Survival of the Sickest, Why We Need Disease

_{Salvador Cordova

April 27, 2009

Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

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

“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature!”

This is a phrase a software engineer will use to jokingly confess his software has a defect.

When Sharon Moalem wrote the NY Times Bestseller, Survival of the Sickest: Why We Need Disease, he probably did not intend to make a joking confession of flaws in Darwin’s theory, but he succeed in doing so.

Recall the words of Darwin:

Natural Selection is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good.

C.DARWIN sixth edition Origin of Species — Ch#4 Natural Selection

If Darwin’s claim is true, why then are we confronted with numerous, persistent, hereditary diseases?

Can it be that Darwin was wrong? The obvious answer is yes. But in the face of an obvious flaw in Darwin’s ideas, Moalem argues that what appears to be a flaw in Darwin’s theory is actually an ingenious feature! Moalem extols the virtues of disease, and since disease is virtuous, natural selection will favor it.

It is accepted that sickle-cell anemia persists because of natural selection, but what about other diseases? Moalem explores many other diseases like diabetes, hemochromatosis, high cholesterol, early aging, favism, obesity, PANDAS, CCR5-delta32, xenophobia, etc. showing how natural selection incorporated these “virtuous” diseases into our species.

Moalem is not alone in arguing that natural selection creates through the process of destruction. For example, Allen Orr suggests that natural selection is the cause of blindness in Gammarus minus. In the world of Darwin, what happened to Gammarus minus isn’t the loss of vision, it is the creation of blindness. And since selection favors blindness in Gammarus minus, blindness is a functional improvement! Once again, Darwinism is immune to any testability through the process of constantly redefining what is considered “good”.

The net result is that Moalem’s book becomes an unwitting critique of Darwinian evolution. It highlights numerous empirical examples of how natural selection actually goes against Darwinian ideas of constant progress, and instead demonstrates how natural selection can be an agent of demise.

Comments

Indeed, I would go further than this: it would be wrong to demand that anyone accept the results of any scientific analysis as “the final truth” about anything at all. Very true!tribune7_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

jerry in #356: I have read the link you posted, and this caught my eye:
"...the evolutionary debate is mainly about the mechanism for the development of new complex functional capabilities and secondarily about how fast some of these complex functional capabilities can permeate a population once they arrive."
I completely and wholeheartedly agree, and would go on to point out that this means that the real focus of evolutionary studies in the future should be on the "engines of variation" about which I have written much lately. The answer to the question of "where do genuinely new biological forms (and the information that underlies them) come from" is to be found in the 50+ mechanisms of phenotypic variation that I have listed at my blog: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html If there is an answer to the core question that lies at the heart of both evolutionary biology and ID, I am confident that it will eventually be found there. Looking for the answer should keep several generations of scientists busy for at least the next century. I wish them luck! P.S. I hope by this answer to your question I have made it clear that I believe that the question posted above is still an open one.Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

There's more than one way to make an ad hominemargument, but all of them are both illegitimate and self-defeating...Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Thank you, UprightBiped. If your sentiments are genuine, indeed, my sincere thanks. If they are meant as sarcasm, then please read comment #354, especially the last paragraph.Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

I am particularly taken at the vast influence of the guys at the Panda's Thumb, although they only inhabit a virtual smoke-filled room. :) On a more serious note, Stephen says,
Of course, that is ridiculous on the face of it because you can’t practice methodological naturalism while you are “thinking God’s thoughts after him.”
When I have pointed out that in fact thousands of Christian scientists who do believe in God and would assent to the idea that they are “thinking God’s thoughts after him” also would say that they practice methodological naturalism, Stephen responded,
Totally irrelavent
I presume then that Stephen dismisses these thousands of Christian scientists as “ridiculous” and “irrelevant”. Not only are atheists like me part of this conspiracy to outlaw ID, but so, it seems, are many of Stephen’s presumably fellow Christians.hazel_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

360 is a perfect response by Allen. Smug, minimalizing, absolutely perfect. BravoUpright BiPed_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Feel better now, stephen? I hope so. Perhaps now you might actually get on with the discussion at hand, now that you've finished venting your spleen against the "bad guys" in their "smoke-filled rooms". However, you won't be doing it with me. I didn't put up with John A. Davison's apparent compulsion to forgo reasoned argument for ad hominem arguments, character assassination, rampant speculation about motives, demonization of one's opponents, and guilt by association, nor will I respond to yours. If you can someday bring yourself to make arguments based on evidence using a collegial tone, I will respond in kind. Until then, I will no longer respond to you at all.Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

In #357 tribune7 wrote:
"...it is wrong to demand that he be required o accept the results as the final truth."
Indeed, I would go further than this: it would be wrong to demand that anyone accept the results of any scientific analysis as "the final truth" about anything at all. As I have pointed out many, many times, science isn't about "truth", final or otherwise. It's inherently provisional and always open to revision as the result of new empirical findings.Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

I think it was Chesterton who once said, “Grant me this one assumption and all the rest will be easy.” Naturally, if I grant that the YEC fiasco was the impetus for establishing the "rule" of methodological naturalism, then sure, everything falls right into place for the Darwinists. [Define Darwinist as anyone who thinks that naturalistic forces can create new information]. What could be more rewarding for their side than to think that evolutionary biologists saved science from the anti-science YECs. However, there is one little problem with that thesis: YEC was never really a significant threat to their paradigm because they could always dismiss it as a faith based methodology. Indeed, the YECs served the Darwinist community very well, providing it with an easy target for ridicule. No, it wasn’t the YEC approach that motivated the academy to establish this arbitrary and intrusive rule of methodological naturalism. Religion masquerading as science can hardly compete with evolutionary biology, even if the latter model makes unwarranted scientific claims for itself. The real threat came from the ID paradigm and the introduction of information-oriented, empirically-based models. It was at this juncture that Darwinists lost their sense of humor. With the advent of intelligent design, there was a new game in town, or, more precisely, a reformulation of the old natural theology reworked as empirically based science. It had been easy enough in the past for Darwinists to militate against natural theology and its allusions to “final causes” by simply shrugging it off as non-science. But what were they to do with this new formulation that could actually detect design using scientific methodologies. The answer wasn’t long in coming. The good old boys got together in the smoke filled rooms of academia and established a new rule called methodological naturalism. According to this formulation, science must approach nature as if “nature is all there is.” Now this stretch was not hard to make. While science was never “exclusively” about natural causes, it had, indeed, always been “primarily” about natural causes. Christians in the middle ages understood that God was not capricious or prone to arbitrarily throw thunderbolts out of the sky. Quite the contrary, God was rational and comprehending and, proper to his character, had created a rational and comprehensible universe. That fact prompted the early scientists to look for and study rational elements in the universe, various manifestations of order expressed in terms of regularities and laws. So, to get at that one aspect of rationality and order, they searched “primarily” for natural causes. At the same time, they hardly assumed that naturalistic forces are the only manifestation of God’s order, meaning that science was not “exclusively” about natural causes. So, the strategy was easy enough. All the Darwinist community needed to do was claim that science was “exclusively” about natural causes. Suddenly, the pesky problem of a competing paradigm is solved, design inferences are reduced to non-scientific status, and ID is out of business. Never mind that natural laws were only a part of God’s rational order. What did reality have to do with anything when perception was the name of the game? The real issue was to disfranchise ID from the community of researches and scholars by making it appear as non-scientific and the only way to do that was to establish a new scientific standard that had never been heard of before, and they called it methodological naturalism. Of course, that wasn’t their only strategy for killing the ID movement. There was this other little thing called slander. Everyone knew that the ID community is populated with Christians, and everyone also knew that many Christians accept YEC. Why not, they reasoned, conflate the two and put the “creationist” brand on ID. In other words, tell everyone that ID is nothing more than “creation science” in a cheap tuxedo. Not only is that a very effective lie; its one hell of a metaphor. That’s important, because, as everyone knows, metaphors travel with the speed of light. Now did it matter to them that creationism is faith based and that intelligent design is empirically based? No. Why allow the truth to get in the way of a self-serving strategy? Did it matter that both creation science and intelligent design each had a pedigree that goes back two thousand years, and therefore could not possibly be the same thing. No. Why would that matter if it complicates their plan to destroy ID? Meanwhile, there was a problem on the methodology front. It appears that someone figured out that if Intelligent Design is not really science, then none of the earliest scientific geniuses could possibly be scientists either since they were all design thinkers. In other words, Richard Dawkins is a scientist, but Sir Isaac Newton was a fraud. That is a hard line to sell to anybody. So, a new strategy emerged, [Darwinists never design anything]. They said this: Newton and company grounded their methodology in nature, which distinguishes them from ID scientists. The strategy was conceived in the hope that everyone concerned would forget a small little fact: ID scientists ground their methodology in nature as well, so the point is irrelevant. But if one fantasy doesn’t work, try another. So, they presented the same mischievous argument in another form: Newton, Faraday, Boyle, and all the others, we are told, all “practiced” methodological naturalism. Of course, that is ridiculous on the face of it because you can’t practice methodological naturalism while you are “thinking God’s thoughts after him.” Ah, but they were just getting started, especially over at Panda’s Thumb. Evidently, someone must have come up with the idea of using two definitions for methodological naturalism so that it could be both new and old at the same time. On the one hand, they use the first definition, [studying nature as if nature is all there is] to discredit ID and label it as non-scientific; on the other hand, they use the second definition [studying natural causes] to associate methodological naturalism with the earlier scientists and give it a phony history and instant credibility. So, when someone points to their outrageous habit of persecuting ID researchers by appealing to their arbitrary, pseudo-scientific methodology, they can smugly retort, “Oh, I suppose Newton, Faraday, and Boyle were using pseudo-scientific methodologies as well.” So, for Darwinists a methodology can be old or new, true or false, existent or non-existent---whatever works. It is simply a case of using whatever definition is needed for the moment. How sweet it is.StephenB_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

ID as a way of getting their version of YEC back in the public schools. Allen, you make some very good points. If you recall the movie "Inherit the Wind" you will remember Spencer Tracy packing the Bible with Darwin at the end. Of course, the movie was made pre-Engel v. Vitale, which is where I think the problem started. With regard to YEC, the solution is to teach the methodology rather than the conclusion. It is quite appropriate to require a young Evangelical to understand how radiometric dating works or how the inferences are arrived at from geological strata. OTOH, it is wrong to demand that he be required o accept the results as the final truth. Conversely, it is appropriate to require one raised as a non-Biblical literalist to read an OT genealogy -- without sneering -- and to understand how the YEC calculation is arrived at, and why it shouldn't be mocked.tribune7_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Allen, I have been one of the ID people here that has been very critical of YEC science. In fact I have said that YEC science is a millstone around the neck of ID because of the conflation of the two. I have nothing against YEC's personally and in fact a few who comment here are very bright and insightful and nearly all are polite and respectful. About 8 months ago I wrote something about the confusion that people have with ID and asked a YEC person here to comment on it and since that time a couple anti ID people also have commented. None found anything wrong with it except for a small nit on terminology. it is here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/november-apologetics-conference-we-need-more-than-good-arguments/#comment-296129 If you have time, maybe you could read it and offer any comments on how to make it clearer or better or more consistent with your understanding. The purpose obviously is to present to anyone who tries to conflate the two positions so we do not waste time on useless debate.jerry_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Allen - many interesting comments - and thanks for the support for my thoughts about the value and purpose of such discussions. I know that the important lurkers - those that are really trying to sort out where they stand - are more likely to be influenced when comments are on-topic and not personal attacks. There may be those that silently cheer when someone is put down, but they are usually firmly in one camp anyway, and are here for entertainment, not growth.hazel_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

An interesting discussion, and resolved in the way that most such discussions are resolved: with the participants agreeing to disagree. I apologize for having departed early, but it's final exam time, two of my six children are home with the flu (not the porcine variety, thank goodness!) and there are other threads to which I wished to contribute. That said, I think it would be interesting for both sides in the debate around methodological naturalism (MN) to consider why this term has become so widely used in recent times. For the sake of argument, let us assume that, indeed, the entire concept of MN only became "solidified" following Paul de Vries' coinage of the term in 1983. For the sake of argument, let us concede stephenB's assertion that prior to that time the use of "non-natural" assumptions was indeed legitimate for at least inspiring scientific research (as, indeed, history shows us was clearly the case). Let us then further assume that the current application of MN does indeed exclude any reference to "non-natural causes", either in the design of experimental tests of hypotheses or in their interpretation. One might then reasonably ask, "What happened in the early 1980s that prompted such a dramatic shift in the perception of scientists, so dramatic that it led most scientists to reject what had previously been allowable: that is, the use of "non-natural" hypotheses as an inspiration for scientific research (if not necessarily also in the interpretation of the results of such research)? I believe that if one examines what was happening the early 1980s vis-a-vis evolutionary biology, the answer to this question is obvious: the rise of "scientific creationism" (especially of the "young Earth" variety) as a political force in the U.S., culminating in the SCOTUS' decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (482 U.S. 578) in 1987. During the 1960s, American science was promoted very hard, both by government and by scientists themselves, as a reaction to scientific advances by the Soviet Union. Part of this promotion involved the formulation of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) protocol and its associated textbooks (the "blue", "green", and "yellow" versions). All three versions stressed evolutionary theory as providing a foundation for the biological sciences. This was virtually the first time since 1925 (and the conviction of John T. Scopes for having violated Tennessee's Butler Act by teaching evolution in a public school classroom) that evolutionary theory had been so prominently featured in biology textbooks that were widely promoted in the American public school system. This caused an immediate negative reaction among American evangelical Christian groups. Legislative bans on the teaching of evolution similar to the Butler Act were either reinstated or promoted in several states. At the same time, Henry Morris and other "scientific creationists" founded and promoted the "scientific creationism" movement, which sought to provide scientific evidence for their version of "young Earth creationism" (YEC). Not much actual science was done by these self-described YECs, but strenuous political efforts were undertaken to have their YEC reinterpretations of existing scientific information incorporated into public school curricula in several states (most notably Arkansas and Louisiana). In reaction to these efforts by YECs, the scientific community partnered with the ACLU and allied organizations to bring such efforts to the attention of the SCOTUS, with the intention of having them outlawed as violating the first amendment to the US constitution. These efforts were ultimately successful, as both laws banning evolution from public school science classes and the attempts to insert YEC in public school science classes were struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. These events, and not the subsequent rise of ID, are the context within which the adoption of MN by the scientific community in the 1980s can most effectively be viewed. From my interactions with them, I have found that some ID supporters are very strongly in sympathy with the YECs, and view ID as a way of getting their version of YEC back in the public schools. This was clearly the case in the Dover Area school board's 2005 attempt to provide students with alternative biology textbooks incorporating ID, as shown by the sworn testimony by several of the members of that school board and other members of the board who were present at meetings at which this plan was discussed and approved. However, in my interactions with other ID supporters (and especially the members of the Cornell IDEA Club and some commentators at this website), I have come to understand that a significant fraction of ID supporters do not accept that YEC is a legitimate empirical science, nor support it's incorporation in public school science curricula. The dispute that has occurred in this thread (and similar recent disputes elsewhere) seem to me to be examples of people "fighting the last war" rather than dealing with the situation as it exists today. ID supporters who are not YECs need to understand that most evolutionary biologists lump the two together, partly because of the behavior of the Dover Area school board and similar, more local situations in which YECs have persisted in pushing their views into the public schools. At the same time, evolutionary biologists and their political supporters need to understand that there is no necessary connection between YEC and ID, nor are they united in their conviction that YEC and ID must be incorporated into the public school curriculum today. A recognition of the political contexts within which both EBers and IDers have come to their positions, and what these contexts imply about the value of possible further actions would be valuable for both sides in this debate. I have had many ID supporters say privately to me that Dover was a disaster for ID, and especially for its quest to be accepted as a legitimate empirical science. I have also had many evolutionary biologists express to me their opinion that there is essentially no difference between YEC and ID, a viewpoint that I have learned through experience is clearly in error. Ergo, I have concluded that the most effective way to move forward in this debate is the way I have been conducting it since the mid-1990s. That is, to invite supporters of both sides of the debate to make presentations in my evolution courses and seminars at Cornell and to conduct such debates in public forums such as this website. Ironically, I find this venue to be much more congenial to such debates than places like AtBC, in which character assassination is the order of the day, rather than the last resort of people who are either confused about their own position or uncertain about its logical force. And so, I recommend that all participants in this debate emulate hazel (bless her heart!) in the avoidance of name-calling and ad hominem arguments. As hazel has pointed out, for each committed commentator here there are many thousands of quiet observers who are trying to come to their own conclusions about the issues being debated here. While mud-slinging is fun, it's fun in the same way that smoking or drinking heavily is fun; it provides short-term personal gratification, but in the long term it undermines everything one is trying to accomplish. I believe that clarity should be our goal, not necessarily agreement. If we come to clarity about our positions and agree to disagree, then we have accomplished a great deal more than we would have accomplished if our goal was simply to attack our opponents' characters or to question their personal motives. Going forward I will do my best to pursue this course of action, and recommend that all who genuinely wish to come to clarity on these issues and, by doing so, help the "silent watchers" of this forum to do so as well, treat each other as colleagues (in the "collegiate" sense of that word) in their pursuit of what they perceive to be the truth, rather than as enemies in a culture war.Allen_MacNeill_{May 2, 2009
May
05
May
2
02
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Jerry wrote @ 336
StephenB, “Both sides understand the meaning.” Our know nothings here seem to claim other wise. You have show that some people are explicit in the limitations on conclusions from a study. No one is obliged to follow these dictums and we have a host of people here including hazel, Allen MacNeill, Nakashima, Alan Fox and Seversky who will join us in fighting this edict. I assume they will fight with us to oppose it. Otherwise we should ask them why and see how they wiggle out of support.
Neither Kurtz nor Plantinga are Ultimate Arbiters of what constitutes methodological naturalism (MN) although I believe Kurtz's view is widely held. MN should not exclude any investigable explanation by fiat but, as a method of deciding between competing explanations, it can only work with those that offer at least the possibility of being tested. Proposing as an explanation a god or other supernatural being who exists in some domain entirely separate from our Universe such that we can know nothing about them, even in principle, is of no use because we have no way of testing the accuracy of any claims about them. If, on the other hand, some sort of god or Intelligent Designer is being proposed that is actively involved in the world then, to that extent at least, it is part of the natural order and is accessible to scientific investigation. It is also no longer supernatural by definition. In one sense, MN does no more than what many here have urged as the proper course which is to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. This, to me, raises an interesting question. Although this website is dedicated to Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, there are a number of regular commenters here who make no bones about their religious sympathies and affiliations and I suspect that there are more who are not so open. It is also fairly obvious that much of the animosity expressed here towards evolution and materialism stems from a perceived conflict with - and even threat to - those strongly-held beliefs. On The Panda's Thumb website there is this quote from an essay by Richard Dawkins about creationist Kurt Wise:
Kurt Wise doesn’t need the challenge; he volunteers that, even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted Scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on Scripture and deny the evidence. This leaves me, as a scientist, speechless. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have a mind capable of such doublethink.
My question to the believers here is: do you agree with Wise? Do you stand foursquare on the overriding Truth of Scripture regardless of any and all contradictory evidence that might be discovered by science?Seversky_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I have read your post at #309 and you are probably right about the people here. My point is that science only investigates natural phenomena. The hypotheses have to be based on the observation of or manipulation of natural phenomena. We have no way to do anything else. But people are failing to distinguish between this and the explanations for the phenomena or the conclusions. There is no necessary logical reason to limit the explanations for these natural phenomena a priori so the scientist should not be compelled to use only natural explanations especially when these conclusions do not make sense. Now in reality, natural explanations will make sense nearly all of the time but in some cases they will not. So what do we call this more reasonable type of science. This is the science practiced by nearly everyone until recent times. I personally have no problem with the term "methodological naturalism" because all these words are referring to is the methods used and that they be natural. I understand the imposition of the constrained conclusions is now part of the use of this term. But when one forces a set of conclusions, one is admitting weakness because they do not think the conclusions will stand on their own but must load it in their favor. If a non natural explanation, Zeus throwing lightning bolts, is seen as absurd and weak it will disappear and be laughed away. So what are they afraid of? We know the answer. But what do we call this type of research? That was the point of my questions as to who supports the usual definition of methodological naturalism and who doesn't. It all depends on what is allowed as a conclusion.jerry_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT}

OK, Hazel: Meanwhile, I will work at improving my tone and strive to exercise more self control.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Well, thanks Stephen, and this time my thanks are more genuine. I don't, however, agree with the distinction you are making about me. My main goal is to refine my understanding of what I believe through dialog with others. Since you don’t agree with me on some very fundamental things you see my arguments as faulty, and thus see my skills as poorly serving my understanding, but, as I have stated a number of times before, I see my position as solid (although growing as I learn) and therefore I see my skills as enhancing my arguments. In general I hope to make sophisticated arguments, but I don't think that I am sacrificing one quality at the expense of the other. But I understand and accept that you think otherwise about me, and I appreciate your efforts to try to make your assessment of me clear.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Hazel: I know that you don’t want any advice from me, but here is a tip. You have the ability to put words together in a credible way, a gift that not everyone has. You also have the capacity to probe beyond that which is obvious. That too, is good. Here is the thing: Build your sophistication around the argument; don’t try to build an argument around your sophistication.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the encouraging words, Stephen, and so long for now.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

@346: If you ever do find your way to a reasoned argument, or if you somehow experience a moment of clarity, cling to the one and hope that the other follows.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

@345: I am afraid that if I enter that fog I will never get back out. So, you get the last word.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

For what it's worth, I see over on the FAQ thread here Diffaxial is making specific points that support what I am saying: that the natural/supernatural distinction is not what is important, but rather whether the hypothesis in question has any specific empirically testable entailments by which the hypothesis can be confirmed or disconfirmed. That is what demarks something as amenable to scientific investigation or not, not whether it falls on one side or another of some natural/supernatural definitional line.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

re 343: I didn't say "critical" of MN - I said I'd expressed reservations or qualifications. My point is, and here I am somewhat in agreement with Jerry, that someone might offer a hypothesis that posited what appeared to be a "supernatural" phenomena (say, radio waves when they were first being proposed), but we might later discover that they can be investigated with the tools of science. Have we now admitted the supernatural into science, or have we incorporated what we thought was supernatural into the natural world? To some extent the supernatural/natural distinction causes some semantic confusion, and therefore the statement from Kurtz - “all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events” - does not as clearly demark science from non-science as Kurtz may want to claim. The distinction I am making is not just my own - I know of others who make the same argument that I am making. That is why I stress a more complete look at the scientific method rather than a short encapsulation such as MN.hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Hazel at 342 has done a superb job of making my point at 321/325.Upright BiPed_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Hazel, there is not one word in those lengthy passages critical of MN. The only thing you have done there is provide an extended discussion about your perception of what science is. Why will you simply not acknowledge the fact that you didn't know what methodological naturalism was until I explained it. Indeed, I am not at all sure that you even know what it is now.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Stephen says that I have not expressed any reservations, or qualifications, about MN. I have. Here are parts of posts I made at 266 and 329. I don’t expect Stephen to agree with them. I’m just pointing out factual evidence that I have expressed some reservations. 266
However, there is a sense in which the whole discussion of methodological naturalism is misleading, or at least hides some of the real issues. Science starts with some fundamental concepts. The first is that it is based on observable (and in many cases measurable) sensory phenomena that are common to all human beings. Second, scientific explanations have to be testable in the sense that there are further observations that are capable of aiding in the confirmation or disconfirmation of the explanation. In a sense we define natural (or at least material) in reference to whether something can fall under the two criteria listed above: it is these component parts of science that are truly what distinguish it. Methodological naturalism is an umbrella term for the whole set of things which make up the scientific method, but it is a somewhat misleading term because it implies that what is natural can be defined separate from, or prior to, the process of scientific investigation. That is, one can propose what at first glance might be a non-natural explanation or a non-natural phenomena, but if in fact we could test that hypothesis using empirical evidence, then the phenomena would be better considered “natural.” So the big question is not whether proposal X is natural or not, but whether it is testable or not. Focussing first on “natural” is somewhat misleading, and perhaps has the cart before the horse.
329
In particular my point has been that focussing on some supposed dividing line between natural and non-natural obfuscates the more important point: that scientific explanations have to be testable in terms of further empirical observations. If there is nothing we, humankind at large, could observe to help us know whether a particular explanation is true or not, or to help us know what further refinements we might make in our explanation, then the explanation is not scientific. I think this distinction is more useful than saying science can only study nature in terms of its constituent parts, so I think the MN argument is perhaps a distraction unless one just takes it as shorthand for the scientific method as a whole (observations, testing hypotheses, etc.).
hazel_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

that should read, "why you are [now] retreating from that position."StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

----Hazel" I have expressed some reservations, or at least qualifications, about MN at 266, 314, and 329." No you have not. You stated several times the MN is the only thing that works and has ever worked. Of course, you didn't know what it was when you were saying that, which is why you are not retreating from that position.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Jerry, when I say “Both sides" understand the meaning of methdological naturalism, I don't mean both sides on this site. I mean both sides among those who are acquainted with the matter. In other words all the heavy hitters on both the ID side and Darwinist side understand the point. You will recall the context that I made that statement was in my references to Plantiga and Kurtz. I assume that Allen MacNeill was also aware of it.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

----Jerry: "Our know nothings here seem to claim other wise. You have show that some people are explicit in the limitations on conclusions from a study. No one is obliged to follow these dictums and we have a host of people here including hazel, Allen MacNeill, Nakashima, Alan Fox and Seversky who will join us in fighting this edict." Jerry, I wish you had read my earlier posts, because when folks come in late, I have to repeat points that I have perhaps overemphasized to the point of excess. First, methodological naturalism has an official definition and it is the one that I have explained several times. That definition rules out ID in principle. So, there isn't really anything complicated about how ID should respond to it. Now it does get complicated when some folks try to justify methodological naturalism by saying that it has always been the scientific method and even go to the extreme of saying that earlier scientists, like Newton etc, practiced it, when they obviously did not. In order to pull that off, they change the definition from the stringent anti-ID formula to one like the one you presented earlier to make it seem benign so that they can use that new definition to claim that MN has always been the default scientific position. I have been laboring to explain this for a long time on this thread and it is very difficult to sum up at the last minute. I have just had a long battle with Allen and an extended discussion with Hazel on this matter, so there is a great deal that has gone on that you don't know about. I would ask you to at least read my summary post at 309 to get caught up.StephenB_{May 1, 2009
May
05
May
1
01
2009
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 14 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply