disintegrates, about 4 ^300,00 ~ 10^180,000. [Or do you want me to not round down from 360,000?]. In such a space, we will find biofunctional, code-bearing configs to be lost, not least because the code is optimised to give stop codons if something goes wrong. And that is before we ask where did the rest of the algorithm-processing machinery to get life to work come from. I have a very simple explanation, as per Trevors and Abel:
a --> codes and algorithms are a routinely and reliably observed artifact of agency. b --> Code-bearing molecules of the sort of complexity we are looking at in real, observed cases, are well beyond the credible reach of chance and the known natural regularities, on the gamut of our observed cosmos [and if the laws of the universe have "life" written into them, that too is telling!]. c --> But, agents routinely produce code-bearing, informational digital strings of comparable bit length. d --> On inference to best explanation per known and known to be reliable signs of intelligence, life is the product of intelligent action. [Notice, I have not said "supernatural" action. That is a common slander, e.g. in the work of the Kansas School Board, circa 2007, and of course Ms Forrest and co.] e -> On that, we may then proceed to reverse engineer cell based life, i.e the design inference is neither a science nor a technology stopper. f --> For that matter, should there be a credible, observationally anchored mechanism that shows how life plausibly came about by chance + necessity without influence of agency, then, the inference -- which is, per the limits of scientific reasoning, empirically anchored and provisional -- would be surrendered. That is, we are not dealing with a closed minded approach. g --> C, you have not been able to provide a counter under f; but instead have attacked the man. That is revealing, sadly so.
So, when you then resort to critiques of style, that is telling on want of substance. Indeed, it brings to mind a remark or two from the original post:
Expelled executive producer Walt Ruloff began with a short presentation. He talked about his background in computer technology and how he founded a logistics-optimization software company in his early 20s that became spectacularly successful, primarily, according to Walt, because they thought outside the box and questioned everything. After Walt sold his company he became involved with the biological research and technology world, and discovered that the exact opposite was the case: people in this field were and are not allowed to ask questions. Walt was totally shocked when it was revealed to him by one of the leading genomic researchers in the U.S., who gets all his funding from the NIH and NSF, that the only way to get funding is to pretend to believe in Darwinian orthodoxy. Even more horrifyingly, this leading genomic researcher (whose face is blacked out and voice disguised in the movie, to protect him from the destruction of his life and career by Darwinists) said that as much as 30% of the research in his field is shelved and never published because it might provide ammunition for “creationists.” In order to stand any chance of being published, interpretations of biological research must be artificially force-fit into the Darwinian paradigm, regardless of the evidence.
There is a word for that: censorship, plainly in service to the suppression of the known or knowable but inconvenient truth. If that uncomfortably echoes the parable of Plato's Cave and Rom 1:18 - 32, so be it: certainly, I did not make it so. "Who de cap fit, let 'im wear it . . ." GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 5, 2008
April
04
Apr
5
05
2008
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
-----"StephenB- Go back one more time to my multiple choice answers, if you will and read option number 5." Fair enought. The option was indeed there -----"There is no scientific enterprise which discusses non-material realities, whatever those are. Science is and for the last several centuries has been the search for natural explanations of the natural world." Not so fair. Methodological naturalism is the new kid on the block, and this new kid has become a juvenile delinquent. It is one thing to "emphasize" the importance of natural explanations; it is quite another thing to close the door to anything else. The emphasis has been around for a while, but the iron clad rule is new and destructive. Science is contingent on the current state of knowledge. Things change. The discovery of coded information has given us a whole new ball game. The insistence that everything remain excatly the same no matter what the circumstances is nothing short of psychotic.StephenB
April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
C -- and SteveB and VB: First, Steve and VB, thanks on the challenge to provide evidence of spontaneous, chance + necessity only origin of FSCI, in general and as required to support the Darwinian style story of origins. For, indeed, no authority -- singular or collective -- is any better than that authority's facts, assumptions and reasoning. C, further to Steve's remark:
Inasmuch as 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are atheist/agnostic, it just may be that they are not kindly disposed to any scientific enterprise that discusses non-material realities.
Kindly, first, observe the recent attempts to redefine science as in effect the best evolutionary materialist account of the cosmos, from hydrogen to humans. In short, there is plainly a lot of closed-minded question-begging going on, in a context where most scientists of today's generation are woefully ignorant to the point of being laymen on the relevant history and phil issues on defining science or addressing the challenge of the logic of induction, especially the inference to best explanation form that is at the heart of scientific investigations. Indeed, it would well repay us all to take time to re-read Plato's Parable of the Cave, with an eye on the apparatus of manipulation that that worthy discussed [but which is glided over as a rule in most modern discussions that rush on to his theory of the forms; the Matrix movie series at least gets that part right]. Then, think about the state of science in the early decades of C17, where by far and away most scientists accepted the longstanding Ptolemaic picture as extended and elaborated across time -- the longest run of a scientific theory of all time, I'd say: 1500 years, and which was giving a "reasonable" view of the data in hand. Were they and their "consensus" right? The point is that scientific views are always provisional and are subject to evidence. Kindly provide same, as I asked. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 4, 2008
April
04
Apr
4
04
2008
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT
Vivid- If you go back and read kf's posts here, and his always linked, I think you will see that he is familiar with all the evidence and finds it sadly lacking. There is nothing I or anyone else can produce that would change his mind. He knows how many bits were in the first self-replicating molecule for God's sake. Nobody else can imagine what it was, and he's counting its bits! How is any mere blog commenter going to tell him anything he hasn't heard and dismissed in five well padded numbered paragraphs before?congregate
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
StephenB- Go back one more time to my multiple choice answers, if you will and read option number 5. There is no scientific enterprise which discusses non-material realities, whatever those are. Science is and for the last several centuries has been the search for natural explanations of the natural world. To the extent it has been a search for non-natural explanations, as I think some here claim, it has been an abysmal failure. Can anyone here list the non-natural explanations that are generally accepted in the scientific community? Science cannot disprove the existence of non-material realities. Science cannot rule out intelligent design. All scientists can do is say "this is my best sense of how it happened."congregate
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
congregate This certainly would not be the first time that a theory accepted by the majority was in actuality erroneous so I dont see how going dow this path helps you much. I would recommend "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Furthermore I would think that for a theory that is so well accepted and apparently so well docuemnted you should have little prolem in providing the evidence KF has requested from you. So far the best that you can do is say that the evidence for the mechanism of evolution (rmns)is comon descent as if common descent can possibly be the proof of the mechanism. This is nothing but a circular argument. Your second line of argument is nothing more than another fallacious argument ie the argument from authority. Everyone belives i to be so therefore it must be so. What is sadly lacking is EVIDENCE. Do you have any for KF? Vividvividblue
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
congregate: If you are going to offer kairosfocus a multiple-choice quiz, you ought to at least include the correct answer as one of your options. Inasmuch as 95.8% of evolutionary biologists are atheist/agnostic, it just may be that they are not kindly disposed to any scientific enterprise that discusses non-material realities.StephenB
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
kf- If it's so clear and obvious to you, why is it not generally accepted? 1) conspiracy of millions of materialists (many of whom belong to various religious faiths) to deny the obvious 2) millions of materialists are so deep in denial they can't see the obvious 3) Satan 4) perhaps you are mistaken? 5) other What is the most likely explanation for this conundrum?congregate
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
C: You are again leaving out the crucial issue: functionally specified, complex information:
1 --> We know to moral certainty that cell-based life rests on FSCI, e.g. as expressed in DNA. DNA starts at 300 - 500 kbases, and moves on up, with the Cambrian revolution in the fossil record -- at the start of the chain of major diversification -- showing TOP-down change, not bottom up change. Dozens of phyla and subphyla, in a 10 Ma or so window, with ~ 100 mBases as a reasonable metric for the required information increments. The resulting config spaces required for OOL and OO body-plan level biodiversity are huge, so far beyond the UPB that we have excellent reason to infer that they simply cannot be reached by chance + necessity only on the gamut of our observed universe, not even once; due to utterly overwhelming improbability. 2 --> Notice, too: we can do the FSCI test in the here and now -- provide ONE case of FSCi originating by chance + necessity only within our observation. You cannot -- or you would have long since done so. Nor can the serried ranks of the critics of ID. 3 --> That FSCI is reliably and routinely generated by agents is as easily shown as by pointing to the thread above. 4 --> In short, FSCI is a known reliable sign of intelligent action, so when we see it in DNA, we are well warranted to infer to such agency. 5 --> So, we are not dealing with any vague, "ambiguous" sign; save in the minds of those determined to resist the plain, overwhelming weight of the evidence on what makes FSCI, probably for worldview reasons. [Certainly, that is what comes through loud and clear in the attempts to redefine science as applied materialism, to often backed up by slander and career busting.]
Second, in claiming an inadequate fossil record [just as was claimed by Darwin] you leave off the key point on sampling theory. Namely, that by far and away, most samples of a population resemble the population to a great extent. For NDT-style macroevolution to be true, there had to have been multiplied millions of major transitions, which would show up on a cross section of perhaps hundreds of thousands of fossil species [as classified] in the multiplied millions of fossils collected over the years; significant numbers [probably hundreds or thousands] of clear -- not just-so story -- transitional cases should have turned up in the past 200 years or so of active fossil collection. But, what has happened is that we now probably have fewer candidates for transitional forms than in Darwin's day! The gaps in the fossil record are very real, and they have been plainly real for a long time. So much so, that various ad hoc hyps are now put forth to blunt their message. And, that means that Occam's Razor is cutting away all right, but not as you seem to imagine. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 3, 2008
April
04
Apr
3
03
2008
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
Well Dave, as I understand the standard theory of evolution, those major modifications would have to have occurred over long periods of time, and would likely have occurred in small populations. We aren't likely to see any of them happen in a single human lifetime. If ID predicts something different, maybe we will. So what evidence could there be? Fossils. The fossil record as you know is not exhaustive; as far as we know it does not currently provide evidence reflecting every existing species at any particular point in time (let alone two points relatively close together), and seems unlikely ever to do so. Most cell types, tissue types and organ types are soft tissue that is particularly unlikely to fossilize. Most body plans seem to have appeared before the evolution of hard tissue at all. Nevertheless there are some transitional series that many scientists consider compelling evidence for stepwise transitions. Given the unlikelihood of genes fossilizing, there is no way to be sure exactly how closely the organisms in those series are related. The regulars here have heard about them before and are not compelled. I guess I don't believe there is a smoking gun for either side out there. But I think the evidence fits pretty well with the standard evolutionary theory. And I don't see how there could be any evidence which would falsify frontloading by some unknown entity (or any other proposed ID hypothesis). Insects have six-legged body plan, while mammals have four, and reptiles have zero or four? Frontloaded that way. Yeast can reproduce asexually or sexually? Frontloaded that way. Marsupials common in Australia, placental mammals in the rest of the world? Designed that way. I think as a matter of science Occam's Razor cuts against the explanation which requires the positing of a designer which leaves no signs except ambiguous ones in its design work. You say elsewhere you love a mystery. Which is the more elegant, satisfying and useful solution to this mystery?congregate
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
congregate All the examples you gave serve to falsify common descent. I have no problem with common descent and neither do many other (perhaps not most) ID proponents. ID doesn't do anything to either dispute or confirm common descent. So if we define evolution as just "descent with modification" and leave out the part about random variation and natural selection being the underlying mechanism then you and I will no longer have much to disagree about. What all us ID proponents have in common is we don't believe that chance and necessity is an adequate mechanism to create all the required modifications that occured during the course of evolution. We believe that only intelligent agency is the only demonstrated means of some of those modifications. The modifications we're talking about can be basically summed up (in my words) as the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. Evolution didn't happen without changes in all four categories. Chance & necessity has never been observed or been demonstrated by experiment to be sufficient to generate those novelties.DaveScot
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT
DS- Sorry, I missed your comment 85 the first time while I was drafting what turned out to be 86. I didn't mean for the correction of my ignorance to take up so much of your time. I know it's a lot of ignorance, but there are many other competent commenters here who are able to help me, don't take it all upon yourself. I'm not sure there is any single observation which can falsify all of the chance and necessity understanding of evolution, but here are some suggestions: When a small population of a single species was transplanted to a series of islands with slightly different environments, if the gene pools on the separate islands do not diverge at all, that would be evidence against the standard theory of evolution. If the gene pools diverged in ways that did not match well with the various environments, that would be evidence against the standard understanding of evolution. If dogs occasionally gave birth to cats, that would be evidence against the standard theory of evolution. If a evidence reflecting every existing species at one particular point in time existed, and similarly complete evidence existed for the point in time ten years later, and the later set included species with significantly different body plans, that would be evidence against the standard theory of evolution. I commend you on your stand for materialistic science in 85.congregate
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
PS: i tis probably worth the while to note this 2004 discussion of ID:
Intelligent design is the science that studies signs of intelligence. Note that a sign is not the thing signified. Intelligent design does not try to get into the mind of the designer and figure out what a designer is thinking. Its focus is not a designer’s mind (the thing signified) but the artifact due to a designer’s mind (the sign). What a designer is thinking may be an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about what a designer is thinking from the designed objects that a designer produces (provided the designer is being honest). But the designer’s thought processes lie outside the scope of intelligent design. As a scientific research program, intelligent design investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such. (William A. Dembski, “Chapter 1: Intelligent Design: What is intelligent design?” in The Design Revolution, pg. 33, The Design Revolution (InterVarsity Press, 2004)
kairosfocus
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
C: Re;
ID is defined as everything that is not necessity or chance, isn’t it? At least under Dembski’s explanatory filter?
1 --> I think, first, we need to see that we first have a very good idea of what intelligence is from concrete examples we experience. 2 --> Also, FYI, the trichotomy chance -- necessity -- intelligence is so old that it was immemorial in the days of Plato, as this excerpt from his the Laws, Book X will make clear:
Ath. . . . we have . . . lighted on a strange doctrine. Cle. What doctrine do you mean? Ath. The wisest of all doctrines, in the opinion of many. Cle. I wish that you would speak plainer. Ath. The doctrine that all things do become, have become, and will become, some by nature, some by art, and some by chance. Cle. Is not that true? Ath. Well, philosophers are probably right; at any rate we may as well follow in their track, and examine what is the meaning of them and their disciples. Cle. By all means. Ath. They say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance [this is a very old debate!], the lesser of art, which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . . . fire and water, and earth and air, all exist by nature and chance . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them . . . After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [i.e. mind], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? . . . . if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise
3 --> Similarly, we know very well what natural regularities tracing to mechanical necessity look like, and we have a fair idea of what chance processes look like and do. In short, it just will not do to in effect dismiss "intelligence" as a dumping-ground category. 4 --> For, we routinely SEE acknowledged intelligences in action -- indeed, we personally experience it ourselves. We may not fully understand it, and may not be able to give a neat and sweet definition immediately acceptable to everyone, but that is life. Indeed -- life is exactly another case in point of this need to identify cases and reason by family resemblance. 5 --> We know from direct experience and observation, that intelligence routinely creates FSCI, and that we may routinely and reliably check that cases of FSCI where we can observe the causal process, come from intelligence. That is: we are looking at a reliable empirical regularity. 6 --> So WD has every right to infer from CSI as observation to the known cause of cases where we observe the causal process. [Observe, you cannot give us a counter-example; we can give any number of examples, including the posts in this very thread. What is that telling us?] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
congregate Is there any evidence that intelligent agency took any particular form? No. Is the invisiblle pink unicorn more or less likely than Zeus? I have no data to form an opinion on that. If your next comment doesn't answer my question about how chance & necessity can be falsified you're out of here. Your ignorance of the philosophy of science is not my problem. My problem is you spreading your ignorance here and me having to correct it. DaveScot
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
DS said:
I await your method of falsification [of the theory of evolution based on chance and necessity]. I propose that to be scientific the chance & necessity theory can only be disproven, in principle, by confirmation of intelligent design. But if intelligent design isn’t a valid scientific hypothesis then it can’t be used as a method of falsification - you can only falsify science with science.
Well, ID is defined as everything that is not necessity or chance, isn't it? At least under Dembski's explanatory filter? So anything that would disprove necessity or chance would be design. I'm not up on my philosophy of science. I'm not convinced by your assertions that science can only be falsified by science. Science is a practical method, not something that can be plugged into assertions like that to make laws. As long as you are here, DaveScot, back at 35 you said:
I didn’t say that invisible pink unicorns were not possible. I said there was no evidence that any intelligent agency actually took that particular form.
Is there any evidence that intelligent agency took any particular form? Is the invisiblle pink unicorn more or less likely than Zeus?congregate
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
congregate Ommipotent intelligent agents are out of bounds for epistemoligic reasons. If we allow that then we'd have to consider that an omnipotent intelligent agent can plant false memories in our heads and we therefore can't trust any observation - not your observation of chance and not my observation of agency. Let's stay within the bounds of science. If it can't be observed it can't be admitted as either direct or indirect evidence. I await your answer as to how, scientifically, the chance & necessity theory can be falsified. Warning: when a persistent ID critic refuses to answer my pointed questions they get banned. DaveScot
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Steve: Actually, I would indeed like to see C address the point that C-M are intelligent agents, and Atom's point that the discovery of an artifact [a spear point embedded in an animal skeleton] was empirical grounds for inferring to the existence of agents at the time and place. However, the remark C made at 72 is itself a major begging of the question of intelligence and FSCI as a reliable sign of intelligence: in effect C is insisting that apart from independent evidence of the existence of agents within reach of the time and place in question, we may not use the fact that only agents are observed to produce FSCI, to infer from FSCI to agents. That does not seem proper to me. So, given the points I have made above ever since 19 above [cf also 43] I have called on him to justify his position, so that we can see that he is not simply begging the question. Evidently, he has no answer, and no link [never mind all the Darwinista sites out there . . .] that can substantiate that chance + necessity acting in the observed physical cosmos can -- per empirical evidence and demonstrated dynamics -- reasonably give rise to the FSCI in the DNA in Cave men [and in bacteria for that matter]. Notice, how C then tried to frame his response: to say that it is my standard of proof that is the problem. Sadly, I am simply asking for the common garden variety standard of proof that dynamical theories in -- for instance -- physics are routinely expected to meet: a theory of change must be reasonably able to show how the changes in question happened relative to reasonable starting points and factors at work across time. [Cf for instance Newtonian dynamics, the classic example of a theory of initial conditions, factors affecting changes, and resulting rates and accumulations of change. Of course N invented calculus long the way as the mathematics of rates and accumulations of change. Similarly, dynamical models in Economics tend to use sets of difference equations to handle stepwise approaches to change -- now of course a major field of study, digital filters. Even the Finance of the time value of money and related instruments is a case in point.] What does that tell us about what is going on in biology, and has been going on for many decades? (Especially since there are many biologists who want to claim that their theories of macro-scale evolution are as well established as theories of gravitation.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed (70), I'm happy to agree that anybody's worldview is a product of their worldview, regardless of whether they are atheist or not.Clarence
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
----congregate: "kf- as of today I am unable to provide you with anything you would consider good, empirically anchored reason relative to this issue, to infer that undirected chance processes backed up by natural selection are dynamically competent to cause cave men?" congregate, the waters have been sufficiently muddied with all of this discussion about cave men being the EFFECT of intelligent desgin. If you agree that the cave men are intelligent agents, then we agree that a design inference can be made. I gather that kairosfocus was responding to your mistaken notion that I was positing the cave man as an effect. So, can we get back to the issue of the writings on the cave walls as a clear indication of intelligent design. I am confident that kairosfocus would prefer to frame the issue that way as well.StephenB
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
DS
The [ID] hypothesis may be falsified by a single observation (or demonstration) of a code driven machine being created without the assistance of an intelligent agent.
If an omnipotent deity (one that is able to interact with matter without leaving detectable evidence) is considered a possible intelligent agent there is no way to falsify the ID hypothesis as you state it.congregate
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
kf- as of today I am unable to provide you with anything you would consider good, empirically anchored reason relative to this issue, to infer that undirected chance processes backed up by natural selection are dynamically competent to cause cave men? Thank you, please come again.congregate
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Portishead 30 "Well, if they were reying on “evidence” then it wasn’t a faith position. But I think you’ll find that when people refer to this “evidence” it turns out not to be evidence, as understood by science - it’s usually highly ambiguous and very subjective, and essentially dependent on the desires, the culture and prejudices of the observer." This is a two ay street, typically only applied to a scientist with a religious view. For your thought to be whole, you must admit that it follows from your comment that the worldview of the atheistic scientist is therefore a bound product of his/her worldview as well. Sorry, double standards don't cut it.Upright BiPed
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Congregate: The issue is not what "I" -- GEM of TKI -- would consider "good, empirically anchored reason" but what is the objective state of the case on the merits of empirical fact and cogent scientific and philosophical reasoning. We have in hand a reliably known cause of FSCI and reason to believe that chance + natural regularities are not reasonably capable of creating FSCI. That is excellent reason -- absent question-begging -- to infer to FSCI as a reliable SIGN of and empirical evidence for antecedent intelligence as its cause whenever it appears. At least, if we respect the general inductive principles that underly science. THAT seems to me to be the context in which there has been a recent effort to try to redefine science to be more or less the best evolutionary materialistic account of the cosmos from hydrogen to humans. For, by that improper burden of proof shifting, the circle in the logic is veiled and those who object can be sneeringly dismissed as "inferring to the -- gasp, horror of horrors -- Supernatural." Thus, the recent indefensible "definition" of science proffered by the 2007 Kansas School Board as an example -- one traceable to efforts by the NAS, NCSE etc:
Science is a human activity of systematically seeking natural [i.e. in effect, materialist only] explanations for what we observe in the world around us . . . As it is practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century, science is restricted to explaining only the natural world, using only natural cause. This is because science currently has no tools to test explanations using non-natural (such as supernatural [which is of course an allusion to the Barbara Forrest-style slanderous and atmosphere-poisoning allegation that ID infers tot he supernatural, as opposed to the truth: it infers, on empirical evidence, to intelligent action]) causes.
So, after 150 years of Darwinism, can you kindly explain [relative to sound basic principles of reasoning and evidence] -- or simply link -- on those premises, how chance variation plus natural selection can account for body-plan level evolution, and -- on sound physical principles -- the chem evo based origin of life? [Cf my always linked.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
StephenB I just wanted to state my position clearly, because I didn't understand what you were asking when you said:
What about the intelligent agencies (cave men) that we just discussed. Wouldn’t you call that evidence?
From that sentence I thought you were suggesting that the cavemen were the evidence. DS- I plan to follow up with your comments later. kf- as of today I am unable to provide you with anything you would consider good, empirically anchored reason relative to this issue, to infer that undirected chance processes backed up by natural selection are dynamically competent to cause cave men?congregate
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Congregate, please: The cavemen are examples of intelligent designers. They carved out pictures on the cave wall dwelling. That is the only thing needed for making a design inference. Why did you raise the issue of cavemen being the product of intelligent design? I know you don't believe that.StephenB
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
Congregate: This rather begs the question:
The cavemen are not, in my mind, evidence of intelligent design. As far as I am concerned they are the result of non-directed evolution.
For, in the DNA of said cave men there lies the functionally specified and massively complex DNA code, ~ 3 bn base pairs worth. We know empirically just one type of causal factor capable of originating such FSCI: intelligence. This, we know from many, many direct observations [without a single counter-example where we directly know the causal story], and we have good reason to infer that there is no good reason to suppose that he other main source of contingency, chance in one form or another, is capable of getting to the FSCI in the first cell, much less the full orbed DNA of the cave man. Now, can you show good, empirically anchored reason relative to this issue, to infer that undirected chance processes backed up by natural selection are dynamically competent to cause cave men? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
congregate (con't) I restate the biological ID hypothesis so it conforms to Popper's requirement for falsification thusly: ID Hypothesis: Complex machines and codes to drive them, exemplified by DNA and ribosomes, cannot be created absent the involvement of intelligent agency. The hypothesis may be falsified by a single observation (or demonstration) of a code driven machine being created without the assistance of an intelligent agent. So you see my ID hypothesis must admit the chance & necessity hypothesis as a valid scientific hypothesis otherwise there's no means to falsify my hypothesis. The converse is also true. The chance & necessity hypothesis must admit that the ID hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis otherwise there's no means to falsify the chance & necessity hypothesis. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either chance & necessity and ID hypotheses are both valid scientific hypotheses or neither one them is valid. Take your pick - both or neither? I'm actually good with whatever choice you make as long as the choice is one of those two. DaveScot
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
congregate How could I prove that any particular variation was the result of random occurrences rather than the intervention of the designer? Ah, now you're zeroing in on a big problem. It's called demarcation - what distinguishes a scientific hypothesis from a non-scientific hypothesis. Many things in science can't be proven. So how do we determine if something that can't be proven is a valid scientific hypothesis? Karl Popper solves the demarcation problem by introducing the concept of falsifiability. An hypothesis that can never be proven (he illustrated it with a famous example "The Black Swan Hypothesis". Popper says that a hypothesis which cannot be proven is still scientific if it can, at least in principle, be disproven. While we can never prove that black swans don't exist because we can never be sure we've searched for one everywhere in the entire universe the hypothesis that no black swans exist is still scientific because the observation of a single black swan will falsify the hypothesis. So my question to you is: How may the theory of evolution based on chance & necessity be, at least in principle, falsified? You've already admitted it can't be proven. If you can't come up with a way, in principle, to disprove it, then it isn't a scientific hypothesis - it's a "just so" story. I await your method of falsification. I propose that to be scientific the chance & necessity theory can only be disproven, in principle, by confirmation of intelligent design. But if intelligent design isn't a valid scientific hypothesis then it can't be used as a method of falsification - you can only falsify science with science. P.S. Don't fixate on black swans. We know now (Popper didn't when he made up the example) they do indeed exist. They were observed and the scientific method worked as Popper said it should work - the scientific hypothesis "no black swans exist" was falsified by the observation of a black swan. It's all still good science. DaveScot
April 2, 2008
April
04
Apr
2
02
2008
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
StephenB- For some reason you and I are not communicating well. The writings on the cave wall are the result of intelligent design, performed by the cavemen. The cavemen are not, in my mind, evidence of intelligent design. As far as I am concerned they are the result of non-directed evolution.congregate
April 1, 2008
April
04
Apr
1
01
2008
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply