Scientific Frustration

_{Gil Dodgen

June 8, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Something that continues to frustrate me is that Darwinists would like people to believe that their “science” is in the same category as mine and that of my colleagues who are working on the development of hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators. We must get stuff right. There is accountability.

If the thing burns up, is aerodynamically or structurally deficient, and falls apart and goes down in flames, we are proven to be wrong and incompetent.

There is no such standard for Darwinists. They just make up stories and call it science. When their theories/stories go down in flames (e.g., junk DNA) they just proclaim victory, that Darwinian theory is still incontrovertible and fully intact, and walk away.

It would be as though the scientists and engineers who designed and built the hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators, after they crashed and burned, proclaimed that the project was actually a success, and that their theories predicted this outcome from the start.

If our team did such a thing, and made such a claim, we would be laughed out of the science and engineering community and never be awarded another penny of funding from anyone for anything.

Yet, Darwinists do exactly what I have described, and are not only never held to account, but are awarded endless funding to make up stories that have nothing to do with legitimate science.

This is a travesty.

Comments

KF, I am a subscriber to your blog, added it to my every growing list a few weeks ago! :-)Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

PS: J, you can track my thoughts in public, here.kairosfocus_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

PeterJ, How do you explain the emergence of bats' echo location technique?Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

PeterJ,
I simply do not see how you can make this distinction. All of those examples of supposed ‘increase complexity’, how do you or anyone else really know?
I was interested in what scordova would say to those examples. They all seem pretty clearly (to me obviously) to be examples of increased complexity. I would have added Venus Flytraps as well but I didn't think of them 'til later. I consider them increases in complexity as they all seem to be examples of traits or abilities that didn't exist before. I could be wrong. It happens. Everyday. Sigh.
You talk about bacteria learning to digest a bi-product of making nylon, and? Now this may sound a little silly but bacteria have managed to survive for millions of years, learning new tricks as they meander along, and what you have sited as evidence of ‘increase complexity’ is not going to change that. The same bacteria will still be going strong, unchanged, in millions of years to come.
Well, my point is they aren't unchanged. Before the mid-20th century Nylon did not exist. No reason to think that there was a variety of bacteria that could exploit the byproducts of Nylon production. Yet, within a few years, they existed. I know what you're saying: they will change but still be bacteria. Well . . . eukaryotes probably evolved from prokaryotes, at least that's the current thinking. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/endosymbiosis_03) So, maybe, in a million years some of the bacteria we observe today will have created something that's not a bacteria. There are already lots and lots and lots of different species of bacteria and I suspect there are many more to come!!
And it’s the same for everything else you have sited. This is where I suppose you look into the past for such changes in the fossil record and again it draws a blank. For instance some of the best examples like whale evolution, horse evolution, bird, bat, etc are all completely fruitless, and in most some cases extremely misrepresented, as far as actual evidence goes.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on that. And I'm not always looking into the deep past: look at the varieties of dogs and brassicas to see what guided common descent is capable of in a few thousand years.
Nope, I have to say the actual evidence isn’t on your side Jerad. You are, as far as I am concerned, a great man of faith. Please don’t take that the wrong way; I have utter respect for you. I just don’t think the evidence is all you think it is.
Fair enough. I'm not trying to convert everyone. When people ask me my opinion I try to offer and explain it honestly and with respect. I hope that comes across. What I'd really like to hear from people participating on this thread is what THEY think regarding the fossil, genetic, bio-geographic and morphological data. I'd like to hear some more specifics about others' theories. IF you feel the front loading model is correct then I'd like to know how it works. And ask some questions. IF you think there was a designer who tweaked things occasionally then I'd like to ask questions about when and why. Not out of a desire to deride or caricature. Exactly the opposite. I'm doing my best to answer questions, I think it's fair for me to ask some as well!! I don't remember what thread it was but Joe proposed that perhaps some of the 'programming' necessary for variation was not part of DNA. I asked him some follow-on questions but I don't remember it going very far. And I've always been encouraging of the ID community to do its own research. Ask questions and do the work!! That's the way to prove your points.Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

I've been reading this thread from the beginning and really enjoying the dialogue between you all. Kairosfocus I sometimes find a little confrontational but other than that it has been very entertaining indeed. However I do feel that Scordova has touched on some extremely valid points which in my view are making the more sense. Jerad, you obviously have a great understanding of this subject. I have read all your comments and have enjoyed them thoroughly, but... I can't help coming to the conclusion that you are blinkered by what is your worldview, and although you come across as being extremely objective you are in actual fact quite the opposite. For instance you say 'Hmmm . . . what about the bacteria that ‘learned’ to digest a bi-product of making nylon? Or Lenski’s experiments? Or the sonar abilities of bats? Or feathers? Or bacterial resistance to anti-biotics which didn’t exist until the 20th century? (I am really struggling to see how that could be a lose of complexity . . . at first they were killed by penicillin and then they weren’t and that’s a lose of complexity?) Or flying squirrels? Or flying dinosaurs? Or the varying shells on tortoises on the Galapagos islands? Or the wide variety of dogs. And brassicas. Sickle cell anaemia? What about the development of colour vision? Turtles hard shells? Electric eels? Bioluminescence? How do you get a firefly light from loss of information? I suppose you’ll say there’s no evidence that some of those things came about by non-directed evolutionary processes that added complexity. But, there’s no independent physical evidence that they happened by some other process. And the fossil and genetic and biogeographic and morphological records all uphold the modern evolutionary model.' I simply do not see how you can make this distinction. All of those examples of supposed ‘increase complexity’, how do you or anyone else really know? You talk about bacteria learning to digest a bi-product of making nylon, and? Now this may sound a little silly but bacteria have managed to survive for millions of years, learning new tricks as they meander along, and what you have sited as evidence of ‘increase complexity’ is not going to change that. The same bacteria will still be going strong, unchanged, in millions of years to come. And it’s the same for everything else you have sited. This is where I suppose you look into the past for such changes in the fossil record and again it draws a blank. For instance some of the best examples like whale evolution, horse evolution, bird, bat, etc are all completely fruitless, and in most some cases extremely misrepresented, as far as actual evidence goes. Nope, I have to say the actual evidence isn’t on your side Jerad. You are, as far as I am concerned, a great man of faith. Please don’t take that the wrong way; I have utter respect for you. I just don’t think the evidence is all you think it is. Keep it up though. I am looking forward to some more on this particular thread from all involved.PeterJ_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

KF,
I note that it is utterly unreasonable and selectively hyperskeptical to insist or suggest that we may never infer from empirically tested, reliable signs of intelligence to the credible presence of such. As was discussed in the previous thread, you were unable to rule out the possibility of intelligence being present at origin of life or body plans, or the fine tuned cosmos.
I don't rule it out but I don't consider it likely or probable without further lines, preferably physical, of evidence. Evolutionary theory would fall if it were only hanging on by the fossil thread. But it's got the genetic record, bio-geographical arguments, morphology and breeding records as well (which show that the underlying stream of mutations is sufficient to create morphological changes in a short period of time given brutal selection).
Once such is possible there is no good reason why what we have tested and found reliable as signs should not then count as evidence. And, it is quite plain that the views of design thinkers and even informed creationists have been repeatedly caricatured in order to deride or dismiss them. My protest above is well warranted. In that context, I have no reason to hold my own conclusions hostage to your selectively hyperskeptical, personal incredulity.
I hope I have not caricatured anyones' view or opinion. I am doing my best to be civil and upfront as well. I quite agree, you do not have to agree with me. Absolutely. How boring would that be? Likewise I don't have to agree with you.
Including, in reply to something that is as patent as why a specific car part, in a particular configuration, is needed to fix a balky vehicle. Or why an incorrect character in a computer program caused a NASA rocket to veer off course and required self-destruct. Or, many other cases that substantiate why it is a general inference that there is no good reason to reject the principle that complex, specific functionality normally comes in islands.
I agree with man-made inanimate objects. But not with evolved life forms. It may appear that way based on current lifeforms where the step-by-step mutation path between them is in the past but that doesn't mean there isn't a functional connection.
(And, to date, you and others of like persuasion, have been utterly unable to provide warranting evidence for the notion of an incrementally connected world of life accessible by gradual stepwise changes to populations. The evidence is that body plans are in islands in config space, that protein domains are in such islands, and that the codes and algorithms used in D/RNA are similarly in such islands.)
Again, we'll just have to disagree on that. Reasonable people do that sometimes. If you're having problems with another blog then I apologise but I'm not getting sucked into it. Perhaps you should start another thread?Jerad_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

J: Again, I am pausing from dealing with the crisis. I note that it is utterly unreasonable and selectively hyperskeptical to insist or suggest that we may never infer from empirically tested, reliable signs of intelligence to the credible presence of such. As was discussed in the previous thread, you were unable to rule out the possibility of intelligence being present at origin of life or body plans, or the fine tuned cosmos. Once such is possible there is no good reason why what we have tested and found reliable as signs should not then count as evidence. And, it is quite plain that the views of design thinkers and even informed creationists have been repeatedly caricatured in order to deride or dismiss them. My protest above is well warranted. In that context, I have no reason to hold my own conclusions hostage to your selectively hyperskeptical, personal incredulity. Including, in reply to something that is as patent as why a specific car part, in a particular configuration, is needed to fix a balky vehicle. Or why an incorrect character in a computer program caused a NASA rocket to veer off course and required self-destruct. Or, many other cases that substantiate why it is a general inference that there is no good reason to reject the principle that complex, specific functionality normally comes in islands. (And, to date, you and others of like persuasion, have been utterly unable to provide warranting evidence for the notion of an incrementally connected world of life accessible by gradual stepwise changes to populations. The evidence is that body plans are in islands in config space, that protein domains are in such islands, and that the codes and algorithms used in D/RNA are similarly in such islands.) G'day KF F/N: The continued, feverishly abusive, willfully cruelly caricaturing and grossly disrespectful misbehaviour at the Anti Evo thread shows more and more why Plato's concerns on uncivil, nihilistic, ruthless factions rooted in evolutionary materialism, are well founded. It is highly significant that some there seem to imagine that because they think they can get away with it, they can freely distort and misrepresent the views and character of those who stand up for design thought. In short, we see insistent, willful disregard for duties of care to truth, fairness and civility. In some cases, the evidence on display is that we are dealing with the seriously disordered who need help, and who are public exhibits on the seriousness of the concerns on how evolutionary materialism as an ideology lends support to factions that work to undermine both morality and the fabric of civility that undergirds society, as were raised recently by Dr Ben Carson and others. If ever a demonstration of why UD needs a strong mod policy -- despite the inevitable problems that causes -- was necessary, there we have it. Let us think long and hard, in light of Plato's warnings and subsequent history, on what it means that such have been gaining greater influence in science and education institutions and society. Before, it is too late.kairosfocus_{June 12, 2012
June
06
Jun
12
12
2012
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

scordova,
Bats evolving sonar under human observation? Hasn’t happened. Again, you’re offering speculation as a substitute for facts. This isn’t real science.
How do you explain it happening? You didn't answer my query about front loading so I'm not sure if you think this was an example of intelligent design insertion or a result of deleterious loss of function from an existing genome.Jerad_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

scordova, A paper published in Creation Science Quarterly? Umm . . . okay. Anyway they do admit that some mutations do create resistance:
While mutations that provide resistance to an antibiotic can be considered "beneficial," they often come with a physiological cost (Andersson and Levin, 1999; Maisnier-Patin et al., 2002). In fact, Björkman et al. (2000) conclude that most types of antibiotic resistance will impart some biological cost to the organism. For example, rifampin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Billington et al., 1999), E. coli (Reynolds, 2000), and Staphylococcus aureus (Wichelhaus et al., 2002) resulted from mutations to the RNA polymerase that also reduced the relative fitness of most of the mutant strains. Although the biological cost reported by these researchers was generally not severe, it was measurable.
At a cost maybe. But the mutations do exist. And about the cost to the organism:
Clearly the fitness of some mutant strains is permanently reduced (sometimes dramatically), and evolutionists have typically ignored such affects in their rush to promote antibiotic resistance as "evolution in the Petri dish." In fact, they often test relative fitness of these mutants under very narrow cultivation parameters, which minimizes the detectable loss of fitness for a given mutation. On the other hand, the fitness loss of some mutants is negligible (esp. following reversion mutations). So, the effect of spontaneous resistance on bacterial fitness appears to vary from mutant to mutant. Thus, creationists have probably tended to over-stress the significance of reduced "fitness" in antibiotic resistant bacteria by applying the concept to all such mutants.
Jerad_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

KF,
First, the proper contrast — and that has been so ever since Plato, 2350 years ago — is not natural vs supernatural but chance and/or necessity vs art, or intelligence.
When there's intelligence around, maybe. But we only know, have experience of, intelligence around when primates are around. Otherwise it's just a big assumption with no physical proof.
Intelligence and its traces are very observable and measurable, which is the whole focus of design theory.
And very contentious and not accepted by the general scientific community without physical confirmation of intelligence being around.
I am very aware of the strawman contrast between nature and supernature, but that is little more than appeal to prejudice. Indeed, the co-founder of evolutionary theory, Wallace, highlighted that the miraculous and the supernatural would be events or works that would call to mind super-human intelligences. But, intelligences they would be.
Strawman to you, not to others. Wallace didn't have all the data we have now.
Secondly, as I noted, the whole point of the miraculous as a sign pointing beyond the usual course of the world, is that there is a usual course. If there were not, there would be a chaos and no science would be possible as well as no miracles could stand out [in a chaos anything could happen, anytime, anyhow], but also no common sense would be possible and no reasoned choice and moral responsibility would be possible. Obviously, we do not live in a chaos, but a cosmos. So the only reasonable issue is whether the order we see has the possibility of an unusual course of events.
Okay . . , I agree there are known laws and processes that we can account for. And that things which are hypothesised to violate those laws require extra-ordinary proof of existence.
For that, we can start with our minds, a necessary priority of doing science. If they are programmed chemical- electro- mechanical systems, they are no better than their programming and wiring, here imagined to be accumulated errors reinforced through success. But that runs smack dab into the island of function problem, the wiring nodes and arcs framework and the coding required to make a processor so far exceeds the search capacity of the observable cosmos that it is simply not feasible to account for such on chance plus necessity. For reasons already discussed with you in details.
I agree, our minds our fallible which is why we need a process like the scientific method to weed out the false positives. And you KNOW I don't agree with the 'islands of function' paradigm. AND it's not what evolutionary theory says happened.
Reasons you obviously find hard to accept, but that hardly says that they are not well grounded.
A matter of opinion.
Next, if we look at the contingency of our cosmos, and the incredible fine tuning that suits it for C-chemistry, cell based life, we are looking beyond any multiverse speculation to a necessary being, one that is credibly highly intelligent, powerful and the source for the cosmos.
Also a matter of opinion and not provable. We don't even know if the universe IS tuneable. Aside from the fact that it's mostly deadly and empty.
In short, so soon as you have to confront he reality of mind, and are not allowed to duck the self referential incoherences of evolutionary materialism, we see that a world that is rooted in intelligence is a very reasonable one and a basis for science. That should not be surprising, modern science was founded by theists in a tradition that looked to God as the author and sustainer of the order of the cosmos, so that scientists think his creative and sustaining thoughts after him. Hence the odd term LAWS of nature.
I'm not ducking anything. I'm just disagreeing with you. 300 years ago almost everyone was a theist of some kind or another. Not so many now. Why do you suppose more and more people are moving away from theism? They have been brainwashed? Lied to? Lots of modern atheists were raised in good Christian or Jewish or Muslim homes. Yet still they choose not to believe.
If you doubt me, review the previous thread and see say Newton in his General Scholium and in Opticks, Query 31. And there are many like him.
Not so many these days though.
In short, the whole way Lewontin was arguing was riddled with gross fallacies. Which were corrected in the linked. If you didn’t see them, why did you speak like that, and if you did, why did you act as though they were not there?
Uh . . . 'cause I disagree with you?
Neither of these looks good for you. Please, let us do better next time.
I'm dancing as fast as I can!! :-)Jerad_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT}

Or the sonar abilities of bats?
Bats evolving sonar under human observation? Hasn't happened. Again, you're offering speculation as a substitute for facts. This isn't real science.scordova_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

bacterial resistance to anti-biotics which didn’t exist until the 20th century? (I am really struggling to see how that could be a lose of complexity . . . at first they were killed by penicillin and then they weren’t and that’s a lose of complexity?)
See: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htmscordova_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

J: Just back from a busy day, let me pause a few moments.
how can you limit, confine, measure and define something which can operate outside of the laws of nature?
You act as if you did not read my notes as linked. First, the proper contrast -- and that has been so ever since Plato, 2350 years ago -- is not natural vs supernatural but chance and/or necessity vs art, or intelligence. Intelligence and its traces are very observable and measurable, which is the whole focus of design theory. I am very aware of the strawman contrast between nature and supernature, but that is little more than appeal to prejudice. Indeed, the co-founder of evolutionary theory, Wallace, highlighted that the miraculous and the supernatural would be events or works that would call to mind super-human intelligences. But, intelligences they would be. Secondly, as I noted, the whole point of the miraculous as a sign pointing beyond the usual course of the world, is that there is a usual course. If there were not, there would be a chaos and no science would be possible as well as no miracles could stand out [in a chaos anything could happen, anytime, anyhow], but also no common sense would be possible and no reasoned choice and moral responsibility would be possible. Obviously, we do not live in a chaos, but a cosmos. So the only reasonable issue is whether the order we see has the possibility of an unusual course of events. For that, we can start with our minds, a necessary priority of doing science. If they are programmed chemical- electro- mechanical systems, they are no better than their programming and wiring, here imagined to be accumulated errors reinforced through success. But that runs smack dab into the island of function problem, the wiring nodes and arcs framework and the coding required to make a processor so far exceeds the search capacity of the observable cosmos that it is simply not feasible to account for such on chance plus necessity. For reasons already discussed with you in details. Reasons you obviously find hard to accept, but that hardly says that they are not well grounded. Next, if we look at the contingency of our cosmos, and the incredible fine tuning that suits it for C-chemistry, cell based life, we are looking beyond any multiverse speculation to a necessary being, one that is credibly highly intelligent, powerful and the source for the cosmos. In short, so soon as you have to confront he reality of mind, and are not allowed to duck the self referential incoherences of evolutionary materialism, we see that a world that is rooted in intelligence is a very reasonable one and a basis for science. That should not be surprising, modern science was founded by theists in a tradition that looked to God as the author and sustainer of the order of the cosmos, so that scientists think his creative and sustaining thoughts after him. Hence the odd term LAWS of nature. If you doubt me, review the previous thread and see say Newton in his General Scholium and in Opticks, Query 31. And there are many like him. In short, the whole way Lewontin was arguing was riddled with gross fallacies. Which were corrected in the linked. If you didn't see them, why did you speak like that, and if you did, why did you act as though they were not there? Neither of these looks good for you. Please, let us do better next time. KFkairosfocus_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

scordova, Hmmm . . . what about the bacteria that 'learned' to digest a bi-product of making nylon? Or Lenski's experiments? Or the sonar abilities of bats? Or feathers? Or bacterial resistance to anti-biotics which didn't exist until the 20th century? (I am really struggling to see how that could be a lose of complexity . . . at first they were killed by penicillin and then they weren't and that's a lose of complexity?) Or flying squirrels? Or flying dinosaurs? Or the varying shells on tortoises on the Galapagos islands? Or the wide variety of dogs. And brassicas. Sickle cell anaemia? What about the development of colour vision? Turtles hard shells? Electric eels? Bioluminescence? How do you get a firefly light from loss of information? I suppose you'll say there's no evidence that some of those things came about by non-directed evolutionary processes that added complexity. But, there's no independent physical evidence that they happened by some other process. And the fossil and genetic and biogeographic and morphological records all uphold the modern evolutionary model. You could say that all genetic information was front-loaded into the system at the very beginning. Are you? Has anyone done a genetic analysis of the brassicas to see if the source variety has all the genomic information contained in all the descendent varieties? That would seem an easy thing for an ID researcher to check. That might really help prove the case. Has anyone done that work? And wouldn't the front loading hypothesis imply that ancient lifeforms, like trilobites would have had to have many more genes than we do? Some of which weren't expressed I guess . . . it's kind of hard to see how that would work really.Jerad_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

scordova, Well evolution is limited to gradual step-by-step modifications, building on what’s gone before.
Actually that is not true. Evolution observed in real-time evidences net loss of complexity not gain. So if you replace what is highlighed with "losing what exists" then you are closer to reality. :-) And even anti-biotic resistance is loss of complexity, not gain. So even what is measured and observed is not consistent with evolutionism's claims.scordova_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

scordova, Well evolution is limited to gradual step-by-step modifications, building on what's gone before. Over long periods of time it can accomplish much as seen by the fossil record. And it is hampered with some less than optimal 'designs', broken genes, vestigal organs, etc. The fossil and genetic records give a good idea if the speed at which evolution can work. I am surprised you asked the question as I thought your contention would be that evolution is NOT capable of much. Okay. I did my best. Now it's your turn to answer my question: how can you limit, constrain, measure and define a being that is not limited to natural laws? Unless you'd like to limit the designer somehow.Jerad_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

Jerad wrote:
In other words how can you limit, confine, measure and define something which can operate outside of the laws of nature?
Can you confine limit, confine, and measure macro evolution? No. By that standard, even assuming naturalism, evolutionism is hard pressed to be called science. That's why in science's pecking order, evolutionism lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to the pseudoscience than to physics.scordova_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

GEM, I have no interest in getting caught up in whatever is going on on another blog. I did find Lewontin's 1997 review of Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World to be less arrogant than your selections imply. For example the second paragraph you cite in full:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. 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.
In other words how can you limit, confine, measure and define something which can operate outside of the laws of nature? If anything is possible then nothing can be known. It's not saying transcendent beings don't exist, many scientists are devote Christians for example. But you can't pin God down in a lab. Lewontin's essay is worth reading, he is in fact critical of Sagan in places. And Dawkins. There is no conspiracy or unified front. Just a lot of people who have agreed to explore our universe using a commonly agreed upon set of criteria.Jerad_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

PS: I see further sneers and smears, as I glanced at back-links. As well as attempted outing and belittling dimunitives. If the folks at Anti Evo want my actual views on origins, they know I have laid them out at length in the always linked from my handle here at UD. And, from here on at IOSE, this in ways that I think will help break the Lewontinian spell. It would also be interesting to hear them explain how I am LEADING here at IOSE with a case of origins science done right. It would be interesting for them to explain how my discussion of the explanation of H-R diagrams of stellar clusters with main sequence turnoffs and the like are to be translated into their favourite -- and irresponsible -- conflation of the design inference with creationism and debates over Bishop Ussher's timeline. And no, I do not need to wade into a malarial fever swamp to defend myself, I have spoken for record here, and that is enough to raise serious questions on their willfully neglected duties of care.kairosfocus_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

J: Pausing after submitting a draft. I point you to this from Lewontin, in his 1997 NYRB article:
. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality . . . . 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 link gives my annotated response [including my comment on the onward remarks beyond the final cited words], but it should be quite plain what I am speaking about: scientism, bold and brazen, and driven by a priori materialism dressed up in the lab coat. This attitude is wrong in so many ways I cannot go into details now, so kindly follow the link. KFkairosfocus_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

GEM, Who genuflects? I don't. I look at all claims with the same critical eye. Some people seem to get it right most of the time and others . . . Anyway, most of the time when some new 'result' comes through the mass media I take it with a big grain of salt. Scientists don't always get it right the first or second or even third time. But science does eventually sort things out. It takes longer the deeper we get into the universe but . . . eventually the data wins. The people who 'worship' science, if there are such people, are rarely scientists. Real scientists know the limitations of themselves and their method. And the honest ones know it's not until a result is repeated and has proven its robustness that it becomes tentatively accepted. Unlike the way it's portrayed in some quarters, it really is an adversarial environment. And everyone knows the mighty can fall. I personally know a biologist who disagrees strongly with Dr Dawkins reductionist attitude. She thinks he's completely wrong about that aspect of his approach. There's no worship. It's a very egalitarian society.Jerad_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

J, again, the issue is evolutionary materialism dressed up in the august lab coat and using "evolution" as the science that is claimed to warrant such materialism, demanding our genuflection. Exhibit A: Dawkins, with many others not far behind. I really have to go now. KFkairosfocus_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: When I had to design engineering programmes, one focus of study and ground of competence to practice was engineering sciences, i.e. the scientific foundations for engineering designs, e.g. thermodynamics, electromagnetism, aerodynamics/fluid mechanics, with further context in basic sciences such as chemistry, physics, etc. Engineering is rooted in the operational sciences; which have a very different degree of warrant than those sciences that try to reconstruct a remote, unobserved past -- as Gil points out. And BTW, that is why the relevant engineering societies [think IEEE etc] welcome physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists working in relevant fields. Which of course is the context of the recent spate of evolutionary computing publications by Marks [Electrical Engineer] and Dembski [Mathematician-Computer Scientist] et al. F/N 3: In looking briefly at the Anti-Evo thread, I see where there is a continued insistence on conflation of design thought with biblical creationism -- cf sparc quoting and approving Katerina98 here on accusing Tyler of "lying for Jesus" and KE here in attempted rebuttal to Sal C by trying to turn about a comment he made on common errors of evolutionary materialism promoters into remarks on creationism. This is incorrect, and as it has been repeatedly corrected on warrant, it is a disregard for duties of care to truth and fairness reflective of precisely the sort of nihilistic ruthless factionalism that I point to above. This gives examples of and underscores the concerns I have pointed to J above. Concerns that trace as far back as Plato. . . . gotta go, g'day.kairosfocus_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT}

F/N: First, still too busy to discuss or detail; I suggest that those who want to see more on the sort of issues on grounding of morality should cf here. (And for sparc and others at Anti-Evo indulging in sneer, suggest and smear tactics, the "crisis" I am referring to, is about this matter and several linked policy issues, not the minor note I made here in response to questions I was asked, cf. footnote there.)kairosfocus_{June 11, 2012
June
06
Jun
11
11
2012
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

bpragmatic,
TOE tries to assert and claims to demonstrate how a vast vast array of chemical, molecular, physical relationships emerged and continues to emerge over a vast amount of time in the form of living organisms and systems. Some say highly speculative, undemostratable, unsupported. AND, not without huge implications to our social, moral and ethical sensibilities.
What implications to our social, moral and ethical sensibilities? Will knowing we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and tigers and elephants and newts and bananas and sea urchins change what we feel is right or wrong or moral or ethical? I think my morals are made of sterner stuff than that!! AND have nothing to do with our ancestors. Scordova, I examine evolutionary biology's claims all the time. All knowledge is provisional. We work with models that need to be revised and updated as new data is accumulated.Jerad_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

Jerad wrote:
it, measure it, show me when and when not. Then I’ll give it a good thought.
If that's the case, then evolutionism should be given thought, unless of course speculation counts as fact. :-)scordova_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

"Whether the science be physics or evolutionary biology, it teaches us only what the observable world is like and how it works. Such sciences as physics, chemistry, geology, physiology, and neurobiology, exactly like evolutionary biology, admit no supernatural causes for the actions of atoms, the sun’s energy, the health or ills of the human body, or the powers of the human brain. These sciences recognize only natural, material causes, and we rely on their naturalistic theories when we build airplanes, synthesize new plastics, listen to weather reports, or consult our doctors. We would no more apply religious principles to these activities than we would seek moral guidance from medical doctors, engineers, or chemists. SO IT IS WITH EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE: no more nor less materialistic than any other science, it offers no moral guidance, only dispassionate analysis of HOW BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS FUNCTION AND CAME TO BE. What use we make of such information is for individuals and society to decide." (caps are mine) It seems to me there are big difference between some of the sciences listed in this comment and evolutionary "science". In my mind physics, chemistry, physiology, and neurobiology seem to be involved in making observations in "real time" and applying the knowledge gained to find solutions and applications to current problems and utilizations in a practical sense. "How things came to be" or where things came from doesn't seem to be the primary emphasis to these sciences. TOE tries to assert and claims to demonstrate how a vast vast array of chemical, molecular, physical relationships emerged and continues to emerge over a vast amount of time in the form of living organisms and systems. Some say highly speculative, undemostratable, unsupported. AND, not without huge implications to our social, moral and ethical sensibilities. Does anyone care to comment?bpragmatic_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Scordova, Dr Coyne certainly did say that but he did not mean to imply it wasn't true!! AS he's made perfectly clear. In his next couple of sentences he makes the point that evolutionary biology is an historical science which is limited in the kinds of 'experiments' it can do. It's as much a science as archaeology or geology. I don't see there being much of an option aside from extrapolating current known laws over all time and space. Until we find new laws or governing principles that apply in certain situations. But if there are discernible laws that are defined and restricted and measurable then they are not supernatural. We don't know how gravity works but we can measure it and limit it and use the 'law' of gravity to make predictions of planetary motion. I don't mind physicist and cosmologists hypothesising dark matter or energy or multiple universes or string theory or whatever. But until there is lots of collaborating evidence and some equations I'll remain sceptical. MIND is a perfectly good cause IF there's a MIND around at the given time capable of the required task. Just like your hidden mechanisms. Define it, measure it, show me when and when not. Then I'll give it a good thought.Jerad_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

Jerad cited:
Whether the science be physics or evolutionary biology, it teaches us only what the observable world is like and how it works.
Evoutionists should stop elevating their discipline to the level of physics. And that is the subject of this thread. I'll let Jerry Coyne tell the world where evolutionism really belongs:
In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics
Phrenology is a pseudo science, ergo, that's what evolutionism closer to, not a real science like physics. Futher, physics is still uncovering how the world is built, it hasn't ruled out the possibility of mechanisms that are no longer in operation today. In fact, some physical mechanisms are clearly not in operation today which were presumed to operate in the past -- such as those described by modern cosmology. If we can then assume the current laws in our labs were not eternal and immutable, then lots of things are possible. If we assume even mainstream cosmolgy, we assume the mechanism that made the observable world are themselves unobservable. Whether we affix the label "supernatural" to these unobservable mechanisms is one of philosophical preference. But suffice to say, the world we live in was constructed by mechanism we cannot observe directly, but only deduce by inference.
Such sciences as physics, chemistry, geology, physiology, and neurobiology, exactly like evolutionary biology, admit no supernatural causes
That's wrong because evolutionism isn't a science, it is a pseudo science. And even supposing there are only natural causes, it doesn't make a bad theory true. By way of example, phologiston and epicycle theories are naturalistic, but the assumption of naturalism doesn't make them true any more than the assumption of naturalism makes evolutionism true. In prinicple there could be competing naturalistic theories. "Supernatural" is somewhat a theological concept. Assuming that we can extrapolate the laws we deduce from our small sample size of observations to all time and space is a bit of stretch. It is possible in principle some other mechanisms was in operation which we do not see today. Whether one wishes to affix the label of "miracle", "supernatural", etc. is a theological judgement, not a scientific one. It is perfectly scientific to say that evolutionism doesn't provide an adequate mechanism. It is perfectly scientific to say the mechanism that designed the complexity of life are not seen in operation today. Why is that so hard to accept? The assumption of naturalism doesn't formally entail the acceptance of evolutionism. Not that I agree with them, but some naturalistic models proposed are: 1. self-organization 2 extra terrestrial origin of life 3. independent origiin of species (Senepathy) etc. If MIND is the most fundamental part of nature, then ID doesn't violate naturalism if MIND were the most basic component. This was suggested by Richard Conn Henry.scordova_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

GEM,
And, such materialism has in its worldview foundations no IS that can objectively ground ought. Matter, energy, space, time and blind forces of chance and necessity simply do not have that capacity.
And it's not saying it addresses what you call 'ought'. There may be individuals who make the attempt or get cranky and poo-poo ethics and morals. But there are hundreds, thousands of working scientists who do share many of your philosophical/ideological beliefs and still believe that such issues should not enter into the scientific realm. When theology makes scientific claims then I think it is fair to examine those claims but as far as 'ought' is concerned . . . not part of science. If you don't like the fact that some people embrace 'scientism' instead of faith then you'd best talk to those people. If they find strict materialism more comforting than theology I guess you'd better find out why. I don't see the conflict myself. I don't look to science to tell me how to think or behave but when I want to know how something works then I start with science.
. . . it has been known that such ideologies lend themselves to radical relativism, are championed by ruthless nihilistic factions, and do end up in one species or another of entailing that might and manipulation make ‘right,’ which is here shown in quotes to indicate that such do not vest this term with the same meaning as the victim of a bully crying out that his behaviour is not right and ought to stop. (And we all know just how much attention bullies pay to pleas to do the right thing.)
Throughout history there have been bullies, religious and otherwise. Plenty of people who claim great faith have committed hideous atrocities. Being bound by a transcendent OUGHT is no guarantee of moral behaviour unfortunately. And there seems to be quite a few transcendental OUGHTS around.Jerad_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply