Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Orthodox Evolution Needs Auditors

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From Panspermia

10 January 2007

…It is not enough that companies make disclosures of financial information…. In addition it is vital that there be a set of financial intermediaries, who are at least as competent at receiving, processing and interpreting financial information … as the companies are at delivering it — Yale Law professor Jonothan Macey, writing about the financial collapse of Enron.

Macey was cited in a New Yorker article suggesting that, prior to its collapse in 2001, Enron’s extreme financial fragility was not concealed from the public — it was disclosed in the company’s own financial statements. The condition went unnoticed because the disclosure information was convoluted and took great effort to understand. Almost everyone relied on Enron itself to explain the situation. Of course, Enron said everything was fine.

An analogous situation governs our understanding of evolution. The same researchers who deliver the scientific data are the ones who interpret it for us. Virtually all of these researchers are committed darwinists (although they may disagree about some of the details.) Naturally, they give the data thoroughly darwinian interpretations. But here as well, we may need competent intermediaries to provide unbiased explanations. As scientific specialties have proliferated and narrowed, the need has only grown.

Comments
Has anyone ever noticed the irony: When one legal type (Philip Johnson) criticises evolution he is denounced as ignorant and incompetent to make pronouncements on it, now when another (Judge Jones) agrees with them, he is hailed as a 'visionary' and a 'great intellectual'. Whats all that about??antg
January 18, 2007
January
01
Jan
18
18
2007
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT
The research results regarding Darwinism are not as advertised. I think blogs are the best potential source for monitoring research results and discussing what the actual consequences for NDE. The discussion we had about the highly conserved DNA megabase mouse deletion paper is an excellent example.Jehu
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
The Enron debacle is, as stated, a perfect case of where the entire field of risk management was not successfully practiced. And, as pointed out, is the Darwinian narrative. Risk management is the "science" of evaluating and quantifying risk factors, and then selecting from alternative courses of action, avoiding unwarranted conclusions, and reducing risk through corrective actions. For example, withdrawing capital from a flawed enterprise. Now, who and where is the "risk" being evaluated and measured that the Darwinian narrative is flawed? And what are the agreed-upon factors? Instead, every new fact and finding is trumpeted as additional evidence for, or fitting in, the Darwinian orthodoxy. The bottom line question is, if we all had to put our own hard earned $$ into it, how many would put themselves on the line for NDE? No need, instead they just keep pulling in the $$ with ever new versions of textbooks, college courses, etc. Hmmm.Ekstasis
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT
I believe we have several excellent "auditors" already at work. Unfortunately, the auditors are just as criticized as the ID group, whenever their conclusions don't fit the biased "scientific" views of the Darwinist researchers/persecutors. Lawyers? Say, Phil Johnson. He and others like him, have been taking on Darwinism from a purely logical evidential stance, examining the data, evidence, the conclusions, pointing out the inconsistencies, etc., exactly the same way the Darwinist evidence could be examined in a court of law. Using a "court of law" basis, examining the real evidence - without all the hype and Darwinist lawyers - would be sufficient to close the case in favor of ID. Unfortunately, in the present situation, the judges who give the verdict are incompetent and biased themselves -> Judge Jones for ex. Also, the court cases thus far, have all dealt with the education system. Not Darwinism itself. Darwinism has only been touched by indirection. That fact has garnered some public opposition because of abuse and mis-use of the "Clause" by the courts. Remove the school system, just go at Darwinism upon the laws of evidence and I think Darwinism would fall. (Given a couple of good legal minds like Johnson to do the examination of the data) I've always thought that would be a great way of undoing Darwinisms materialist, humanist hold on public opinion. It has always seemed to me that Darwinism's prime directive, it's assumption laden premises and clear logical fallacies would, under an evidential attack by competent thinkers, fall of it's own weight of error.Borne
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Russ: A poster lamented on another thread that it was mostly lawyers and philosophers who were critiquing NDE, and he wished that the Scienceâ„¢ people were leading the charge. Perhaps those "Science people" should work on suring up the claims made by the theory. IOW don't give anyone anything to critique. However saying "it evolved" without knowing whether or not it could evolve deserves all the critique in the world. And if lawyers and philosophers can spot the flaws, then just perhaps, those flaws exist. But Russ's inference is correct- all non-scientists have (at least) the potential of being external auditors.Joseph
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
A poster lamented on another thread that it was mostly lawyers and philosophers who were critiquing NDE, and he wished that the Scienceâ„¢ people were leading the charge. Perhaps these are the external auditors you're talking about, Dave.russ
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Canned response:
Science is self-correcting.
And it should be. However any science that isn't interested in the reality behind our existence, can at best hope to achieve an interesting and imaginative narrative. "Good night, and good luck..."Joseph
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Evolution as Enron. I like it!tribune7
January 17, 2007
January
01
Jan
17
17
2007
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply