Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinian Speculation: The Antithesis of Legitimate Science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I work for a great company. I frequently ask for permission to be sent away for training in state-of-the-art computational technology — computer simulations that involve finite element analysis (FEA), Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian/Fluid Structure Interaction (ALE/FSI), and Navier-Stokes Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD).

Today I spent the day with a group of brilliant students and a great instructor in a CFD class.

What one learns with hands-on experience with such technology is the following: You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t assume stuff, write a computer program based on those assumptions, and expect to get a valid result. In fact, if such an approach is pursued, a totally invalid, and most likely a catastrophically invalid result is guaranteed.

An intimate understanding of all the details, mathematics, and laws involved is required. In addition, empirical verification of a simulation is required at each incremental step in the process, otherwise, no confidence in the results can be had.

In contrast, the Darwinian approach to origins “science” (whether speculation concerning abiogenesis or the origin of species) is the following: “I just came up with a new idea about how random events, chemical reactions, and natural selection can explain everything.”

No evidence. No mathematical analysis. No empirical or evidential verification. Just outright speculation based on extraordinarily fertile imagination in defense of a transparently nonsensical worldview.

Yet, these clowns want the rest of us to revere them as the gatekeepers legitimate science.

Comments
Neil, it's not as though an occasional Darwinist waxes speculative and says something questionable. Speculation underlies the whole enterprise. There is no legitimate comparison to physics, math, chemistry.Eric Anderson
December 15, 2011
December
12
Dec
15
15
2011
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
Neil, With all due respect (and I do respect you, since you are obviously a highly intelligent person of good character), I fail to comprehend your reasoning. Darwinists expect the rest of us to accept their unverified speculations without scrutiny. This phenomenon does not exist in the other domains you mention. In addition, Darwinists have used their power to suppress reasonable dissent within the academy and public education, often with reprehensible and unethical tactics, such as vilification of design proponents as being enemies of science and desiring to establish a theocracy. Please tell me: Where in "physic [sic] speculation, mathematics speculation, chemical speculation, political speculation, marketing speculation" are those who present reasonable dissent subjected to such irrational, hostile attacks? Doesn't this double standard tell you something about desperation on the part of the Darwinian faithful -- that perhaps they sense they have been cornered, and are lashing out in defense of the indefensible?GilDodgen
December 15, 2011
December
12
Dec
15
15
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
The point of my essay, which should be transparently obvious, is that standards of verification, justification and accountability — which are required in all areas of legitimate scientific, mathematical, and engineering enterprise — are mysteriously missing concerning Darwinian speculation.
That's true. But those standards are also missing in physic speculation, mathematics speculation, chemical speculation, political speculation, marketing speculation. That's why it is called "speculation."Neil Rickert
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
The point of my essay, which should be transparently obvious, is that standards of verification, justification and accountability -- which are required in all areas of legitimate scientific, mathematical, and engineering enterprise -- are mysteriously missing concerning Darwinian speculation. Why is this? Darwinian speculation occupies a unique position in the "scientific" community, and is strangely immune to long-established standards of scientific accountability. The answer concerning this double standard is obvious: Darwinism was the long-awaited creation myth of the religion of materialistic atheism. No amount of evidence, logic, or mathematical scrutiny and analysis will ever convince its adherents that they are wrong, and that design is the only logical conclusion, because they are true believers, impervious to reason and evidence.GilDodgen
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Somebody speculated about putting microchips together to make a home PC. Neil, You're a man after my own heart. You've just made an extraordinarily powerful argument in favor of Intelligent Design! P.S.: I suggest that instead of using 4-one = ? for human verification, a more useful tool would be Euler's Identity: e^(i*PI) + 1 = ? This would separate the men from the boys. Oh, and by the way, I almost forgot my favorite quote from an atheist mathematician: "There is no god, but if there were, Euler's Identity would be proof of his existence." Atheistic materialists really are a hoot, and an endless source of entertainment.GilDodgen
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Neil, speculation is interesting and fun. But in the engineering examples you cite, the speculation (if you can even call it that -- really it is an engineering idea, which is completely different from the wild just-so stories of the Darwinists, but I'll defer the point for now) had to be instantiated in physical reality with principles of chemistry, physics, math and the like. It doesn't do any good to just proclaim something without any demonstration of its feasibility and then further insist that everyone else has to toe the line and accept the wildly-speculative "explanation," that schools should teach only it, and on and on. If you're suggesting that Darwinian speculations should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny and rigor that inventions are -- namely an engineering-level, patent-level detailed analysis -- then great, we're all on the same page.Eric Anderson
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
I think it is pretty easy to dismiss fields as vague speculation if you don't actually engage the process. Take molecular evolutionary biology-it has data in the form of modern and extinct genomic sequences. It has hypothesis-such as the function of an putative ancestral enzyme. The ancestor can be made in the lab, and tested for function. It can examine important duplications and divergence, like occurred with the evolution and expansion of ruminant mammals. It can match these with the fossil geologic and climate record. Not really so speculative and vague when you know it.DrREC
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Petrushka: I decide for me. Anyone decides for oneself. But I agree with you, you simply never know. But I have never even thought to discourage the publishing of any speculation. I am wholly in favor of publishing speculations. Please, read better my words: "If it is bad speculation, it has the right to exist, but not to be considered science." One thing is to be published, another thing to be acclaimed as truth by the majority of the academic world. So, long live neo darwinism in publications. And long live ID in publications, too. Otherwise, how could we have fun here? :)gpuccio
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Who decides what is bad speculation? I consider ESP, UFOs and time travel to be examples of bad speculation, but I'd hate to live in a world where even the publishing of such speculations was discouraged. You simply never know.Petrushka
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Neil: I agree with you: speculation is fine. But I also agree with Gil: speculation must be good, credible, or simply interesting. If it is bad speculation, it has the right to exist, but not to be considered science.gpuccio
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
I'm wondering where you get your ideas. Somebody speculated about putting microchips together to make a home PC. And now PCs are ubiquitious. Someone speculated about a way of presenting on-screen calculations. That led to the creation of visi-calc, and the ideas from that are still in the spread sheets we use today. Somebody once speculated about new ways to do web searches. And now we have google. Speculation is the life-blood on innovation. Sure, some speculation doesn't work out. But a lot of it does. Nobody is claiming that origin-of-life is settled science. There is speculation because there is interest. The speculation is a way of presenting possible ideas for examination by others.Neil Rickert
December 14, 2011
December
12
Dec
14
14
2011
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Yet, these clowns want the rest of us to revere them as the gatekeepers legitimate science. (sigh) Where to begin. So many clowns, so little bandwidth. I take for granted we are all aware of the collusion exposed in Climategate 2.0. Here is another example:
National Academy of Sciences appointee caught “making up stuff” to win lawsuit, RICO lawsuit follows http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/13/national-academy-of-sciences-appointee-caught-making-up-stuff-to-win-lawsuit-rico-lawsuit-follows/
and
Environmental Scientist Caught Agreeing To Ignore Her Own Data, Make Up New Claims http://wizbangblog.com/2011/12/12/ann-maest/
Makes me wonder what a cellphone might have captured when Miller was being prepped for Kitzmiller v DoverCharles
December 13, 2011
December
12
Dec
13
13
2011
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply