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

Gil, I think one of the points you make in your post was nicely summed up by Vox Day a while ago.nullasalus_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

J: Passed by for a moment, crisis continues. I see:
Anti-evolutionists have charged that evolution robs society of any foundation for morality and ethics, and that it teaches a materialistic world view, which would justify the principle that might makes right. But evolutionary science has never taught any such thing, and if properly exercised, cannot teach any such thing, for science in itself has no moral or ethical content
This actually reflects exactly the problem. Scientific methods are incapable of GROUNDING either ethics or logic, but their roots are inextricable from ethical and logical principles. E.g. think about the value of truthfulness [think about scientific fraud] and the academic crime of plagiarism, or the reason why we insist on coherence in scientific reasoning. First principles of logic and morality -- whether admitted or not -- are foundational to science. However, over the past 150 or so years we have seen the rise to institutional dominance of the ideologies of evolutionary materialism and scientism. Such love to dress up in the lab coat and pretend to be grounded in science. In fact, they censor it on one hand and pretend that it exhausts knowledge on the other. 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. As has been often pointed out, ever since Plato, 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.) The only place where right can enter a worldview is in its foundations, i.e. there has to be a foundational IS that does ground ought. There is just one serious candidate, the inherently good, reasonable creator God. And that is exactly the problem, from the days when Paul of Tarsus wrote to the Romans, to this day: THAT we don;t want to accept. But, if we are inevitably bound by a transcendent OUGHT, there is a transcendent OUGHT-giver, who has made things for a good purpose, such that evil is the privation or perversion out of such purpose. That, BTW, is why that which is evil is inevitably incoherent and destructive. G'day KFkairosfocus_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

What's that quote from, M. Holcumbrink? It has overtones of Catch 22, but it was a different theatre, wasn't it?Axel_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Private: Sir, latest intelligence suggests that the Germans will be concentrating their efforts to the North. Colonel: General consensus among the intelligence community says that the Germans will be heading South. We will therefore present this information as fact to General Eisenhower. Private: But Sir, the generals and the president will be making life altering decisions based on this intelligence. It seems to me that they would need to hear about it. Their outlook on this war could be drastically impacted by the latest data. Colonel: Look, private, intelligence reports have nothing whatsoever to do with logistics, training and maneuvers. We leave that up to strategists. Why would we put strategy in our intelligence reports? Private: You are absurd. Colonel: Watch it, private, or you will be digging latrines for the rest of the war.M. Holcumbrink_{June 10, 2012
June
06
Jun
10
10
2012
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

scordova, Thanks for the link! I found the support for evolutionary theory to be quite . . . uplifting. We're just going to have to disagree about that. I particularly liked this bit:
Anti-evolutionists have charged that evolution robs society of any foundation for morality and ethics, and that it teaches a materialistic world view, which would justify the principle that might makes right. But evolutionary science has never taught any such thing, and if properly exercised, cannot teach any such thing, for science in itself has no moral or ethical content, for good or ill. 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.
M Holcumbrink, Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I just guessed from your comments about the way you might feel.Jerad_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

For those who are interested in real science, as opposed to Darwinian fantasies and speculations, visit the following links about the project I mentioned: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/game_changing_technology/game_changing_development/HIAD/index.html http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=80731&media_id=144173551GilDodgen_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Well, if you really, really feel that teaching modern evolutionary theory is a violation of the separation of church and state…
You put words in my mouth. I didn’t say anything about evolutionary biology, and have nothing against it per se. What I am opposed to is ridiculous assumptions and conjecture being presented to our schoolchildren as fact, and if you define ‘evolutionary biology’ as the discipline of asserting and upholding a naturalistic worldview, and forbidding the suggestion that things could be to the contrary at the point of a gun, then yes, I consider that a violation of the establishment clause, because it is.M. Holcumbrink_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Rats, I was hoping your link the American Naturalists would take me to that particular quote, I wanted to read the entire context. Oh well.
Nothing was stopping you from finding the original citation from the now dead link. Buy anyway, in context, it's even more comical. Here is more from the same document: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html
Our comments concern course offerings for both biology majors and nonmajors. In many or most colleges and universities, a course on evolution is an elective, taken by a minority of biology majors, most of whom do not think it relevant to their medical or other careers
Evolutionsism is irrelevant and less than useful, because it teaches how to distort facts and make unwarranted and illogical inferences. That's BAD science. It's lack of study is not the fault of creationists, it's lack of study is because it is bad science. The constant propagandizing to support it is a consequence of its inability to stand as a legitimate enterprise. Bu wau of contrast, we have no such problem getting people to accept the notion of electricity.scordova_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Scordova, <blockquote?Consdier that even in college biologists don’t spend time teaching it in the classroom. From the Darwinist Propaganda Outfit American Naturalists Rats, I was hoping your link the American Naturalists would take me to that particular quote, I wanted to read the entire context. Oh well. M Holcumbrink,
I’m not the only one who thinks that our government has instituted a religion, as this post shows, and believe me, if I had the faintest clue how to go about taking it to court I would strongly consider it.
Well, if you really, really feel that teaching modern evolutionary theory is a violation of the separation of church and state then you could bring that up easily. Talk to a lawyer. Or the Discovery Institute. Seriously, if that's the way you feel then you should go for it. If the evidence is that strong then what are you waiting for? I keep hearing that 'Darwinism' is on its last legs, that a lot of people in America don't buy it, that there are lots and lots of scientists who secretly doubt 'Darwinism', that it's religion, that there's no evidence. And yet I don't see any attempt to confront the issue in courts. Even if you think the system is biased why not be pressing the issue over and over and over again? I guess I'm missing something. If I was that sure I was right I'd be pursuing it in every way I could.Jerad_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

This involves judging which simplifying assumptions can be made and which cannot, optimizing model design for computational efficiency without compromising the real-world integrity of the model, and discerning which components are critical to the outcome of the analysis and which are only incidental.
Actually, I was thinking along the lines of the graceful yet bold curves of a mustang convertible. Or the stunning architecture of certain cathedrals. You know, the way people make it fun to look at the stuff you use. I was thinking style, bro. You are still thinking too utilitarian, you egghead! I kid, I kid.M. Holcumbrink_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

sorry, here's the post to which I was referring.M. Holcumbrink_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

It’s ‘Venn’ diagram!
You know, before I wrote that last part I wasn’t sure so I actually looked up ‘venn diagram’ to make sure I spelled it right and I still spelled it wrong. If it were not for spell checker you guys would think I was in the third grade.
. . . it becomes painfully obvious that they are not doing science, to the detriment of our children and our nation. Our government has indeed instituted and now protects a religion, which last time I checked, is illegal. And all of this in plain view, without shame.
If you really do feel this way then I suggest you support pushing the case into the courts and getting all the top ID proponents to present their case. You can’t fall back on the conspiracy theory forever.
I’m not the only one who thinks that our government has instituted a religion, as this post shows, and believe me, if I had the faintest clue how to go about taking it to court I would strongly consider it. And here’s some examples of indoctrination from my college zoology text:
As the genealogy of life progressed and branched from the earliest living form to the millions of species living today…

Because all life shares a common evolutionary history and origin…

The replication of molecules, for example, can be traced to lifes origin and represents one of lifes most universal properties.

We can trace this common history backward through time from the diverse forms that we observe today and in the fossil record to their common ancestor that arose in the atmosphere of the primitive earth

The general structures of these macromolecules evolved and stabilized early in the history of life.
That’s from Hickman, Roberts and Larson, Integrated Principles of Zoology, 9th edition, WCB, 1995. But this stuff was taught to me in elementary school as well. Miller Urey type stuff and all that. And when you tell our schoolchildren these outlandish theories in the guise of fact, you are instituting a religious dogma, plain and simple, especially when it is not allowed to suggest that perhaps fully integrated algorithmic cybernetic systems regulated by compressed machine code and macromolecular machinery could be the result of a designing intelligence. Oh, those absurd creationists! How dare they make such a suggestion!M. Holcumbrink_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

So, random chance even has a taste for elegance... Well, well, who'd a thunk?Axel_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

But my bigger question is: are you asserting a giant conspiracy to ‘stay the course’ which is why the gig isn’t up yet? Or is it just ideological inertia?
I'm not asserting the reasons why we have the state of affairs, I'm asserting the evolutionism isn't science, but engineering, as a discipline is closer to science than evolutionism. I leave discussions of ideology and conspiracy to others. It will all be a moot point anyway if evolutionism is eventually wiped off the scientific map by the weight of facts.
And I’m guessing you don’t really want much time spent on teaching it in the classroom . . .
Me? Consdier that even in college biologists don't spend time teaching it in the classroom. :-) From the Darwinist Propaganda Outfit American Naturalists
evolutionary biology does not yet command a priority in educational curricula or in research funding. …. In many or most colleges and universities, a course on evolution is an elective, taken by a minority of biology majors, most of whom do not think it relevant to their medical or other careers. The majority of biology majors may have little exposure to evolution beyond a few weeks (or less) in an introductory biology course.
As Allen Orr described:
there’s a striking asymmetry in molecular versus evolutionary education in American universities. Although many science, and all biology, students are required to endure molecular courses, evolution, even introductory evolution, is often an elective. The reason is simple: biochemistry and cell biology get Junior into med school, evolution doesn’t. Consequently, many professional scientists know surprisingly little about evolution. Allen Orr
As Paul Nelson put it:
Paul Nelson in Junkyard Dog Chases Texas Philosopher molecular biology graduate students (for instance) don’t know much, or any, evolutionary theory…[because] Students don’t see the point of storytelling. They could take a Fiction Writing course for that. Paul Nelson
If even science grad students aren't indoctrinated into evolutionism, I see little reason to indoctrinate high schoolers, except maybe to familiarize them with the terminology in biological literature. Teach it to them, let them explore evolutionism, but don't teach them that it is real science, tell them the truth -- it is speculation not supported by empirical observation. Electromagnetism is an example of real scientific theory, not evolutionism.scordova_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

...there’s a huge art component as well.
It is interesting that you should mention this. My current specialty is finite element analysis computer simulations of nonlinear, transient, dynamic systems using an explicit FEA solver. This involves mathematics, physics, material properties, and more. The "more" part is more art than science. This involves judging which simplifying assumptions can be made and which cannot, optimizing model design for computational efficiency without compromising the real-world integrity of the model, and discerning which components are critical to the outcome of the analysis and which are only incidental. Of course, in the end, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the model and the analysis don't correspond with reality, you got the art wrong, the science wrong, or both. When my company first sent me away for training in FEA I remember that the instructor made the comment that what we were about to learn was part science and part art.GilDodgen_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Gil, Thanks for your reply. I am very familiar with voters' guides and I can see the appeal. I'm not sure I would want some issues (like capital punishment, gun control or even the need for taxation) settled by that kind of public fiat but you've given a clear and straight answer. Do you think it would have been reasonable in the 1950s to present plate techtonics in the same fashion? How about the Law of Attraction now? Or Astrology? M. Holcumbrink, It's 'Venn' diagram! I agree, there's a lot of creative thinking involved in engineering. I don't agree with you on this though:
. . . it becomes painfully obvious that they are not doing science, to the detriment of our children and our nation. Our government has indeed instituted and now protects a religion, which last time I checked, is illegal. And all of this in plain view, without shame.
If you really do feel this way then I suggest you support pushing the case into the courts and getting all the top ID proponents to present their case. You can't fall back on the conspiracy theory forever. scordova,
Darwinism by contrast: 1. ignore contrary observations 2. concoct self-contradictory, poorly defined, and indefensible ideas 3. substitute speculation for empirical results
Some of the time ID proponents accuse evolutionary biologist of ignoring some data and other times they are accused of constantly changing the theory to match the new data. I'm guessing you think they are doing both at different times. But my bigger question is: are you asserting a giant conspiracy to 'stay the course' which is why the gig isn't up yet? Or is it just ideological inertia? And I'm guessing you don't really want much time spent on teaching it in the classroom . . .
Darwinism is neither applied nor fundamental science. It’s not even science, it’s story tellling in the face of contrary evidence!
Some would say the same about ID. I think the important thing now is to find a way to come to some kind of agreement about what will be taught in the science classroom.Jerad_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

I like to think of a Vinn diagram, with science as a circle, mathematics as a circle, and art as a circle, and engineering defined as an intersection of all three. I had a professor tell our class that we should be coming up with ‘elegant’ solutions to problems, hence the art. Just think da Vinci, or architecture, to get what I mean. Then think of the fantastic beauty of the world of biology, which should tell you I’m thinking straight as well. I’m just saying, there’s a huge art component as well. Don’t forget that. Unless you’re a total egg-head, then never mind.M. Holcumbrink_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science Applied science is the application of scientific knowledge transferred into a physical environment. Examples include testing a theoretical model through the use of formal science or solving a practical problem through the use of natural science. Fields of engineering are closely related to applied sciences. Applied science is important for technology development. Its use in industrial settings is usually referred to as research and development (R&D). Applied science differs from fundamental science, which seeks to describe the most basic objects and forces, having less emphasis on practical applications. Applied science can be like biological science and physical science.
Darwinism is neither applied nor fundamental science. It's not even science, it's story tellling in the face of contrary evidence!scordova_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

The renowned Sigma Xi society promotes itself as: "The Scientific Research Soceity"
Fact Sheet: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society The 14th letter of the Greek alphabet, Xi is pronounced with a "Z" sound-as in "xylophone." Sigma Xi is the honor society of research scientists and engineers. It is an international, multidisciplinary society whose programs and activities promote the health of the scientific enterprise, reward excellence in scientific research and encourage a sense of companionship and cooperation among scientists in all fields. Founding: Sigma Xi was founded in 1886 at Cornell University by Frank Van Vleck, a junior faculty member, and a group of engineering students. http://www.sigmaxi.org/about/facts/index.shtml
Somewhat comically, they have a very prominent link to "Evolution Resources". Is a scientific theory so pathetically supported by empiricism that it needs such propagandizing. They don't have a links to electromagnetism (which is far more important to science than evolutionism).scordova_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. -- Jerry Coyne
Engineering is applied science. For example at Cornell University there is the school of The School of Applied and Engineering Physics. At another other schools Applied Physics is taught from the Engineering school. If Science is defined as : 1. Observation 2. Hypothesis 3. Testing Then, engineering does that. Consider what was needed to make major engineering achievements. Measurements (observations) of the physical nature of things must be made, a hypothesis (a design) is put forward, and then an object (the product) is test by creating it and using it. If it fails, the idea is modified until it works or is rejected entirely. A few engineers (like Eugene Wigner) have received Nobel prizes in science. Darwinism by contrast: 1. ignore contrary observations 2. concoct self-contradictory, poorly defined, and indefensible ideas 3. substitute speculation for empirical results Think I'm being too harsh? In Sciences Pecking Order...
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science [sic]... Laws and experiments are inappropriate… …. Instead one constructs a … narrative Ernst Mayer
In otherwords, tell stories rather than do experiments. And when experiments are done, be sure to spin the results like Lenski.scordova_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Do you think evolutionary theory should be taught in schools at all then?
Of course. It's a major phenomenon in the history of thought, and any well-educated person should be familiar with it. What I would like to see is a presentation somewhat like that used in voter guides for propositions. (We have a lot of them in California, and they are often deceptively presented and promoted.) The text of the proposition is offered. Pro and con arguments are presented, and rebuttals to each follow that. Then the voters make up their minds based upon what they consider to be the most convincing evidence and argumentation. The rebuttal phase is critical. I’ve read claims that irreducible complexity has been refuted, but when you read Behe’s rebuttals you discover that the "refutations" were nothing of the kind. As far as engineering versus science goes, this seems like a distinction without a difference. Aerodynamics is certainly a scientific discipline, and R&D engineering has all the hallmarks of scientific pursuit. One comes up with an idea (like producing an inflatable decelerator), theorizes about how this might be achieved based upon principles of known science, as well as mathematical and computer models, presents possibilities concerning unknowns in a heretofore unexplored area of investigation, and then builds and tests to validate or invalidate the idea and its theoretical underpinnings. If this isn’t science, I don’t know what is.GilDodgen_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

So I guess the only other thing I would add is that when you consider how ridiculous the junk DNA apologists are starting to look, and then consider their persistent obeisance to the theory that predicted it, and then consider Eugenie Scott’s crusade at the NCSE to defend and evangelize said theory, it becomes painfully obvious that they are not doing science, to the detriment of our children and our nation. Our government has indeed instituted and now protects a religion, which last time I checked, is illegal. And all of this in plain view, without shame.M. Holcumbrink_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

You seem to be comparing science with engineering. They are not the same, and they have different aims
You might have a point. I would say the largest distinction is that ‘engineers’ use the laws that the scientists discover, whereas ‘science’ is more into experimentation, gathering data, testing theories… Oh, wait, engineers do that too. All the time. So I guess the big difference is that pure science never really gets too practical. In fact, I would say that if a scientist ever starts to apply his theories for something useful, he has crossed the line into the engineering realm. Same with mathematics. Quite a bit of crossover, I guess. Engineers must be scientists and mathematicians, or else they end up pissing into the wind in the engineering world. Okay, so maybe the distinction has become more of an adherence to a particular dogmatism on the part of the scientists in the teeth of incontrovertible evidence, and to teach that dogmatism to our children at the point of a gun. Different aims indeed.M. Holcumbrink_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

Neil, Engineering is the queen of sciences. This is where speculations end and theories show their truth. AlexAlex73_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT}

AMEN. Evolutionism is all speculation and never flys anything and even jumping into a wind makes it go belly up. Past and gone events and processes can't be tested or verified very easily. ID folk should also remember this about geological ideas. Its the same law of error. Engineering isn't science? What's science? Engineering uses the discoverys by people using the same processes that we call science. In fact there is no such thing as science. Its just people thinking about stuff. they try to say science is a higher standard of thinking with detailed control of conclusions. Not in origin issues!Robert Byers_{June 9, 2012
June
06
Jun
9
09
2012
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

Gil, Do you think evolutionary theory should be taught in schools at all then?Jerad_{June 8, 2012
June
06
Jun
8
08
2012
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

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.
You seem to be comparing science with engineering. They are not the same, and they have different aims.Neil Rickert_{June 8, 2012
June
06
Jun
8
08
2012
09:51 PM
9
09
51
PM
PDT}

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.
Well said Mr Dodgen. The darwinian myth is UNscientific...it's UNfalsifiable. Anything that occurs/occurred is attributed to it, in spite of the evidence, no matter how absurd. The darwinian myth is the antithesis of science.Blue_Savannah_{June 8, 2012
June
06
Jun
8
08
2012
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply