Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Future Scholars Will View Evolution

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Centuries from now, here is how a history book is likely to describe the theory of evolution:

As with many new paradigms, evolutionary thought developed over a lengthy period. Within the period known as Modern Science, which had its beginnings in the middle of the second millennium, evolutionary thought began to emerge in the mid seventeenth century. At that time theologians and philosophers from various traditions strenuously argued that the world must have arisen via strictly naturalistic processes. These schools of thought contributed to what became known as The Enlightenment period in the eighteenth century which marked a major turning point in Western intellectual thought.

In The Enlightenment period theological and metaphysical positions became codified in Western thought. These positions became sufficiently accepted and familiar so as to be no longer in need of justification. Instead, Western thinking rapidly incorporated these positions as new truths. This new theology made strong commitments in the area of divine intent, action, and interaction with creation. The impact on science was profound as this theology mandated that God’s interactions with the world was to be strictly via secondary causes (i.e., natural laws), and that all of history must be governed solely by such causes. This paradigm later became known as Evolutionary Thought.

In Evolutionary Thought, science implicitly incorporated these theological and metaphysical commitments. Western, and by now worldwide, thought entered a dark age of anti intellectualism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In this period all findings were described as evolutionary. Needless to say this was cause for ever more strained explanations of the evidence. Nonetheless, a rigid social and financial structure enforced adherence, complete with implicit penalties and harassment of dissenters.

Continued here

Comments
Mr. Nakashima I believe your comments on coding in the retina are satisfactorily addressed by Perry Marshall in the following link: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/naturallyoccurringcode.htm As Marshall points out, the occurrence of additional codes in an organism still presupposes the existence of DNA, without which the structures instantiating these codes could never be formed during the organism's embryonic development. Even if the retina encodes information, we still need to explain where it comes from, and to do that, we need to account for the DNA coding which generates it in animal embryos. It is one thing to point out that the retina varies considerably between different organisms, as well as changing over the course of time; it is quite another thing to establish that it could have originated by purely natural processes. The problem is certainly a formidable one, as can be seen from these links: http://www.ac18.org/research/Origins/Michael%20J_%20Behe%20-%20Evidence.htm and http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html . Regarding the role of FoxP2 in mice, you might like to have a look at this article from 2007: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/8/3117.full .vjtorley
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Mr Vjtorley, Codes are actually pretty common in biology. Your retina is an example. There is a mapping between data encoded as photons and data encoded as electrical signals. The job of implementing the mapping, which tRNA molecules do for the genetic code, is done by the cells in your retina. By looking at a different code (which is taken by some as marvellous evidence of design) we can see (sorry, no pun intended!) that codes can evolve, there can be variation, etc. This is harder to see in the case of the genetic code, since it is older, and operates at a different scale. In general, it is dangerous to argue from a position of "what humans can't do". You don't have to buy into Kurzweil's Singularity powerpoint slide to know that our understanding and technology are changing rapidly. I've been waiting to see how UD will discuss the insertion of human FoxP2 into the mouse genome. That is a good example of what humans are now capable of.Nakashima
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
iconofid You wrote:
So, having set such standards, if we witnessed an angel coming to earth and practising some genetic manipulation on one species or another, evolutionists would be perfectly justified in saying “O.K., design happens, but that’s just micro-design; you have no evidence for macro-design.” In other words, I.D.ers and creationists will never meet their own standards, but personally, I’m liberal, and I’d be happy to infer past angel interference from direct evidence of present angel interference.
I can see that you're trying to be fair-minded and generous. However, I have to say in all honesty that I think your standards of evidence are unreasonably high. Here's why. The entities we're talking about here are supernatural entities - i.e. non-physical entities. Now let's have a look at your wording: "if we witnessed an angel coming to earth and practising some genetic manipulation on one species or another..." Why on earth should we be able to witness an angel doing anything? An angel doesn't have a body. If it did, it wouldn't be supernatural. It would belong in the same category as aliens (assuming they exist): super-human, physical intelligences. Now, to be sure, there are Biblical accounts of angels appearing to people, but these "apparitions" (however they occur) only take place if the angel wishes to manifest itself to people. But in many cases, an angel will not wish to be observed, so it will carry out its work invisibly. When you write that you would have to see an angel coming to earth and manipulating an organism's genes before you'd believe in supernatural design, what you're really saying is that no purely biological evidence would convince you of the existence of angels or other supernatural beings; you would have to see them before you could believe in their existence. Kairosfocus has already highlighted another way of inferring the intervention of disembodied beings in the history of life. It has to do with solving math problems. Embodied beings face built-in constraints as regards the kinds of math problems they can solve; disembodied beings do not. If we can find with the genes of organisms the solution to a math problem that no alien could have possibly solved, even with the aid of the best possible super-duper cosmic computers, then it would be reasonable to infer that a disembodied intelligence must have figured out the solution. It is the contention of many I.D. proponents that the DNA, RNA and and proteins of terrestrial organisms does indeed instantiate successful and very efficient (perhaps optimal?) solutions to problems which could never have been solved computationally during the short history (1.373 x 10^10 years) of the cosmos, whether with or without the help of natural selection. Protein folding is one example; the coding in our DNA is another. Not being a scientist myself, I won't try to give you the technical details, but I will make two points. First, DNA is a bona fide code. Contrary to your suggestion in an earlier post, the laws of physics are not a code. The term "code" has a fairly rigorous definition. If you'd like a well-argued defense of the proposition that DNA is indeed a code and that it is therefore the product of a designer, who is also capable of solving very difficult mathematical problems, then I suggest you check out these links: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm (article by Perry Marshall) http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dnanotcode.htm http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/naturallyoccurringcode.htm http://www.evoinfo.org/Publications/ConsInfo_NoN.pdf (article by William Dembski) http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/REPRINTS/short/CoS.pdf (article by William Dembski) http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf (article by Alex Williams) http://creation.com/astonishing-dna-complexity-update (article by Alex Williams). Second, it has become apparent that the sophistication of the coding in our DNA goes far beyond anything that human beings could have come up with. (Alex Williams' articles above illustrate this point very well.) By itself, this does not establish a supernatural designer; but it certainly makes the existence of one more plausible.vjtorley
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
and Icono I realized another flaw in your logic, "If there was a supernatural entity interfering in this world, and you found scientific evidence for this, that would be evidence of that entity." No. That for be evidence "for" that supernatural entity. We would not be able to see it- or have actual remants of it's object- in other words we have evidence of it's actions and that is all ID claims to infer. ID infers intelligent design via the effects of intelligent action. It does not infer what that intelligence is. That is a secondary question not within ID. So if you have great faith in God we may take it as evidence "of" God because you already have an ariori bias- but if you are being logically objective all you know is that an intelligece is most likely acting and therefore existent. So you have evidence "for" the case that an intelligent agent is there- at which point you need to compare that inference against against other modes of synthetic reasoning (theology is one) to determine if it is a true intelligence and what it may be. We cant have evidence of something that we know not what it is. ID gives evidence of "acting intelligence" ad that is it. TO infer it to be supernatural is also a secondary inference. So we don't have evidence "of" this supernatural entity- we don't have it's glove or hand or DNA- we have a picture painted by some undefined supernatural entity and this is evidence "for" it's existence. And that is as far as ID goes. If you are a Christian you may appeal to theology to answer how we know this intelligence exists for sure- or how we know "of" it's nature. You might say my evidence of God or the designer is it acting within my spirit- that one can feel God working though them. This is not being claimed as empirical science and not a part of the theory of ID. it is incidentally beginning to step into theology though. But as Kant showed we need not have evidence "of" something to make a synthetic judgment of what it may be or most likely is. The discovery of DNA was not based on evidence "of" it but for it. Through putting together the clues of it's structure Crick and Watson came up with a synthetically designed model of what is probably is. No one was looking at DNA and then deciding what it is. They synthetically reasoned to something that they could not see. Now ID may be a different case because maybe the designer i this case is non-material. But you cannot limit science to materialism because that results in an illogical apriori bias to methodological materialism. Intelligence is in fact a natural presently acting force within nature that we know not what it's origin is-even going back to the beginning of time. If it is involved in the creation and design of the universe you may very well infer it to be supernatural though. If you seek evidence "of" God or the designer of the cosmos, you must have faith in it's existence and possible non-material existence and then seek through acts of faith and within theology. If however you merely seek evidence "for" the designer's existence you need only to look a little deeper into biology or cosmology and in fact more generally all around you. Anyone can reject the existence of something they cannot see just by avoiding reasoning. It is in the reasoning that the existence of the design becomes more apparent for many. This points to the idea that the objection to supernatural causes inferred by ID is not of a scientific or philosophical nature but most likely results in a theological objection.Frost122585
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
Nakashima-San: That next sentence is the very one that most directly reveals Mr Lewontin's lamentable ignorance of the history of ideas origins of modern science:
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. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
But in fact, the very term "laws of nature" reflects that the vision of the founders, e.g. Newton, was that the world is created and sustained by an orderly God, so that we expect to see general orderliness. Excerpting the just linked General Scholium to the Principia:
. . . This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems . . . . We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final cause [i.e from his designs and their evident purposes] . . . Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and every where, could produce no variety of things. [i.e necessity does not produce contingency] All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.
And, indeed, in that context, for miracles to stand out as signposts beyond the natural world, they would have to be juxtaposed to a predictable general order of the world. A generally lawlike and orderly cosmos is a PREDICTION/ EXPECTATION of theism. (Mr Lewontin and the authority he cites confuse certain forms of animism or polytheism with theism.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Icon: Lamentably, you distracted yourself, going off on an irrelevant tangent instead of addressing the actual issue laid out in steps before you. Second, that humans have FSCI would only suggest that -- similar to the obvious fact that we begin to exist and so are contingent (so, caused) beings -- that we, too (from DNA up) exhibit characteristics that are known per reliable signs of intelligence to be signs of design. That is, on the evidence of our DNA etc, we are best explained as the direct or indirect results of design. Extending, from first plausible life, we have DNA of at least 600 k bits, so life is credibly designed -- indeed it reflects language, code, algorithms and other known artifacts of information systems design. Worse, there is no good evidence that chance + necessity can spontaneously originate novel major, embryologically feasible body plans [cf. the issues over the Cambrian fossil strata, e.g. here], which require DNA increments of some 10's - 100's of MILLIONS of bits before we can get TO a functional organism of novel body plan. So, your claimed increased complexity across time sequence is also irrelevant, as increased complexity across time is a known phenomenon of technological -- designed -- evolution. [Observe, the body plan of aircraft goes back to the 1800's, but much complexification has gone on since it was made a practical technology in 1903. But, we rightly recognise that the crucial departure was what happened when a truly functional airplane was first built. And, we observe4t ha the many homologies amidst broad diversity and even diversification (complete with mass extinctions and minor survivals) were the product of: intelligent designs.] Finally, what you have had in front of you is an empirically anchored observation that there are reliable signs of design. That says nothing by itself about the ultimate nature of designers, including whether they must be physically complex entities or not. (And indeed, we have excellent reason -- on examining the human body (including the brain) as a cybernetic system -- to apply the empirically well-justified observation that the intelligence in a cybernetic system is not explained within the system, but on the system architecture so instantiated by the designer.) In short, you have been begging a few questions that you and the evolutionary materialist establishment need to address without imposing worldview level censorship on possible best explanations. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Mr Kairosfocus, Yes, I am sure the letters of NYRB are quite selective in what they publish. I was disappointed that most of the letters published focused on other areas of Dr lewontin's review. Even the one letter which touched on that sentence we have been discussing took a very odd approach by purposefully misunderstanding 'matter' as 'mass', rather than 'subject' or 'problem'. But you do quote one of Lewontin's next sentences in your FAQ, ne? Something to the effect that if we let an omnipotent God into science how can we trust any observation? I think what is in the mind of most bench scientists is not this concern, though rather than arguing about it, someone should just commission a survey. I think it is more like an Occam's Razor argument - I don't need that explanation (yet).Nakashima
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
And iconofid: If you want to falsify ID all YOU have to do is to actually support YOUR position with real scientific data.Joseph
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT
iconofid:
And when we observe the fossil record, the simplest of nervous systems appear first, and brains increase in size and complexity as time goes on, until we find the large brained modern mammals.
And yet there isn't any genetic data that demonstrates such changes are even possible. So while you are mesmerized by the fossils you don't have any genetic data to support your claims.Joseph
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
Plus you just said again, "I’ve explained the reason for the prejudice against supernaturalism in a post above, and it relates to my point above. It is based on observation and experience, not some grand philosophy." Hare you merely tried to ignore my Kant example again by agreeing with (as it is true) and then going right back to your objection which violates it's rule. That is a logical contradiction because if science infers the supernatural via good evidence we must accept it as good scientific knowledge and reason. I have explained that a designer powerful enough to design the cosmos would be super- or supranatural depending on how one defines the two terms. And yes the supernatural in this case would be a part of science as it attaches to empiricism via induction to the inference based on the markers of overwhelming empirical evidence. And our apperception reveals this. And i think you are not understanding the mode and role that apperception plays in real investigation, reasoning and understanding, all of the scientific persuasion.Frost122585
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Icono, I have read all that you have written and I have no idea why you are rejecting the supernatural because of lack of evidence as you admitted that the logic can support such and that the designer of ID very much can be super natural. You have said that science can infer the supernatural if the evidence supports it. You are clearly holding a contradiction in your logic. And since we agree philosophically and scientifically I am calling you out and saying your objection is most likely theological. You have not shown us your cards and why you persist in logical contradiction on this issue. I suspect that it is because you don't want us to know why you object to a supernatural inference here- and if I am misunderstanding you further, please explicitly explain what you are contending - If it is merely this claim that theology is not the reason - then explain how you reach your objection without theological means of argumentation.Frost122585
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: 1 –> We observe intelligent designers all the time, and the artifacts they produce. (Indeed, we experience being such . . . we know from inside what it is to be a designer.) Yes indeed, we observe intelligent designers all the time. And every single designer we observe has "FSCI", however you define it, as a prerequisite. And each human designer is individually unique, and therefore demonstrates that new information can arise without the intervention of external intelligent designers. And when we observe the fossil record, the simplest of nervous systems appear first, and brains increase in size and complexity as time goes on, until we find the large brained modern mammals. So, observation, which you're keen on, indicates that it takes a long and complicated evolutionary process to produce intelligent designers. We have absolutely no evidence to suggest that intelligence could exist without such processes. We have lots of evidence of the human tendency to invent non-existent intelligent beings. (Think of all the gods of all the religions, ancient and modern, that you do not believe in, and you'll have to agree with me there). By utter contrast, worldview level question-begging redefinitions of science driven by methodological naturalism — like “Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us” — directly censor out the possibility of inferring beyond the circle prescribed by philosophical materialism. So, they censor science form being an empirically controlled search for the truth about our universe, to being a stalking horse for materialism. I've explained the reason for the prejudice against supernaturalism in a post above, and it relates to my point above. It is based on observation and experience, not some grand philosophy.iconofid
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
PS: And, Icon, that imposition of censorship from being an unfettered (but ethically and intellectually responsible) search for the truth about our world based on empirical evidence and reasoned analysis, is what is wrong with current, methodological naturalism dominated science.kairosfocus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
Icon: Sorry, but the turnabout objection attempt just above will not work. 1 --> We observe intelligent designers all the time, and the artifacts they produce. (Indeed, we experience being such . . . we know from inside what it is to be a designer.) 2 --> Moreover, we see in those artifacts, [a] characteristic and reliable empirical signs of intelligence -- of purposefully directed contingency -- that are discernible from [b] the low contingency produced by mechanical necessity and [c] from the stochastic contingency produced by chance. 3 --> We therefore have good inductive -- specifically inference to best explanation -- grounds to distinguish the natural/spontaneous [= chance + necessity] from the ART-ificial or intelligent [= purposeful contingency, often manifested in otherwise hard to achieve complex function depending on significant quantities of information]. 4 --> Circumstantial details may help us find which of the possible candidates may have been responsible for a given instance of design, as we routinely do in courtrooms, management and even in many fields of applied sciences. 5 --> And since we have signs of intelligence, which we have reason to believe are reliable, we have as good grounds as any to reason from such signs to intelligent actors as being responsible; even in cases where such signs -- under the circumstances -- may point not just within the observed cosmos, but beyond it. (In the later cases we wold be justified in inferring on empirical evidence not just to ART not nature, but even to that the ART being caused by that which is beyond the observed cosmos, i.e "supernatural.") 6 --> By utter contrast, worldview level question-begging redefinitions of science driven by methodological naturalism -- like "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations of the world around us" -- directly censor out the possibility of inferring beyond the circle prescribed by philosophical materialism. So, they censor science form being an empirically controlled search for the truth about our universe, to being a stalking horse for materialism. 7 --> And, that question-begging imposes the real selective hyperskepticism problem in modern origins science.
[FYI, to refute the ID contention, all you need to do is provide a good case where functioanlly specific complex information has credibly arisen spontaneously out of noise plus mechanical necessity, e.g. get an old fashioned floppy and spew noise across it repeatedly using a Zener noise circuit and check for fiunctional information. If you can get a coherent document of 1,000 bits capacity or more under appropriately controlled and audited circumstances, ID is finished. In fact, for years, I have put up the challenge to try to do so with a million retired PC's; which should be well within the reach of current science and even of the Internet anti-ID movement. Want to take it up? (Hint: cf how floppies are erased, and do a little math on the configuration space of 1,000 bits vs the search resources of the observed universe. Notice, observed life systems run into a threshold of minimal complexity at about 300,000 4-state DNA elements, i.e. about 600,000 bits. {For the math challenged: 1,000 bits specifies a config space of ~ 10^301 cells, and 600 k bits, one of 9.9 * 10^180,617. Our observed universe of about 10^80 atoms can credibly go through 10^150 or so states across its thermodynamically plausible lifespan. The core ID challenge to current evolutionary materilaist origins science, in short, is not on whether it is possible to hill-climb by cumulative selection to the peaks of Mt Improbable, but to FIRST get to the shores of the Isles of Function in The Sea of Non-Function. And, rewarding mere proximity to desired function is cheating.}) ]
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT
Sorry. First paragraph above should be in italics, as its StephenB.iconofid
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
StephenB. Well, then, either you do not know what methodological naturalism is [consult the FAQ #s 17, 18, 19,] or else you are changing your answers in mid flight to avoid refutation. MN does not permit the acceptance of anything other than natural causes and will not accept evidence that could lead to such a conclusion I agree that what I'm saying could sound confusing. Firstly, science is methodological naturalism at the moment, because observation and experience has shown that when we do successfully explain phenomena, the explanations have always been natural, so "natural" is the evidence based default. However, that definition of science is not eternal, and if we want science to be the study of reality, then we could give it that definition as well, and consider that definition as one that would override all others if there was conflict. Strong positive evidence for supernatural interference in the processes of the universe would overthrow the methodological naturalism "sub-definition", and we would be back to the days of Newton, who had his god nudging planets into place. So yes, methodological naturalism disallows the supernatural, but it is not necessarily an eternal definition of science and the study of reality, and could be removed. It would require strong direct evidence, though, for the very reason that MN has been put in place. Our species has a long and well documented record of inventing false supernatural explanations for things, which is why the current prejudice against the supernatural is based on observation and experience, not philosophy or theology. We are not, however, bound to MN in the way that Lewontin seems to imply. Like everything else, it should be ultimately subservient to observation. Also, either you are not familiar with basic intelligent design, which searches for “agency” in the context of law and chance [rather that "supernatural" in the context of [natural]) or else you are consciously misrepresenting the ID paradigm. You'd have to admit that one could easily become confused reading the posts of I.D. enthusiasts on this blog into thinking that the two definitions nearly interchangeable.iconofid
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
Nakashima-San: Have you considered that the letters column of a magazine or newspaper is a much-winnowed, editor-controlled (thus, easily agenda-driven . . . "ignorant and stupid fundies etc need not apply . . . ") context? GEM of TKI PS: My note here may be of help on understanding more of Lewontin's context and that of his fellow members of the US Academy of Science etc, thus the current state of C20-21 science; and, why many of us therefore think "there is something rotten in the state of Denmark," and it's not the fish.kairosfocus
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
vjtorley iconofid Just a quick question. What would you consider to be good biological evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm? And a very good question. When you read critics of evolutionary theory, think of the evidential demands that they make. You'll see that their demands are very high. Considering that level, it appears that direct observation of small scale evolution by mutation and selection combined with an ever growing number of fossils that illustrate transitional form combined with the molecular evidence for common descent etc. etc. still leaves the critics saying things like "evolution is a fairytale". So, having set such standards, if we witnessed an angel coming to earth and practising some genetic manipulation on one species or another, evolutionists would be perfectly justified in saying "O.K., design happens, but that's just micro-design; you have no evidence for macro-design." In other words, I.D.ers and creationists will never meet their own standards, but personally, I'm liberal, and I'd be happy to infer past angel interference from direct evidence of present angel interference. What about you?iconofid
June 8, 2009
June
06
Jun
8
08
2009
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
iconofid Just a quick question. What would you consider to be good biological evidence for the existence of a supernatural realm?vjtorley
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
Iconofid:
Ah, the confirmation bias of evolutionists. Tell me, have you considered the possibility that your view of evolutionists suffering from confirmation bias could itself be the product of confirmation bias? I’d guess, as a thoughtful person, you have.
Yes I have Iconofid. It's funny you should mention that because my bias was, if anything, for evolution and evolutionists, not against. When I investigated the evolution-is-fact claim, my goal was to understand the evidence and argument, not oppose it. I certainly had no incentive to oppose evolution. I had nothing against the theory. I understood the evolutionary claims about it being a fact, and I was curious about the evidence. I assumed it was there, and that I merely was unfamiliar with it. On the other hand, I was open minded and I wasn't going to buy phony arguments. When I read the evolution literature, and talked with evolutionists, I consistently found failure in backing up the claim -- the scientific evidence could not establish such a fact. Nonetheless, evolutionists consistently argue that is as much a fact as is gravity, and that all the evidence supports evolution and there are not contradictory evidences. It is a remarkable example of confirmation bias.Cornelius Hunter
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
---iconofid: "I’m all for doing methodological naturalism. It works! As there’s no evidence for the supernatural, there’s nothing else to do. Where I differ from those who state that science must be methodological naturalism is that, as in my genii example, if scientific evidence of the supernatural having any effect on our world crops up, we would have to include it. It would be pointless applying methodological naturalism to the formation of the moon if we find out that there’s a moon goddess who makes such things!" Well, then, either you do not know what methodological naturalism is [consult the FAQ #s 17, 18, 19,] or else you are changing your answers in mid flight to avoid refutation. MN does not permit the acceptance of anything other than natural causes and will not accept evidence that could lead to such a conclusion Also, either you are not familiar with basic intelligent design, which searches for "agency" in the context of law and chance [rather that "supernatural" in the context of [natural]) or else you are consciously misrepresenting the ID paradigm.StephenB
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
I said: —-”I’m in agreement with I.D.ers that if there’s evidence for supernatural interference in this world, then the supernatural can be part of science.” StephenB says: Again that would make you an exception to the rule. So, you need to explain that you are speaking only for yourself, not for “evolutionists,” since most evolutionists, especially those in the academy to not agree with you, holding the position of “methodological naturalism,” which, according to your comments, you disavow. I did say "I" in the sentence above, although you're right that I may have used a misplaced "we" in a post further up. I'm all for doing methodological naturalism. It works! As there's no evidence for the supernatural, there's nothing else to do. Where I differ from those who state that science must be methodological naturalism is that, as in my genii example, if scientific evidence of the supernatural having any effect on our world crops up, we would have to include it. It would be pointless applying methodological naturalism to the formation of the moon if we find out that there's a moon goddess who makes such things! So, science should be methodological naturalism unless positive evidence for the supernatural is found. IMO, it won't be found, but good luck trying!iconofid
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
Mr StephenB, Yes, in the spirit of fair discussion (since I have asked others to read material also), I read 17, 18, and 19. I also looked in on the Wiki page.Nakashima
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
----Nakashima: "Lewontin’s remark appears in a review of Carl Sagan’s Demon Haunted World, in the NY Review of Books in 1997. He isn’t Science Pope, and NYRB is not Scripture, at least not outside of the 212 area code. I wonder if anyone has the google-fu to find the letters in response, it would be interesting to see if Francis Collins or any other dissenters from undiluted naturalism chimed in." All of these scientists that you allude to subscribe to "methodological naturalism," which restricts science to a searcch for "natural causes." That was Lewontin's point. Earlier, I alerted you to the FAQ, which explains methodological naturalism. Did you follow up on this matter?StephenB
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
---"Stephen, I’m not Richard Lewontin. If I rubbed a lamp, a cloud of green smoke emerged and formed into a genii and it offered me three impossible wishes which came true, I would not feel any obligation to look for a material explanation." I am talking about the heavy hitters who actually have the intsitutional power to persecute ID scientist in the academy. If you are not that, then more power to you. But your were defending "evolutionists" in general and most of them hold to the philosophy in the quote that I offered to you. So, you need to decide whether you are going to speak about "evolutioninists," in general, or whether you are going to list yourself as an exception to the rule after I refute your comments about the rule. ----"I’m in agreement with I.D.ers that if there’s evidence for supernatural interference in this world, then the supernatural can be part of science." Again that would make you an exception to the rule. So, you need to explain that you are speaking only for yourself, not for "evolutionists," since most evolutionists, especially those in the academy to not agree with you, holding the position of "methodological naturalism," which, according to your comments, you disavow.StephenB
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Dr Hunter,
Like new converts into Scientology, most evolutionists have no idea what they are into. And they’re beligerent and condescending in their ignorance, and never seriously engage their own movement.
While I understand what you're saying, I think comparing evolutionists to Scientologists might be unfair. Scientology is a business created by a second-rate, drug-addled science fiction writer, and to any reasonable person it's clearly nonsense. It would be more correct to compare evolutionism to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (not the LDS proper), or perhaps Moon's Unification Church. These faiths, while obviously profoundly in error, at least have roots in Scriptural truth, and one can understand how a reasonable person could be drawn into them.herb
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
Cornelius Hunter says: In most cases you would be left ignorant of the underlying meaning., You could, perhaps, give us a summary of that underlying meaning. Do you think that there is "underlying meaning" to all scientific theories? Tectonic plate theory, for example? But either way, you are never going to understand if you are seeking confirmation rather than knowledge, as most evolutionists do. Ah, the confirmation bias of evolutionists. Tell me, have you considered the possibility that your view of evolutionists suffering from confirmation bias could itself be the product of confirmation bias? I'd guess, as a thoughtful person, you have. Like new converts into Scientology, most evolutionists have no idea what they are into. And they’re beligerent and condescending in their ignorance, and never seriously engage their own movement. Movement? Instead, evolutionists routinely engage in protectionism. If you are an evolutionist, you need to ask yourself: Am I genuinely open to criticism, or even the possibility of evolution being false? If not, no problem. But at least be honest with yourself (and evolution skeptics you speak with) that you have non negotiable, dogmatic, positions. If, on the other hand, you are open to criticism (and feel you have nothing to lose because you’re sure evolution is so empirically compelling), then you should have no problem seriously engaging the criticism. Evolutionists rarely demonstrate such a willingness (actually never in my experience). Well, let's look at where the criticism comes from. In the first post I made in this thread, I quoted someone heralding the demise of "Darwinism" in 1904. We could find hundreds, probably thousands of books and articles in the same vein, including your little piece that started this thread, with the future historians noting the early 21st century demise. No scientific theory has ever been attacked in anything like this way. Now, Cornelius, why do you think this is? Why do so many people get upset by a naturalistic theory of the origin of species, including, most importantly, our own species? Could there be an emotional base to all this, do you think? Or is it my confirmation bias that suggests that to me? In that case, may I suggest my book Science’s Blind Spot. It isn’t very long. Or, if you want something on the web, you can look at [website]. I'll certainly have a look at your website, in the hope of finding something interesting about this "movement" I'm part of. Cheers.iconofid
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
I see Mr Iconofid has beaten me to the response. Lewontin's remark appears in a review of Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, in the NY Review of Books in 1997. He isn't Science Pope, and NYRB is not Scripture, at least not outside of the 212 area code. I wonder if anyone has the google-fu to find the letters in response, it would be interesting to see if Francis Collins or any other dissenters from undiluted naturalism chimed in. Well, my google-fu was sufficient, here it is, the responses, and Lewontin's response. Only one response touches on the "Divine Foot" point.Nakashima
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Stephen B. quotes: —-Lewontin: “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.”, Stephen, I'm not Richard Lewontin. If I rubbed a lamp, a cloud of green smoke emerged and formed into a genii and it offered me three impossible wishes which came true, I would not feel any obligation to look for a material explanation. I'm in agreement with I.D.ers that if there's evidence for supernatural interference in this world, then the supernatural can be part of science. So far, there isn't any IMO! That's where we differ, presumably.iconofid
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Frost but yet not ok with the super natural being science unless you have evidence “of” that super natural entity. If there was a supernatural entity interfering in this world, and you found scientific evidence for this, that would be evidence of that entity. You're still getting me wrong. I have no objections to anything for which there is evidence being part of science. Those are your words in italics above, not mine. Where we differ has nothing to do with philosophy or theology. It is on evidence. I repeat that the reason to keep the supernatural out of science is that there is no scientific evidence that such a thing exists. Find some, and we can bring it in. There are no principles involved. It's simple. So, do I make myself clear? My objections to I.D. are technical. They are that you have found no positive evidence for intelligent design in biology. I've certainly no objection to you looking for it!iconofid
June 7, 2009
June
06
Jun
7
07
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply