68 comments (Add your own)

1. Bob wrote:

To address your objection Neotropic9:

ID is not a valid scientific position for a number of reasons. One of the largest is that it is not testable. Therefore, because the scientific method relies on testing to establish validity, ID is not scientifically valid.

This is not to say that ID is _untrue_, simply that it is not a scientific theory.

January 1, 2009 @ 9:17 AM

2. James wrote:

The problem here is that ID (which I generally agree with) is not a scientific theory. It is a religious perspective on a scientific subject. As such, it should be taught in theology classes, comparative religion courses, etc. The scientific community is right to ban it from science classrooms. Personally, I think it would damage peoples' faith to see a religious principle forced into an area where it doesn't belong. Why can't we just accept that science is doing it's best to explain our origins, and religion is doing its best organize these discoveries into a spiritual universe? Please: Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious peoples--let's show the world that we are not as ignorant as they try to make us out to be. Let science be science and religion be religion!

January 1, 2009 @ 9:26 AM

3. Cody wrote:

Bob, my objection with Neotropic9 is first with his style of argumentation. Simply asserting something doesn't make it so, which is what he did in his vlog.

Macroevolution is not a "testable" concept either. It is conjecture, a hypothesizing and extrapolating of thought based on microevolutionary data that we all agree on.

I don't want to concede that ID is totally untestable (because I don't know everything on this subject), but it certainly is an attempt to interpret scientific data (biological, mathematical, etc). In that sense, it appears to be as much "scientific" as Darwinism.

January 1, 2009 @ 9:43 AM

4. Cody wrote:

James, ID, properly understood, is not "religious" in any meaningful sense of the word. As one who as studied world religion extensively, I can tell you that you would have to radically redefine "religion." Neither is ID necessarily theistic. Certainly, that conclusion could be drawn (and I would argue that it should be drawn), but ID is simply not a setting forth of religious doctrines followed by an altar call. Of course, Darwinists (or at least those who have taught the science courses I have taken) would also have us believe that teaching Darwinism doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion of atheism. Never mind that it kind of does. The point is that it isn't supposed to be taught that way.

Personally, I like to think I know a thing or two about theology and comparative religion -- that is my field -- and I cannot imagine where ID would fit into the curriculum of a course like that.

"The scientific community is right to ban it from science classrooms."

So you are in favor of banning content from classrooms. So you concede Stein's point that Darwinists are seeking to relegate academic freedom. You are in favor of firing teachers who speculate on or write about ID? Do you also want to burn books? Arrest detractors?

"Personally, I think it would damage peoples' faith to see a religious principle forced into an area where it doesn't belong."

On what basis do you assume that the proper human experience is to divide up your life into several different realms? Faith and religion belong over here. Science and math over here. Doesn't it bother you that you have absolutely no "scientific" basis for claiming that faith "doesn't belong" in certain places? Does it bother you that most of the world doesn't bifurcate their lives in this way?

"Why can't we just accept that science is doing it's best to explain our origins"

But the fact of the matter is that Darwinism provides no theory of ORIGINS, but rather a theory of the development of species from simple to complex. There is no idea given about how life began in the first place or how matter originated. When pushed to talk about these things, Darwinists are as likely to talk about aliens or divinities as scratch their heads in confusion. ID does not necessarily contradict biological macroevolution (that tends to fall down all by itself). It tries to answer different questions, namely, how did it all begin?

"Please: Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious peoples--let's show the world that we are not as ignorant as they try to make us out to be."

By mindlessly agreeing with Darwinists? On what basis? What evidence? Am I to agree simply because they hold sway in the media and in academia? You are right that "they try to make us out to be" ignorant. Hey, some "religious people" are. But a person is certainly no intelligent simply because they assent to Darwinism. And a person isn't dumb simply because they don't buy it. Give me a break!

January 1, 2009 @ 10:12 AM

5. Bill J. wrote:

One of Ben Stein's talking points time and time again in interviews related to this movie is that speciation has never been observed. He is absolutely wrong (as he is with many other things). A simple internet search will reveal many verified examples of both natural speciation and artificially induced speciation. If only Ben Stein had "Googled it" instead of listening to some ID proponents.

January 1, 2009 @ 10:31 AM

6. trimtab wrote:

You wrote:

"So, at the very least, I’d say it is unreasonable to ban a scientific theory without providing something in its place."

What an Epic Fail(tm). Truly ignorant of the workings of science and showing no knowledge of the history and philosophy of science.

NO! It is not unreasonable to ban a theory in the absence of any established explanatory scheme.

YES! It is perfectly acceptable for the scientific establishment to have no working theory, i.e., to say "We don't know!".

ID is not a scientific theory.
ID is not a theory.
ID is a non-scientific hypothesis, at best.
ID is non-scientific because:

1) It is not falsifiable
2) It is not validated empirically.
3) It has no explanatory power.
4) It has no predictive power.
5) It fails to replace any established theory.

January 1, 2009 @ 10:51 AM

7. Cody wrote:

Again, I want to clarify that my goal is not to defend Stein himself or any interviews his gives related to this film. Speciation, while interesting, is not a major point in the film (is it mentioned?) and is besides the point. That is, whether or not speciation occurs had nothing to do with ID. As I have already said, ID seeks to answer different questions - questions of the origin of the universe and biological life. Darwinism seeks to answer questions related to the diversity of life on earth. The question of whether or not speciation occurs has more to do with the validity of Darwinism than ID.

Now, on the question of speciation (though, to be extra clear, off-topic), that true speciation ever occurs (naturally or artificially) is certainly not a matter of fact. No one is arguing that you can't make a goat-boy in some kind of freak experiment. But, it is clear that goat-boy isn't going to do too well. Grasse has written that even in artificial selection experiments, "No new species are born . . . strains remain within the same specific definition. This is not a matter of opinion or subjective classification, but a measurable reality."

Grasse is good, but certainly he has his critics. There are fruit fly experiments that have accomplished a lot of things, to be sure. Still, as Phillip Johnson has pointed out, they still haven't produced anything but fruit flies.

Well, I'm sure we could go on for a while on speciation. Maybe a future blog. Let's try to keep it focused on the ID debate.

January 1, 2009 @ 10:57 AM

8. trimtab wrote:

You wrote:

"Of course, even as I write these words I notice how scary and, well, un-American the phrase “ban a scientific theory” sounds."

Good grief! You just keep piling on the ignorance.

Scientific hypotheses and quasi-theories get rejected by the scientific community on a CONSTANT basis. Aspects of established theories get criticized and shot down daily. When that happens, theories are changes, and when that can't happen, theories fall. Eventually, they get replaced.

But. It is scientists who do the rejection. There are necessary conditions for theories to survive. When these conditions are not met, they die. This is not a question of "free speech", but of scientificity.

ID fails all tests regarding scientificity.

January 1, 2009 @ 10:58 AM

9. trimtab wrote:

BTW, the truth about Expelled's and Stein's intellectual dishonesty is thoroughly documented here:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

January 1, 2009 @ 11:01 AM

10. trimtab wrote:

Good dog, man!

Cody wrote:

"Macroevolution is not a "testable" concept either. It is conjecture, a hypothesizing and extrapolating of thought based on microevolutionary data that we all agree on."

Holly mother of frack. First of all, there is no such thing as "Macro-evolution", i.e., an ontologically separate phenomenon from "micro-evolution." No biologist, geneticist or self-respecting scientist ever talks about long-term effects of micro-evolution as being anything other than the effects of micro-evolution over long periods of time.

Secondly, micro-evolution is absolutely testable:

1) Indirectly, by observing the effects of micro-evolution that have taken place over long periods of time (just as you would study a crime scene and conclude as to what took place and who did what).

2) Directly. Yes, directly. All you need is to establish a strict protocol and gather data for as long as you want or need. Yes, this is impractical, but it is entirely doable, thus countering any accusation that evolutionary theory is not falsifiable.

January 1, 2009 @ 11:12 AM

11. trimtab wrote:

Cody, the academic/scientific world enjoys "academic freedom" to the hilt, all the time.

The only time the academic/scientific world does not enjoy such freedom is when one of its members lies or violates the principles of science.

If one of it's members lies of violates a necessary scientific requirement, the academic/scientific community can and will discipline said member. This is normal and happens all the time.

Scientific fraud gets punished all the time. Anti-scientific and non-scientific practices are regularly condemned. ID is non-scientific. It leads to no new knowledge and to the impossibility of no new knowledge. It contributes nothing to science. Therefore, peddling it is hurtful. Especially to young people.

“[It is the business of a public school] to provide a disciplined introduction to the best scholarly ideas.”
-- PZ Myers, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/, 2008-12-12

The quote above should help you understand why scientists have an obligation to reject bumbling pseudo-scientific hypotheses from being taught in schools. They are not conducive to any king of useful education.

"God-did-it" is not an explanation.
"Intelligent Design" is not an explanation.
"Black-box" is not an explanation.

These are non-explanations. They are non-scientific. They have no usefulness, beyond saying "I don't currently know". They do not constitute "scientific theories". Period.

January 1, 2009 @ 11:29 AM

12. Katherine wrote:

Once I was in a college class where the professor discussed two differing viewpoints of a certain issue. He gave an overview of both before going into more detail about the viewpoint he agreed with. He took questions -- in particular, from a student who agreed with the other viewpoint. For each "what about..." and "have you thought of..." question the student had, the professor had an overhead transparency (I'm dating myself) addressing that particular question.

What I appreciated about that class was that I could see that the professor had studied the topic, studied the different viewpoints, come to his conclusion in an informed way and encouraged his students to do the same. And while he was prepared for all the questions the student had that day, I believe that had he been stumped, he would have eagerly done more studying and thinking. I also believe the student studied and thought more in response to these arguments.

trimtab wrote: "Scientific hypotheses and quasi-theories get rejected by the scientific community on a CONSTANT basis. Aspects of established theories get criticized and shot down daily. When that happens, theories are changes, and when that can't happen, theories fall. Eventually, they get replaced."

Aspects of Darwinism are being criticized by ID. Whether or not ID is scientific, ID brings up "what about..." and "have you thought of..." questions. Shouldn't Darwinism and ID proponents keep asking these questions of each other? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? Isn't this questioning the way science tries to find truth?

January 1, 2009 @ 12:21 PM

13. trimtab wrote:

Katherine wrote:

"Aspects of Darwinism are being criticized by ID. Whether or not ID is scientific, ID brings up "what about..." and "have you thought of..." questions. Shouldn't Darwinism and ID proponents keep asking these questions of each other? Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? Isn't this questioning the way science tries to find truth?"

Firstly, your expectation is normal. What you should know is that all (and I mean ALL) of the "what about..." and "have you thought of..." questions have been answered to the utter satisfaction of the entire "scientific" community. Many times, over and over again. Still even. And in spite of all the irrefutable answers given by real scientists to creationists and ID proponents, the latter still come up with the same questions, time and again, over and over, never remembering the answers given, or choosing to forget ever having received them in the first place.

If any scientist pulled this kind of pseudo-forgetfulness, they would get their head handed to them on a silver platter. But not the IDers. Since they are answerable to no one except the common person (usually the highly religious and not too scientifically savvy variety), they seem uncompelled to honor the principles of logical consistency, the scientific method, and just plain morality (thou shalt not bear false witness?).

Secondly, there is no such thing as "Darwinism". There is the Darwinian theory of evolution (which every biologist and scientist has abandoned), and the modern theory of evolution, to name just those. Cdesign proponentsists (ID proponents) and creationists like to call it "Darwinism." Most of us avoid this appellation.

January 1, 2009 @ 4:25 PM

14. Cody wrote:

Trimtab, don't be a spammer. I appreciate your comments very much and look forward to responding to them tomorrow (trying to get some other work done at the moment). You need only post your comments once, I deleted the duplicate posts.

Blessings.

January 1, 2009 @ 4:38 PM

15. Dimensio wrote:

" After all, ID is essentially a theory of the origins of the universe (and especially of biological life)."

This claim is made by a number of individuals, yet none have ever stated one fundamental mechanism of this "theory", nor have they used any stated mechanisms to derived logical predictions of future observations that would be consistent with the "theory". Until this is done, it is dishonest to claim that "intelligent design" is a "theory".


" So, at the very least, I’d say it is unreasonable to ban a scientific theory without providing something in its place."

This statement inherently assumes that "intelligent design" is a "scientific theory", yet that assumption is, as yet, undemonstrated.

I would recommend, as a companion to the film "Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed", an optional "subtitle track" that serves to correct numerous false claims made within the film. It may be obtained through http://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=27.0

January 1, 2009 @ 5:04 PM

16. trimtab wrote:

Apologies to all.

No intention of spamming, I just wanted to work my way back to the original post, albeit lazily, and each time was prompted to "send form", not realizing this would duplicate my postings.

Looking forward to your responses.

January 1, 2009 @ 5:11 PM

17. Cody wrote:

No worries, Trimtab.

January 1, 2009 @ 5:23 PM

18. Katherine wrote:

trimtab, I brought up the classroom memory because it demonstrated that the student’s questions had been “answered” by the professor before. I mean, he had a prepared overhead transparency. In a biology classroom, a teacher could easily present modern evolutionary theory (better?), present ID (even as a common or persistent competing idea) and then respond to the different arguments. In this way, the values of scientific inquiry and critical thinking are modeled.

trimtab wrote: “What you should know is that all (and I mean ALL) of the "what about..." and "have you thought of..." questions have been answered to the utter satisfaction of the entire "scientific" community.” I have my doubts about all the questions having been satisfactorily answered simply because that would leave no new research topics. I would hope that evolutionary theory proponents themselves would have questions they would like to see answered. The world is full of amazing things; I can’t really imagine scientists suggesting they have it all completely figured out.

Without getting into specific examples, it is difficult to respond to the idea that the “same questions, time and again” keep being asked for which “irrefutable answers” have already been given. So (reluctantly) I offer this: I took Bill J’s advice to Google “natural speciation examples” and clicked on the Wikipedia article. The article, “Speciation”, states “There is debate as to the rate at which speciation events occur over geologic time.” Slow and steady vs. punctuated equilibrium. The ID-related question might be: “How do you explain the gaps in the fossil record blah blah blah?” One answer: “Fossils are pretty rare and we’re still looking blah blah.” Another: “Some changes happened so quickly blah blah.” I really do not want to get into a discussion on fossil records or speciation, but here is a question that warrants more discussion. Questions, especially those coming from a different perspective, are often helpful in identifying areas for more study.

I wonder about your use of the terms “entire ‘scientific’ community” and “real scientists”. Are you automatically excluding all ID proponents from being scientists because they favor ID? I honestly do not see how espousing modern evolutionary theory or ID would affect one’s ability to apply the scientific method in astronomy, physics, chemistry – really any subject besides evolutionary biology. So what do you mean by “entire ‘scientific’ community” and “real scientists”?

January 1, 2009 @ 10:20 PM

19. trimtab wrote:

Katherine, my beef is not with students who are new to the evolution/ID debate. It is with proponents of ID:

1) who keep bring up the same questions even after having been refuted thoroughly. I'm talking about Johnson, Behe, Dembski, et al. I.e., the pseudo-scientists;

2) who just wants to uncritically parrot what the previous group presents as arguments against evolution.

Regarding the "what about..." and "have you thought of..." questions, I believe every single one of these questions, posed in an attempt to falsify evolutionary theory, has been answered or refuted, and completely so. Those that have not are already of interest to the scientific community, but none of them is threatening to the core of the theory, just minor aspects of the theory. Remember, if a single question sere successful in shaking the core evolutionary premises, the entire theory could be falsified.

This hasn't happened yet. It could. But for that to happen, proponents of ID like Behe, Dembski, et al. will have to start asking new questions, which is something they don't seem to be able to do. Why? Because they don't do any science at all! NONE. They cant come up with good questions fast enough, because the minute they can think of one, it has already been addressed by the scientific community, a.k.a. Big Science, which has a real track record at attempting to falsify scientific theories.

Good questions get asked all the time. By scientists. Good answers are provided all the time. By scientists. Some times, scientists just don't know what questions to ask. Some times, scientists don't know the answers. No question, experiment, or fact has yet falsified evolutionary theory. If it ever occurs, I willing to bet IDers won't be the source.

It must be clear to you by now that I don't believe IDers to be scientists. No scientist worthy of that title can accept supernaturalism in the absence of ANY evidence, WHATSOEVER. Falsifiability is paramount. It is foundational. No science, no knowledge, is likely possible without falsifiability. ID is not falsifiable. Therefore, ID is not science. PERIOD. Never mind applying the scientific method in other scientific disciplines. If only IDers/creationists would accept the requisites of scientificity for their own "discipline."

IDers refuse to accept that supernaturalism is capable of explaining everything, therefore it explains nothing. They never, ever answer the charge of ID's non-falsifiability. They are unable to explain anything. They are unable to predict anything. They are unable to verify anything. How can IDers be scientists, then?

Answer: IDers are not scientists.

January 1, 2009 @ 11:08 PM

20. Ed wrote:

I can't help asking: what is a "scientific theory"? Isn't a "theory" a conclusion resulting from an analysis of facts/ events/ experience? Doesn't "science" mean knowledge? So, a "scientific theory" is a knowledge based on the analytical results of facts/ events/ experience.

So, why can Intelligent Design not be a "scientific theory"? It is certainly a theory (it results from an analysis based on facts and/ or events and/ or experience) and it is certainly "science" (it is a knowledge, much like knowing about our civic rights and duties is a "Political Science".)

January 2, 2009 @ 12:40 AM

21. Bill Jackoffski wrote:

People who keep trying to place ID on the same level as Evolutionary Theory need to, at the very least, GOOGLE each. The field of ID is equivalent to some child developing an entire field devoted to Santa Claus. The child gathers all his favorite books and movies about the annual gift man and tries to extract every relevant detail from said media. He then formulates what he calls the "Theory of Santa Claus and Related Phenomenon" based on those details. The child then uses this knowledge to give meaningful answers to all those who question Santa's existence, mode of transport, carrying capacity of vehicle (for gifts), etc. He considers himself a scientist studying the theory of Santa Claus. He developed it in a mere week or two. As a parent you would see that and say how cute that your little one is trying to prove that Santa Claus exists. ID "scientists" are very much like children trying to hold on to the word of the Bible. They seem to have no idea the enormous amount of work that has gone on over many many years to lead up to the theory of evolution we have today. Quite a few scientific disciplines and even some advanced mathematics here and there have been employed to give us the picture of life we have today. And it's not just about writing stuff on the chalkboard and thinking really, really hard about it. It is about people doing experiments, observing life, discovering clues in the real world that support or disagree with theory. It is not someone just pulling something out of there butts and telling everyone it is the truth. Think about the latest notebook computer. If we could transport this technological wonder to anytime in the distant past, when most of humanity only knew of a flat earth, and show them what it can do, would the smartest person of that era be able to figure out on his own why and how the computer functions and maybe even build one? Absolutely not. The technology necessary to create that computer now was preceded by many, many years of intricate developments in various scientific, engineering and mathematical disciplines. A person of today would need to study at least an intro to many areas of science, computer science and engineering to get a gist of what makes a computer tic, from the atomic level to the software level. Evolutionary theory is like the computer in that it is a result of many years of intricate scientific developments with its accompanying experiments, observations, and analysis. ID is just the bible fanatics trying to sneak in their childish wishful thinking and saying "me too, I am a scientist too"!
'

January 2, 2009 @ 3:20 AM

22. Cody wrote:

My, what big comments you all have made!

Really, I greatly appreciate it and would love to say that I could find the time to respond to them all, but let's be realistic. Nevertheless, here goes nothing . . .

I'll begin with TRIMTAB who did a good job of trying to answer why ID cannot be considered a scientific theory.

What an Epic Fail(tm). Truly ignorant of the workings of science and showing no knowledge of the history and philosophy of science.

NO! It is not unreasonable to ban a theory in the absence of any established explanatory scheme.

YES! It is perfectly acceptable for the scientific establishment to have no working theory, i.e., to say "We don't know!".

ID is not a scientific theory.
ID is not a theory.
ID is a non-scientific hypothesis, at best.
ID is non-scientific because:

1) It is not falsifiable
2) It is not validated empirically.
3) It has no explanatory power.
4) It has no predictive power.
5) It fails to replace any established theory.

Again, ED's comments a worth revisiting. Science is a word that simply means "knowledge". All kinds of things are science. I remember taking a class in high school called something like "domestic science." It was about cooking and cleaning and sewing. So, in this sense ID must be considered scientific since it has to do with exploring, discovering, analyzing, learning, etc.

Now, TRIMTAB gave us 5 points or reasons why ID is non-scientific. I don't know where they come from or on what basis we should consider them authoritative, but for the sake of argument, let's consider them.

1. ID is not falsifiable.

The funny thing here is that over on Redit, someone commented on my post that ID failed all scientific tests. To which TRIMTAB responded, "Nuff said." So which is it? Does it fail tests or is it non-testable?

Further, something shouldn't be considered non-falsifiable simply because you can't prove it false. People certainly try to all the time with ID. One of the things you could do is simply show us how to produce something out of nothing without doing anything. ID can be falsified by simply doing this. Or, simply produce a single protein molecule out of a bag of random inorganic materials - an do this in an undirected process. That would certainly help you to be on your way to disproving ID.

2) It is not validated empirically.

Well, maybe. I'm not sure about that. And never mind that macro-evolution cannot be empirically validated either. I know that one thing that can be done is to look for evidence of intelligence in the universe. To put it in laymen's terms: make a list of things that we assume to be the product of intelligence; and then go see if we can find any of those things in, say, an eyeball.

If what you are saying is that we can't go into a lab and run an experiment to determine whether or not God exists, well, I don't know. It makes a leap in this discussion to start talking about God for one. Also, we might be able to (if we put our heads together) come up with such a test, but it's hard to get funding.

3) It has no explanatory power.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If I take it at face value you seem to be saying that ID, if true, can't explain anything. Is that what you mean?

If so, I'd say that ID simply explains where things come from. I mean, I could go on and on, but that's the gist of it.

4) It has no predictive power.

Well, it predicts what won't happen (i.e. things coming into existence out of nothing - which is nice to know if you think about it). It also predicts that if an intelligence from outside our world has acted upon it in the past that intelligence might do so again or even be doing so now. You've got to find that a little bit intriguing - think of the intelligence as space aliens or something (if you prefer).

5) It fails to replace any established theory.

But you said earlier that it was perfectly okay to for "science" to have vacuums of knowledge. Areas where folks are just scratching their heads and saying, "I haven't the foggiest." Your exact quote was: "YES! It is perfectly acceptable for the scientific establishment to have no working theory, i.e., to say 'We don't know!'." Well, if there is an area in science where the "establishment" has no working theory, aren't we to assume that if any comes along in that area it won't be replacing an established theory?

Thanks again for the comments. I may be done for the day.

Blessings.

January 2, 2009 @ 10:43 AM

23. trimtab wrote:

Ed wrote:

"Ed wrote:
I can't help asking: what is a "scientific theory"? Isn't a "theory" a conclusion resulting from an analysis of facts/ events/ experience? Doesn't "science" mean knowledge? So, a "scientific theory" is a knowledge based on the analytical results of facts/ events/ experience.

So, why can Intelligent Design not be a "scientific theory"? It is certainly a theory (it results from an analysis based on facts and/ or events and/ or experience) and it is certainly "science" (it is a knowledge, much like knowing about our civic rights and duties is a "Political Science".)
January 2, 2009 @ 12:40 AM"

Ed, your definition of science and theory are all fine, albeit a bit naÏve and incomplete. However, you are wrong to claim that ID is a theory, let alone a scientific one. The reason why ID is not a theory is because it fails any and all scientific requirements expected of scientific theories.

1) It is not based on facts.
2) It is not testable/verifiable/replicable.
3) It is not falsifiable.
4) It does not have explanatory power.
5) It does not have predictive power.
6) It does not replace previously established theories.

ID is not only non-scientific, it's not even wrong.

January 2, 2009 @ 10:46 AM

24. Cody wrote:

Okay, I'm just going to respond to a few select quotes from the above comments and then, really, move on with my day.

“But. It is scientists who do the rejection. There are necessary conditions for theories to survive. When these conditions are not met, they die. This is not a question of "free speech", but of scientificity.”

I’d find this easier to believe if it weren’t scientists being rejected. Also, if this debate could stay out of court houses. Of course, neither is going to happen. Darwinists and IDer both have their political lobbies. So, as long as someone can lose their job for what they write about or teach, free speech questions have to be asked.

“There is no such thing as Macro-evolution”

That’s a strange thing to say. One the one hand, I agree with you, but I don’t think you mean it that way. “Macro-evolution” is a term used by a lot of people. I first heard it from a chemical biologist at MIT about 8 years ago.

“Secondly, micro-evolution is absolutely testable”

Right, I don’t disagree with this. Micro-evolution (i.e. changes within a species over time) occurs. Bigger horses, small horses, hairier horses, etc. It’s macro-evolution that I don’t see evidence for (horses with wings who can play video games).

“It contributes nothing to science. Therefore, peddling it is hurtful. Especially to young people.”

Having studied debate and communication in college, I am aware that whoever wins the language game usually wins. “Peddling”? Really? My astronomy professor in college was not allowed to mention the possibility of an intelligent designer in his courses. It didn’t matter that he was a PhD, an excellent astronomer, etc. It didn’t matter that his mind compelled him to look at ID as a likely explanation for the existence and function of the universe. How would discussing the possibility of an intelligent designer at the end of a class session on the temporality of the universe hurt young people?

I took another class in which the professor began the course by saying this, “Now, there isn’t anybody in here that still believes that there is a god who created the universe is there?” When two of us raised our hands, he mocked us. Of course he didn’t lose his job or face any kind of academic discipline over this issue. But, that’s par for the course. Atheism (straight up atheism) has been promoted in all kinds of courses I’ve taken in college.

So, why the double standard?


“What you should know is that all (and I mean ALL) of the "what about..." and "have you thought of..." questions have been answered to the utter satisfaction of the entire "scientific" community. Many times, over and over again.”

So, the “scientific community” knows everything there is to know about the origin and diversification of biological life? ALL the questions have been answered? Well, then, let’s just all pack up and go home. Clearly, I disagree. Going back to my college days, I once stood up in class to ask my biology professor a simply question, “Can you tell us one thing that you know for certain about evolution?” She, a staunch macro-evolutionist of the Darwinian camp, responded, “No, but that’s not the point.” Nice.

“Secondly, there is no such thing as "Darwinism””

Why not? It’s on Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (shout out to Katherine – go Cardinal). This is more language game. You like to refer to Darwinists as “scientists” or “the scientific community/establishment”. Then you refer to those who accept ID as the “ID proponents.” By doing this, you seek to present this as a debate between scientists and ID proponents. In actual fact, it is a debate between scientists and scientists. To give a sampling:

Henry F. Schaefer (the 3rd most cited chemist in the world and Nobel nominee)
Fred Figworth (professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale)

And about 700 more listed here

Are you claiming that there 700 individuals are not really scientists? Are you claiming that they are ignorant and have nothing meaningful to say on this topic?

January 2, 2009 @ 11:26 AM

25. Cody wrote:

oops. the list didn't show up. I guess I can't do html in these posts. Here is the URL for you to cut and paste:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

January 2, 2009 @ 11:28 AM

26. trimtab wrote:

Cody, your last post is a doosey. Where to start...

1) Falsifiablity. Google it. It does not mean what you think. In short, if I can't think of, a priori, a test that ID might be able to fail, even without performing said test (or even the possibility of performing said test), then ID is not falsifiable, and is therefore indistinguishable form fraud or charlatanry. And there is no way to set ID apart from fraud or charlatanry.

This is the sorry state of ID. That is why it is not science. It is no better than the Ptolemaic theory for planetary motion. The Ptolemaic system can explain any and every planetary motion you could think of. Even impossible ones. There is not a single geometric pattern of planetary motion that the Ptolemaic theory could possibly fail. You can't think of one, because, a priori, that theory is not falsifiable. You will always be able to come up with additional epicycles and eccentrics to explain away any and every possible observation, even impossible observations.

In the case of ID, you will be able to invoke God/Intelligend Designer in every instance to explain away any and every ad hoc observation that you observe (God-did-it(TM), Works in mysterious ways(TM), etc.). There is no test that God/Intelligend Designer could a priori fail, either in practice or in your mind.

2) You haven't read my other posts. Yes, what you call "Macro-evolution" (which, incidentally, does not exist as an ontologically different phenomenon from "micro-evolution, i.e., there is only micro-evolution, whether applied to short or long time frames) can be validated, is validated, and can also be falsified. To fully observe micro-evolution over long periods of time, all you need is... time.

It is possible to test for the existence of omnipotent supernatural entities (theistic or otherwise), if and only if they intersect with the natural world. If they do not, then "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should remain silent."

The problem with ID is that it is a conclusion looking for empirical support. Science works the other way around. And that's why ID is the laughingstock of the scientific community. After thousands of years of believing in supernatural omnipotent theistic entities, there is still a total, absolute paucity of empirical evidence.

BTW, don't even think of serving me the "ID does not require a theistic designer." All, and I mean ALL, IDers have avowed their belief in such an entity, when confronted, especially in a court of law... ;-)

3) No, ID still has no explanatory power, whatsoever! It explains nothing. You have just replaced the absence of an explanation for the origin of life with a black box (i.e., a non-explanation). (You might want to Google "black box" for its engineering acceptation.)

4) QED. It still has no predictive power for what you present as predictive power is not testable. Scientific hypotheses become theories when, among other things, they make positive (not negative) predictions that are actually verified empirically. ID is, again, an EPIC FAIL(TM).

5) Yes, knowledge vaccua are perfectly acceptable, when you have nothing better to offer that can actually satisfy scientificity criteria. But not only does ID fail to satisfy any such scientificity criteria when attempting to explain the origin of life, it wants to get rid of a theory (evolution) that actually does satisfy said criteria. And evolution explains millions of facts and phenomena that ID is unable to account for other than by saying "God-did-it." ID impoverishes our understanding instead of elevating it. And what it purports to explain is vacuous: a non-falsifiable, non-verifiable, non-explanatory, non-predictive black box.

January 2, 2009 @ 11:35 AM

27. Gayle wrote:

I find this discussion very interesting. I have two items I'd like to mention--perhaps just giving my own viewpoint on ID and science in general.

1. Above it was mentioned that "bumbling pseudo-scientific hypotheses" such as Intelligent Design should not be taught in public schools. My goal is not necessarily to get into a debate about whether or not ID should be taught in schools, but to address the supposed ease with which ID is categorized as "bumbling" and "pseudo-scientific." If I were to hold a cell phone in my hand and ask a class of students how it came to exist, the last thing any of them would say is that over millions of years, bits of metal and wire eventually collided to form buttons, batteries, and signals, and that over the years, this cell phone eventually duplicated and was able to communicate. Would Intelligent Design in this case be considered a "bumbling, pseudo-scientific theory"? Because that is the first conclusion any student or person would draw. In my opinion, even the smallest organism of life is more complex than a cell phone. The chances of even the smallest organism becoming what it is--well, with all due respect, any theory other than ID seems a bit "bumbling and pseudo-scientific." I think there needs to be a reality check. Take a close look at any number of small functions--such as enzymes-they can make up to thousands of distinct conversions per second...their shapes exactly counter-match the material they need to convert...and when it's time to stop converting, they change shape! Another example is the coding for amino acids by the DNA...the chances of making a useful protien are litterally impossible by random chance. I could give countless examples.

2. If God and religion need to be kept out of science to make science more academically "sound" are we missing the boat on the most obvious of explanations? Sure, keep other theories alive. No problem..but please reexamine how futile and possibly blind it is to call ID a "pseudo-science" or at least recognize that not to see ID as valid in some realm of thought could be ignoring something very real. If ID is not "scientific" well..I'd say, put all the terms and definitions aside for just a minute and take a step back to see what is most reasonable. To not do so, is simply limiting your own perspective and possibly missing out on a very important one.

January 2, 2009 @ 12:21 PM

28. Justin Kron wrote:

I've been reading through these posts, and it seems to me that neither position on the origin of life can be scientifically proven. They both require a certain level of faith. It just saddens me that only one of these positions is allowed to flourish in our public (tax-funded) school system.

On a related note, consider the fact that a class on world religions is not a required subject for students in our public school system, even though religion is, and has been, one of the most significant influencers in the history of world events.

It seems to me that taking God (or whatever people want to call it/him/her) out of the Academia makes for a more ignorant and less civil society, not a smarter and more equitable one.

Banning ID from the classroom is a tragedy, and even if those in positions of power don't believe in it, I believe it deserves its place at the table.

January 2, 2009 @ 1:09 PM

29. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

"Trimtab wrote: “But. It is scientists who do the rejection. There are necessary conditions for theories to survive. When these conditions are not met, they die. This is not a question of "free speech", but of scientificity.”

I’d find this easier to believe if it weren’t scientists being rejected. Also, if this debate could stay out of court houses. Of course, neither is going to happen. Darwinists and IDer both have their political lobbies. So, as long as someone can lose their job for what they write about or teach, free speech questions have to be asked."

Scientists reject each other's hypotheses and falsify each other's theories ON A CONSTANT BASIS, i.e., all the time. But, all, and I mean ALL, "scientists" follow the same rules: the rules of science, logic, and reason. Any scientist who does not abide by the rules of science can and should expect the wrath of the scientific establishment. This has nothing to do with free speech. It is expected behavior, it is normal behavior. If you wish to violate the principles of science, go into theology. If you wish to pass your intellectual meandering as scientific, YOU MUST satisfy the requirements. And the only people who are in a position to judge what is scientific or not are scientists.

If the issue of being deemed as non-scientific, and therefore possibly being fired by an academic establishment for being such, leads people to court, then so be it. If IDers want to accuse the scientific establishment of challenging their freedom of speech, that is their prerogative. Courts are qualified to handle such challenges and will decide is freedom of speech is in question. But if the motive to silence academic IDers is one of scientific integrity, then the courts will likely side with the scientific establishment, for it is the prerogative of the scientific establishment to determine what is scientific and what is not. ID is not.

Whether you heard "macro-evolution" here or there is irrelevant. Google it, as opposed to micro-evolution. And NO, NO, NOOOOO. Micro-evolution is not limited, whether a priori or by definition, to small changes within species. It is what accounts for species change. It is what leads one species to become another species. This is what all, and I mean ALL, real biologists believe and accept as part of the theory of evolution. There is no distinction, ontological or otherwise, to be made between "micro-" and "macro"-evolution, regardless of what you believe or think is intuitive. And the observation of species-to-species changes can and has been observed to a degree. Just not to the comical degree you are expecting (half-banana, half-monkey, and other such nonsense). Please, let's not go there, that's not how evolution works. Also, take into account that it is difficult to observe what should otherwise take millions of years to observe. However, just like in a criminal investigation, a case can be solved even if the events transpired long ago, on the basis of the indirect evidence and reason. Same goes for evolutionary theory (but evolutionary is backed by numerous other scientific disciplines).

"So, why the double standard?" There is no double standard. It is a requirement of scientists and academics, purporting to teach scientific content, to satisfy scientificity criteria. Believing ID, or accepting ID as a scientific theory, is a direct violation of the requirements of scientific enquiry. Period. Adhering to ID/Creationism is a TOTAL departure from scientific enquiry.

"So, the “scientific community” knows everything there is to know about the origin and diversification of biological life? ALL the questions have been answered? Well, then, let’s just all pack up and go home" As I responded to an other poster on your site, the challenges to evolution provided by IDers, in the guise of objections or questions, have indeed all been addressed. Otherwise the theory of evolution would have been falsified! Those questions that are brought up by IDers usually happen to be valid scientific questions in need of an answer. But they in no way falsify the theory, only some minor aspect of the mechanics. Not the core foundations.

"“Can you tell us one thing that you know for certain about evolution?” She, a staunch macro-evolutionist of the Darwinian camp, responded, “No, but that’s not the point.” Nice." I cant respond, for there is too little to go by, but just in case you don't know, here a heads up for you. Science does not prove anything. There is no such thing as a formal proof in science. Therefore, certainty is not a relevant concept. Scientific theories are supported by empirical evidence and comprehensive frameworks. The more the explain (while being limited in scope), and the more they can verifiably predict, the "truer" and "factual" they become, while being entirely falsifiable all along. Your teacher was right. Your interpretation of her answer, in my opinion, is wrong. Otherwise, tell me more abour her answer.

As for the word "Darwinism", I agree that its a language game, but read the following from Wikipedia:

"The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement [15] to describe evolution. In this usage, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book What Is Darwinism?, Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism."[16][17][18] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[10] Casting evolution as a doctrine or belief bolsters religiously motivated political arguments to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools."

This is why real scientists don't use that term anymore.

As for your petition, see the following from Wikipedia for criticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism

I could see your 700, and up that by 2000000, but what good would that do? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

The so-called scientists who advocate ID/Creationism are usually not very good. All seem to be delusional, and most are unscientific, i.e., don't produce any scientific contributions anymore. Some ride on their past contributions, and many got a degree from a reputable institution, only to exile themselves to religious teaching institutions that produce no real science and where they themselves don't produce any contribution. Sad. Those world-class scientists who advocate ID/Creationism are so few, it boggles the mind. What's more, the intellectual dissonance they are capable of is flabbergasting: so logical, rational, and consistent when doing science, then they throw everything out the window in a split second to babble bout ID. That's mind control for ya.

January 2, 2009 @ 1:41 PM

30. trimtab wrote:

Gayle,

Biology 101. Evolution is NOT a random process. Far, far from it. It is a mindless process, that does not require the conscious intervention of an intelligent designer, buy rather a blind process that causes the "space of possible" designs to be travelled, mindlessly.

Otherwise, your argument can be reduced to a combination of the argument from design, which has been unsatisfactory for many centuries, and what some have termed the argument from ignorance, which is simply an abandonment of reason due to a lack of imagination/intelligence, thus causing you to chose an alternative, non-scientific pseudo-explanation. Sorry.

What you take to be an obvious explanation is actually a very faulty one. Known to be faulty for centuries.

ID is absolutely pseudo-scientific, even non-scientific. Read my other posts. And no, you cannot put the terms and definitions aside, even for just a minute. Those are foundational components of the debate. It's because some people confuse the meaning of these terms and misconstrue their definitions that we're in such a mess. In science, the word "theory", e.g., does not mean "hunch", or "opinion", or "guess." It "Denotes the most powerful status that an explanation can attain," or means "Comprehensive frameworks for describing, explaining and making falsifiable predictions about related sets of phenomena based on rigourous observation, experimentation and logic."

Scientific theories are rock solid for a reason. Read my other posts. ID is weak and non-scientific for a reason. Read my other posts.

January 2, 2009 @ 1:59 PM

31. trimtab wrote:

Justin,

Science has no working theory for the origins of life, only hypotheses. These hypotheses are founded on the laws of physics and chemistry and the natural world, however.

On the other hand, ID/Creationism has nothing, e.g., no thing. Period. Just a black box that begs to be explained itself.

Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life with greater success and force than any other scientific theory with respect to their object of study, all categories of scientific theory confounded, past of present. More so than the theory of gravity, the atomic theory of matter, the theory of plate tectonics, etc.

ID/Creationism could/should be taught in academia under comparative religion, or philosophy of science. Not as a substitute for science. It could serve as en excellent means of teaching school children about science, especially what science is not, or what is not science (i.e., ID/Creationism).

If you still believe that ID/Creationism should "have a place at the table" and replace science, or even be taught in parallel as scientific, then you have not been following what has been said in this thread. If this is the case, please read.

January 2, 2009 @ 3:34 PM

32. Gayle wrote:

Hmmm. Well, I have to wonder. Spontaneous generation was also considered a "rock solid theory" and then disproved. Just a reminder that rock solid theories do not always remain so.

I also have more to add regarding DNA and chance processes, but will have to wait until tomorrow.

January 2, 2009 @ 11:12 PM

33. trimtab wrote:

Gayle wrote:

"Hmmm. Well, I have to wonder. Spontaneous generation was also considered a "rock solid theory" and then disproved. Just a reminder that rock solid theories do not always remain so. "

Again, ask any "real scientist" and she'll tell you that no scientific theory can be proven, for all time, as with formal mathematical proofs. Therefore, all scientific theories are tentative. As a result, the theory of evolution may very well be overturned. But considering the overwhelming number of confirmations coming from countless scientific disciplines, IMO, evolution will be superseded only by an Einsteinian-like deprecation, i.e., à la Newtonian physics being replaced by relativistic physics. Newtonian physics was so good, we still teach it to beginning physics students, for simplifying purposes. In other words, Newton still applies for relative motions much slower than the speed of light.

What ever supersedes evolution, it won't be ID. Evolution is rock-solid now, but may not be forever. Granted. On the other hand, ID is so lame, it isn't even wrong. Please acknowledge. Over.

January 3, 2009 @ 12:23 AM

34. Cody wrote:

Trimtab,

It seems to me that you've set up a rather strange system whereby anyone who adheres to ID is a non-scientist by virtue of that fact alone. For example, I have a friend who is a bright and capable medical researcher / biologist. He's just one of the masses, an unheard of kind of person. But, he's working in the field and contributing valuable insights that probably translate into real advances in medicine. And, I know my friend believes ID to be a credible and legitimate scientific theory that should be considered seriously by others in the field. Now, am I wrong in assuming that you would consider him to not be a "real scientist" in light of his adherence to ID principles?

You seem to be suggesting that a "real scientist" is one who discounts ID. You don't seem to be able to imagine a scenario in which an actual scientist could believe in the principles of ID. So even if your scientific hero came out for ID tomorrow, he/she would immediately cease to be a "real scientist". Is my analysis correct? Is your mind completely closed to the possibility?

If so, then the only thing that we have demonstrated to be non-scientific (based on your criteria of falsifiability) is your condemnation of ID. Moreover, we've made it quite clear that what you mean by "real scientist" is not what I mean by the term. I'm willing to let you use it as you do, so long as we make it clear that by "real scientist" you mean ID-hater (to put it simply). You do not mean a gifted and brilliant individual who contributes to the the advancement of knowledge for the common good in the various fields of natural science.

I'm grateful for your comments. Next week will feature more reflections on this topic and I welcome your input there as well. I will take a decidedly theological course, however, in the coming days.

Blessings.

January 3, 2009 @ 10:01 AM

35. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

"It seems to me that you've set up a rather strange system whereby anyone who adheres to ID is a non-scientist by virtue of that fact alone."

With respect, I haven't set up anything. No system either. You either accept the principles of science, or you don't. Doing so part time is called "inconsistent", i.e., logically inconsistent.

However scientific your acquaintances may be, the minute they consider supernaturalism in the total absence of empirical evidence, then they are in a state of contradiction, i.e., they are being inconsistent.

BTW, being inconsistent is bad because it precludes knowledge: no knowledge is possible when you accept a thing and its negation. That's why we only tolerate propositions like "there can only be 'A' or 'non-A', but not both." Accepting 'A' and 'non-A' means any knowledge is possible, therefore no knowledge is possible. This is a core premiss of most cultures.

Your friend is misguided to believe that ID is a scientific theory.

"You seem to be suggesting that a "real scientist" is one who discounts ID." Yes, absolutely. No real scientist could ever accept as scientific a hypothesis for which there is no empirical evidence (direct or indirect), especially if said hypothesis was not falsifiable.

"So even if your scientific hero came out for ID tomorrow, he/she would immediately cease to be a "real scientist"." It depends:

1) If my scientific hero has empirical evidence, I'll start listening. The falsifiability issue must be resolved. Experiments must be devised. Results must be validated, and corroborated. Explanations must be given. And predictions must be made and verified.

2) If my scientific hero has none of the above, she/he is in a state of contradiction. Major FAIL.

"Is your mind completely closed to the possibility?" Absolutely not. As I just wrote, I, and the entire scientific community will instantaneously consider or accept ID if and only if the above conditions are met. (See my other posts for further details of said requirements.)

"If so, then the only thing that we have demonstrated to be non-scientific (based on your criteria of falsifiability) is your condemnation of ID."
?? I'm not sure I can parse that sentence. Just to be sure, why don't you tell me what you understand by "falsifiability," for I suspect your understanding may differ from its philosophical/scientific acceptation.

"I'm willing to let you use it as you do, so long as we make it clear that by "real scientist" you mean ID-hater (to put it simply)." Please don't misconstrue my words or attribute to me sentiments of hatred toward IDers just because I accuse IDers of violating the requirements of science, the scientific method, logic, reason, etc.

My criticism is based on objective facts: proponents of ID/Creationism do not accept/uphold the scientificity criteria that are expected by the scientific community. Scientists or non-scientists who deny this obligation are frowned upon for objective reasons: failure to abide by this obligation leads to an impoverishment of knowledge by diluting its relative certainty.

This dilution/contamination/pollution arises by injecting into the pool of knowledge certain foundational premisses and methods that allow all sorts of "theories" and research programs to go on with an a priori near certainty of failure. Students and children who are taught to believe in the absence of evidence, who are taught that contradiction is OK, grow up to become poor scientists and, ultimately, poor citizens. Science works. It has an outstanding track record. ID/creationism has had decades, yet still has nothing to show for all of it's efforts. NOTHING. What are you willing to bet on?

If you know someone who practices a scientific discipline, who also happens to accept ID/creationism as scientific, then that person is a part-time scientist, for, the rest of the time, when they accept supernaturalism in the total absence of empirical evidence, they are simply non-scientific.

No hatred is involved. No personal vendetta either. No censorship (involving free-speech). Just an objective observation that the definition of what is scientific is foundationaly and a priori incompatible with the premisses if ID/Creationism. Evolutionary theory is scientific, while ID/creationism is not. The reason science requires that scientific theories adhere to scientificity criteria is in order to achieve the ultimate goal: discovering the truth.

Up till now, no other system of knowledge generation has ever held a candle to modern science. ID/creationism is a departure from this tradition that has produced no results. Worse, science has seen this kind of thinking before, and its verdict is that no knowledge is possible through this kind of thinking. Even worse, proponents of ID/creationism want to overthrow the scientific establishment without confront their ideas to those of science. They have no knowledge to show, so they try to forcefully get in through the back door by teaching their fruitless methodology to children.

That's weak and intellectually dishonest.

January 3, 2009 @ 1:43 PM

36. Katherine wrote:

On occasion I have found myself in discussions where both sides bring up the same points over and over again. Maybe one side (I’d like to think the side I was on) would try to answer the questions of the other but in any case, it would eventually become clear that both sides had made up their minds and nothing the other could say would make a difference. I don’t want this discussion to turn into one of those…

Post-ers in support of modern evolutionary theory assert that ID is not science and that IDers are not scientists. The questions raised by IDers have, as trimtab wrote, “been answered or refuted, and completely so. Those that have not are already of interest to the scientific community, but none of them is threatening to the core of the theory, just minor aspects of the theory.”

I am not sure whether or not ID is science because I am not sure I know enough about ID or the definition of science. I find it difficult to believe that one’s position on ID is an appropriate litmus test for being a scientist. The ID/evolution issue seems as relevant as your hair color to how you conduct research in most scientific disciplines. As a result, I am not sure that the ID questions have been answered/refuted or, otherwise, are not threatening to the core of evolutionary theory. If you are a scientist if and only if you reject ID, then of course “scientists” have adequately addressed ID questions. It seems to be a circular argument.

Anyhow, I would really like this discussion to move forward. I recognize that I need to learn more about ID, evolution and the definition of science. Because I am committed to the truth, I’m going to take some time to learn. So, more knowledgeable post-ers, please suggest a few quality websites or books (I could get at a local library) which address ID, evolution and/or the definition of science. I have already read _Icons of Evolution_ (not the most well-written thing I’ve read but intriguing) and _Case for a Creator_ and I have looked at Wikipedia and the Evolution 101 website run by UC- Berkeley (hiss) (which was a helpful overview but lacked the details I sought). I eagerly expect to be wowed by well-reasoned arguments. Anyone else up for the challenge?

Here’s the thing I’m really not sure about: at what point will I become knowledgeable enough to make an educated decision? I’m not talking about having my opinion count in the scientific world, just so that I can feel like my opinion ought be respected in forums like this. My feeling from the pro-evolution post-ers is that so long as I accept ID or reject evolution, I will be dismissed as not knowledgeable enough (or perhaps too stupid). So before I embark on this quest, what will the standard be?

January 3, 2009 @ 2:44 PM

37. Cody wrote:

"Is your mind completely closed to the possibility?" Absolutely not. As I just wrote, I, and the entire scientific community will instantaneously consider or accept ID if and only if the above conditions are met. (See my other posts for further details of said requirements.)

But if we prevent discussion and exploration based on ID, how will said conditions ever be met?

"If so, then the only thing that we have demonstrated to be non-scientific (based on your criteria of falsifiability) is your condemnation of ID."
?? I'm not sure I can parse that sentence. Just to be sure, why don't you tell me what you understand by "falsifiability," for I suspect your understanding may differ from its philosophical/scientific acceptation.

Falsifiability is the quality of being falsifiable. That is, is it logically possible to demonstrate that a claim/statement/etc. is false? For example, it is not possible to demonstrate that macroevolution is false because practically every failed experiment is met with the safety answer, "If we just had more time."

I'll admit that the "God did it" answers fall into the same kind of non-falsifiable realm as the "If we just had more time" answers. Both may be true, but neither smack of scientificity. That's why I suggested two potential ways to falsify the simple ID claims that (1) "Nothing comes from nothing" and (2)that biological life cannot come into existence from inorganic matter in a purely undirected process. Both are logically falsifiable. (1) Simply produce something from nothing. We can even set up a lab experiment. Put nothing in a test tube. Do nothing to it. Repeat. Did you get anything? No? Write that down, a recorded observation. Supporting what? The hypothesis that "Nothing comes from nothing." I know that it sounds simplistic and you are clearly a very intelligent person (I really mean that), but so is essential truth of the law of gravity. Okay, I throw something in the air, it comes back down. It doesn't stay up there. What's going on?

Look you said you would listen to your scientific hero if he/she came out tomorrow in favor of ID. It is really nice that you listen to me and thoughtfully respond, but I'm absolutely no natural scientist--just an inquiring mind. But they are out there. Really sharp guys and gals and I don't get the impression that you'd be willing to give them the time of day. Have you really given a fair listen to their side? They have PhDs and jobs and dissertations and test tubes. They honestly don't think they are being non-scientific. Can you honestly say that you've given them a fair hearing? If you have, great. Just asking.

Finally, and then I'm done for the day, I fundamentally disagree with the notion of dismissing any idea that is arbitrarily labeled supernatural. To only consider explanations that people currently deem "natural" seems short-sighted. I mean consider what is family first. But when those explanations prove unsatisfying why not reach for the stars? Maybe Jesus only swooned on the cross. Maybe someone stole the body. But if it just so happened that he really rose from the dead and we won't even consider the possibility, we miss everything.

If it just so happens that there is a God who created the universe and remains actively involved in it, who is deeply concerned with how we live even on an individual basis -- if it just so happens to be true and we won't even consider it, because it's "supernatural", well. Aren't we really missing out on something huge? What if we could through scientific processes discover not only that God existed but that there were ways to commune with Him that drastically improved the way we treated illnesses (for example). I mean, what if? What if the earth isn't in the center of the universe? What if aliens? What if we could find a way to live on Mars? What if!?!

Why ban the what if? Why ban any what if?

January 3, 2009 @ 2:56 PM

38. Dimensio wrote:

" That's why I suggested two potential ways to falsify the simple ID claims that (1) "Nothing comes from nothing" and (2)that biological life cannot come into existence from inorganic matter in a purely undirected process."

Please explain why either of the two statements being disproven would falsify "intelligent design". Either explain why the mechanisms of "intelligent design" can not occur should either of the two above conditions be false, or explain why the mechanisms of "intelligent design" occurring would logically preclude either of the two above conditions being true.

Note that you will need to define the mechanisms of "intelligent design" in order to actually establish any falsification criteria. As I have noted previously, I have yet to observe any actual definition of any mechanism of "intelligent design".


"Finally, and then I'm done for the day, I fundamentally disagree with the notion of dismissing any idea that is arbitrarily labeled supernatural."

Supernatural explanations may not be false, however they cannot be studied through the scientific method, nor may the scientific method be used to derive their occurrence. A non-scientific methodology is required for addressing supernatural occurrence.


"But when those explanations prove unsatisfying why not reach for the stars?"

If a methodology is unable to provide an adequate explanation, the only intellectually honest conclusion is to state that, thus far, usage of the methodology has yet to produce a satisfactory conclusion. It is intellectually dishonest to invent an explanation outside of the boundaries of the methodology, and then claim that the explanation was derived through application of the methodology.


"If it just so happens that there is a God who created the universe and remains actively involved in it, who is deeply concerned with how we live even on an individual basis -- if it just so happens to be true and we won't even consider it, because it's "supernatural", well."

Science does not consider "a God who created the universe" because, thus far, there exists no actual scientific evidence in support of such a conclusion.


"What if!?!"

Suppositions in response to "what if"-based inquiry do not qualify as scientific conclusions, and should not be considered valid scientific theories.

January 3, 2009 @ 11:50 PM

39. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

"But if we prevent discussion and exploration based on ID, how will said conditions ever be met?"

You're bringing up two issues. First, IDers can meet "said conditions" any time they choose. It's up to them. They are the ones who choose to not think scientifically. Secondly, IDers can publish their work. Unfortunately, their work is such drivel that every one has ditched them at every opportunity. Most of the articles they try to get published follow the following pattern: bunch of unremarkable scientificky stuff, followed by "therefore God-did-it(TM)." This is why they can't get published in peer-reviewed journals.

Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.

"Falsifiability is the quality of being falsifiable. That is, is it logically possible to demonstrate that a claim/statement/etc. is false?" Close, but you're missing something. Here's Wikipedia's entry:

"Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science."

"For example, it is not possible to demonstrate that macroevolution is false because practically every failed experiment is met with the safety answer, "If we just had more time."" Nice try, but this statement is false. As I pointed out in another posting on your site, I can think of an experiment (albeit an impractical one) that would in all likelihood allow me to demonstrate the effect of (micro-)evolution over long periods of time. ("Macro-evolution", as I've pointed out, is not a recognized notion in biology. Actually, there's only "evolution".)

Your attempts at making ID falsifiable will not succeed. They do not address the falsifiability of your god/designer. FAIL.

Regarding scientific heroes getting a fair hearing, perhaps you failed to read my other posts. Any person who is a scientist and works as such, employing the tools and methods of science, can then turn around and believe anything they want. Some scientists are religious. That's fine. They wand to believe in the existence of flying unicorns? Fine by me as well. But when they want to pass as scientific theories what are blatantly non-scientific, that's contradictory. No fait shake needs to be given to anyone. ID is well understood by science as not being a valid scientific theory. Any scientist, medical doctor, or engineer who as anything to say in ID's defence can publish their work and, if they supersede evolution, they will 3 Nobel prizes in the ensuing year. Personally, I doubt the common scientist possesses anything that is worth giving a shake, that hasn't already been demolished by the scientific community.

(After years of hearing the same thing over and over again, my eyes roll over. "Well, did you consider this...," or maybe "Surely you cannot refute that...". All the ID/Creationist ploys to support their hypothesis and to refute evolution have debunked. ALL. EVERY SINGLE ONE. And by debunked, I mean humiliated into the ground. Please, tell your ID representatives to find something new, it's getting tedious.)

"Finally, and then I'm done for the day, I fundamentally disagree with the notion of dismissing any idea that is arbitrarily labeled supernatural. To only consider explanations that people currently deem "natural" seems short-sighted." Again, read my other posts. Again, I will change my tune in a heartbeat the minute you can produce direct empirical evidence of an intelligent designer. I reserve the right to perform tests on said designer, whether of theistic origin or otherwise.

"What if?" I'll tell you what. Your what-ifs aren't worth much if, at the end of the day, you can't back them up. Keep your faith if that soothes you. But, as I responded to an other poster, the reason scientists always fall back to empirical evidence is because that's what counts the most. Empirical evidence is what allow you to gain the certainty that goes beyond wishful thinking (or magic thinking, or cargo-cultism). If there is a theistic entity interacting with the natural world, then that can be measured. It should be possible to test this interaction. Unfortunately, empirical evidence is not forthcoming from the ID front. And in the absence of evidence, ID/Creationism is no better than the next fraud or charlatanry. Empirical evidence is what gets you cars, your computers, modern medicine, bridges, airplanes, solar panels, abundant food, etc. What has ID (a so-called scientific theory) provided you with recently?

January 4, 2009 @ 2:23 AM

40. trimtab wrote:

Katherine wrote:

"On occasion I have found myself in discussions where both sides bring up the same points over and over again. Maybe one side (I’d like to think the side I was on) would try to answer the questions of the other but in any case, it would eventually become clear that both sides had made up their minds and nothing the other could say would make a difference. I don’t want this discussion to turn into one of those…"

My mind is not made up. However, I do adhere to certain principles, like logical consistency and the requirements of science. I adhere to these because the are the greatest guarantors of certainty we can get. I.e., I impose these conditions not for dogmatic reasons, but rather for empirical ones: every time these conditions are not adhered to, the quest for truth goes south.

ID is not a litmus test. You can be a scientist and behave as any normal scientist would, while at times act contradictorily. It is the case that some scientists don't know much about the philosophy of science, and don't understand the foundations of science, yet perform well in daily tasks. Those scientists may be excused for their lack of education or faulty memory. To casually consider ID as a scientific theory, upon hearing about it for the first time (and not remembering or knowing much about the philosophy of science), OK, I can see how that can happen. But when ID is explained to a scientist, from a science-foundational perspective (i.e., not falsifiable, no experiment, no replication, no explanation, no prediction, etc.), and they still accept ID as a valid science, then either they are intellectually dishonest, or just plain dim. I know this is harsh-sounding to you, as you seem to know lots of IDing scientists. But holding such a position is a contradiction. You cannot have "A" and "non-A". Period.

To familiarize yourself with all these notions, I suggest you start with Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

January 4, 2009 @ 11:45 PM

41. Cody wrote:

Trimtab,

I've enjoyed this discussion. It has been helpful, I think. Of course, I'm not convinced by perspective, but it has been good. I feel I've said what I need to, so I won't bother restating those ideas again.

Here's where I end up:

1. I do not find Darwinism and/or macroevolution (M.E. is in the dictionary) to be compelling. As scientific theories go, I believe that they fail to provide adequate evidence. And it is as difficult for me to believe that macroevolution is not being driven by some non-scientific theory as it is for you to believe that ID is not inherently theistic. Still, I can conceive of a theory of transmutation that does not necessarily contradict the Biblical doctrine of Creation (see latest and upcoming posts). In other words, I don't oppose the idea basically for religious reasons. I just don't find the arguments sound. But whether or not macroevolution is true isn't really the subject of this particular post.

2. So long as professors/teachers are allowed to promote atheism (out and out) in natural science classes without repercussion, ID (if not full on theism) views should likewise be allowable. This is the compromising position that I would like to strike with you. Let's either ban both or allow both at the discretion of the instructors. Of the two options, I favor allowing both. And, I'm talking about real atheism, the professor who mocks or belittles people of faith or even the one who says, "I thus conclude that there is no God." Again, I come down on the freedom of speech side.

January 5, 2009 @ 10:13 AM

42. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

"And it is as difficult for me to believe that macroevolution is not being driven by some non-scientific theory as it is for you to believe that ID is not inherently theistic."

I regret to inform you that ID was designed by theists as part of a wedge strategy aiming to introduce to US classrooms an alternative to the theory of evolution that would be religiously more palatable. Read about the findings here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

All ID representatives and promoters are theistic. All of them. Coincidence? I think not. They will tell you that a theistic designer is not necessary (yeah, right), but when pressed, or when speaking to a religious crowd and they let their guard down, God pops up.

What you believe is not what science is all about. Science is about what is objective. And theistic entities, if they exist, and if they interact with the world, should provide us with some objective evidence. Thousands of years have gone by, upwards of 4800 abandoned deities later, and still no objective evidence. Science's verdict may seem brutal, but it is required: science cannot talk about what can't be verified empirically. And until science can do so, it cannot pretend or temporarily posit the existence of theistic entities. That's religion's job.

"2. So long as professors/teachers are allowed to promote atheism (out and out) in natural science classes without repercussion, ID (if not full on theism) views should likewise be allowable. This is the compromising position that I would like to strike with you. Let's either ban both or allow both at the discretion of the instructors. Of the two options, I favor allowing both. And, I'm talking about real atheism, the professor who mocks or belittles people of faith or even the one who says, "I thus conclude that there is no God." Again, I come down on the freedom of speech side.
January 5, 2009 @ 10:13 AM"

Teachers should promote neither theism nor atheism. Schools should be secular. However, teachers and scientists are bound to uphold standards of excellence. Therefore, they should adhere to the best practices, which includes providing "a disciplined introduction to the best scholarly ideas.” If those ideas happen to clash with those of your favourite fundament/2000 year-old book, that is unfortunate. But stating that the universe was not created in 6 days, and that pi is not equal to 3, should not be seen as "atheistic." Science curricula should all be secular, and most of them are. Most teachers approach the teaching of science (biology, chemistry, physics) with a religiously detached perspective. Some can't, and that unfortunate (on both sides).

Note that some students drag their teachers into a slug-fest because they are being exposed to ideas that conflict with their childhood indoctrination. Many children don't know how to react and are ill-prepared to respond. Some parents even coach their kids to protest and disrupt the class. Teachers should not exacerbate such situations and should respond appropriately, stating the evidence that exists to support the syllabus, and refraining from direct confrontation during class.

Again, science is not atheistic per se, whether it be chemistry, physics or biology. Its presentation can most certainly be secular. On the other hand, religion is most certainly not scientific, and has no business in the classroom. Also, religious people have no business telling scientists what is scientifically true or not, mostly because up till now, IDers included, they have no leg to stand on.

Again, this is not about freedom of speech. It is about scientific excellence, and avoiding scientific fraud. In my opinion, ID commits scientific fraud.

January 5, 2009 @ 11:31 AM

43. Dimensio wrote:

"1. I do not find Darwinism and/or macroevolution (M.E. is in the dictionary) to be compelling. As scientific theories go, I believe that they fail to provide adequate evidence."

What evidence do you seek that has yet to be uncovered? Specifically, what stated processes of the theory of evolution are not, as far as you have discerned, supported by any physical evidence?


"2. So long as professors/teachers are allowed to promote atheism (out and out) in natural science classes without repercussion,"

Who is doing such a thing? Please provide specific references.


" ID (if not full on theism) views should likewise be allowable."

Why should non-scientific claims be "allowable" in a science class?

January 5, 2009 @ 1:47 PM

44. Cody wrote:

"Teachers should promote neither theism nor atheism."

In public schools in the U.S., I tend to agree with this statement.

"Schools should be secular."

Well, public schools should be. Of course it is another topic altogether as to whether genuine "secularism" is logically possible. But I agree with the sentiment.

"However, teachers and scientists are bound to uphold standards of excellence. Therefore, they should adhere to the best practices, which includes providing "a disciplined introduction to the best scholarly ideas.”"

Agreed. Of course, you've introduced the subjective ideas of "excellence" "best practices" and "best ideas" which has now introduced an art form into our science class. I'm fine with that so long as we keep in mind that until we have robot instructors, there will be differences of opinion (sometimes vast) as to what constitutes "excellence" and "best."

"If those ideas happen to clash with those of your favourite fundament/2000 year-old book, that is unfortunate. But stating that the universe was not created in 6 days, and that pi is not equal to 3, should not be seen as "atheistic.""

Agreed. Of course, I have not (nor do by any means all ID advocates) desire to defend a "young-earth" or literal 6-day creation account. That's more a debate for Biblical exegetes to have among ourselves on the basis of hermeneutics, metaphysics, theology Biblical anthropology, etc. Again, by promoting atheism I mean out and out, unabashed atheism as I encountered in my own college career.


"Science curricula should all be secular, and most of them are. Most teachers approach the teaching of science (biology, chemistry, physics) with a religiously detached perspective. Some can't, and that unfortunate (on both sides."

I have no data to either confirm or deny that most teachers approach science in a religiously detached way in the classroom. Only anecdotes. But I agree that in public education, they should.

"Note that some students drag their teachers into a slug-fest because they are being exposed to ideas that conflict with their childhood indoctrination."

And, I think the slug-fest is good and healthy. In my grad classes in a Christian school they were encouraged and it made for a great learning environment -- so long as they were done with civility and respect. As an undergrad, I was one of those students who would challenge assumptions in science, history, psychology, and sociology classes. It had nothing to do with childhood indoctrination, however, as I didn't have a religious upbringing at all. I was wrestling with these things at the time and my questions and challenges emerged from that struggle. I had a couple profs discourage this and others welcome it. Hey, the fact is, sometimes profs say stupid things and they should be challenged. If they aren't prepared to defend their statements, shame on them. When I teach, I expect and welcome these challenges as well. Of course, if the challenger is just being a jerk, then there are disciplinary actions that can be taken. But disagreement itself isn't jerkiness. I mean even the geocentrist should be allowed to challenge heliocentrism and get an intelligent response.

"Some parents even coach their kids to protest and disrupt the class."

Certainly that's up to the parents and if the kids violate behavior codes of the schools or other laws, they will face the consequences. I encourage young people to know what they believe and why they believe it and to be willing to question assumptions. But I also warn them that being disrespectful is just not Christ-like.

"Teachers should not exacerbate such situations and should respond appropriately, stating the evidence that exists to support the syllabus, and refraining from direct confrontation during class."

Well, I don't mind the confrontation. I think it is good. Our society is too passive aggressive. Sometimes we just need to throw down in the area of ideas and not worry so much about hurting each others feelings. Of course, I was a communication major that specialized in debate and persuasion.

"Also, religious people have no business telling scientists what is scientifically true or not, mostly because up till now, IDers included, they have no leg to stand on."

I don't know. Maybe. I guess I could say that as a theologian, no scientist or plumber or professional tennis player should tell me what is theologically true. But I'm not comfortable with that notion. I really want to hear the feedback from other fields. Doing so helps me to know how effectively I am communicating my ideas. And, also, sometimes the outsider perspective provides valuable insights that help me, as a specialist, to see things I hadn't previously considered.

In general though, Trimtab, I believe we've reached some level of understanding on this issue. That's kind of encouraging. If we wanted to, with a bit more time we might be able to draft a national policy that could satisfy everyone (well, that could satisfy the two of us anyway).

January 5, 2009 @ 3:25 PM

45. Cody wrote:

"What evidence do you seek that has yet to be uncovered? Specifically, what stated processes of the theory of evolution are not, as far as you have discerned, supported by any physical evidence?"

Specifically evidence for the transmutation of species. I am not convinced that given enough time, intra-genomic adaptation (microevolution) begets large-scale evolution (one species changing into another). I don't think that there is evidence to support this.


"Who is doing such a thing? Please provide specific references."

Well, I'm not sure if I should be naming names, if that is what you are asking me to do. I know I have experienced this myself (as I have mentioned in a previous comment). Since I experienced this at two different schools, I would guess that my case is not totally unique. Famously, of course, the is the great Richard Dawkins. I've never had a class with him, but would guess that in a classroom he wouldn't shy away from saying that there was no such thing as a supreme being or, for that matter, assigning one of his books as required reading.

Why should non-scientific claims be "allowable" in a science class?

On the same grounds that atheism is allowed in classrooms. If one of my profs can openly mock anyone who believes in God without facing disciplinary action, why must the theist remain silent? That's my point.

January 5, 2009 @ 3:37 PM

46. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

"Agreed. Of course, you've introduced the subjective ideas of "excellence" "best practices" and "best ideas" which has now introduced an art form into our science class. I'm fine with that so long as we keep in mind that until we have robot instructors, there will be differences of opinion (sometimes vast) as to what constitutes "excellence" and "best." "

The notions of excellence and best practices don't have to be so subjective and random as you suggest. Such notions can be, and are, defined by pedagogical and subject matter experts in various fields. State syllabi are determined that way already.

Teaching debate is one thing. There are classes and competitions for such things. Fostering curiosity and critical thinking is all good. Students shouldn't take their lessons lying down, dazed and subdued. They should participate and question the material being taught. Beyond a certain point, especially if many students question abundantly, there is less time for teaching the subject matter. Then, some students can be penalized. Also, the funny thing is that students, and parents, who debate teachers do so mostly in biology regarding the topic of evolution. It's the religious connection that brings our the challenges. You rarely (never?) see this in physics regarding alternative theories for gravity (and they do exist), or geocentrism. Or students defending alchemy in a chemistry class? Or numerology in math? Or, better still, contraception in abstinence-only sex ed? Errr... scratch that last one.

All kids should question everything. Scientific skepticism is good. It's a core value in science and is part of every scientist's tool chest. Philosophy of science should be mandatory for all elementary and high-school students. It is imperative that kids learn at a young age what science is and is not. What a scientific theory is. What a fact is. What a criterion of scientificity is. They should learn what scientific preposterism is. They should know their fallacies, logical or otherwise, by the time they finish high-school. All of this would be outstanding, but the bulk of it, IMO, should be taught in a separate class, so as to free up chemistry, physics, and biology classes.

"Famously, of course, the is the great Richard Dawkins. I've never had a class with him, but would guess that in a classroom he wouldn't shy away from saying that there was no such thing as a supreme being or, for that matter, assigning one of his books as required reading."

Many well known atheist teach and do not advocate atheism in their class. Dawkins and PZ Myers say they're careful not to let position known during class, and only address the subject matter in a secular manner. Questions raised by students regarding the existence of theistic entities or intelligent designers are met with counter-questions regarding empirical evidence in support for said entities.

"Why should non-scientific claims be "allowable" in a science class? On the same grounds that atheism is allowed in classrooms. If one of my profs can openly mock anyone who believes in God without facing disciplinary action, why must the theist remain silent? That's my point."

Huh? Again, atheism and theism should no be promoted in the classroom. You mentioned that you agree with this for public schools. Or are you saying that you want to peddle ID "as science" in order to balance out evolutionary theory which you identify as "atheistic"? My view is that teaching institutions should not be allowed to peddle or advocate non-secular content at all. Such content should be allowed for discussion and teaching in certain classes, e.g., in ethics, philosophy, religious education, or history, but not in science classes! Unless you want to make the existence of supernatural omnipotent theistic entities a scientific question! ;-)

January 5, 2009 @ 10:09 PM

47. Cody wrote:

"Many well known atheist teach and do not advocate atheism in their class. Dawkins and PZ Myers say they're careful not to let position known during class, and only address the subject matter in a secular manner. Questions raised by students regarding the existence of theistic entities or intelligent designers are met with counter-questions regarding empirical evidence in support for said entities."

If that is true, it is a credit to them. However, others are not so disciplined. My wife just told me about a Stephen Gould lecture she attended when she was studying at Stanford. His opening comment was something like, "If you still believe in God, you are brain dead." She can give you the exact quote.


"Huh? Again, atheism and theism should no be promoted in the classroom. You mentioned that you agree with this for public schools."

Right. I was responding to Dimensio who asked why I said that if atheism is allowed in classes so should theism. In particular I said it should be allowed on the same grounds. That is, atheism and theism are religious positions. If either is fair game in a natural science class, then both should be. The problem is that while theism is effectively banned, atheism is allowed to go unchecked (ala Gould). If you can ban both, I agree that would be fair. If you can't ban both, allow both.


"Or are you saying that you want to peddle ID "as science" in order to balance out evolutionary theory which you identify as "atheistic"?"

No, that isn't what I'm suggesting. Though, I we have irreconcilable differences on whether or not ID (or at least significant elements of it) can be considered scientific, I don't necessarily see it as a "balance" to evolutionary theory. Nor do I consider evolutionary (even macroevolutionary) ideas to be necessarily atheistic. I think that ID and evolution basically seek to answer different questions and aren't necessarily opposite ways to answer the same question. Of course, there are plenty of potential conflicts and I'm certain that plenty of IDers would disagree with what I just said. Biblical theology is another issue altogether, but that's a subject of my more recent blog article, not this one. At the end of the day, I am skeptical about much of what is claimed today under the heading of evolution not for religious reasons, but because I don't find the arguments/evidence compelling. I tend to be skeptical about all kinds of things though.

January 6, 2009 @ 12:55 AM

48. Katherine wrote:

So I took trimtab's advice to learn more about all this stuff by looking at Wikipedia's entry on "Science." Reading it helped me understand more of why this debate over ID in the schools exists.

First, I think the average person's idea of "science" may be different from the description of science I just read. For me, history is the study of things that happened before and science is the study of how things work. Or, to put things another way, history deals with the truth about what happened before and science deals with the truth about how things work. I do not think of the differences between "science" and "pseudoscience."

Second, I am pretty curious about the philosophy of science. The article says, "It has proven difficult to provide a definitive account of the scientific method that can decisively serve to distinguish science from non-science." Apparently there are different schools of thought: methodological naturalism, which rejects supernatural explanations; critical rationalism, which relies on falsifiability (which, according to a Wikipedia entry is of questionable value); and instrumentalism, which rejects the idea of truth and tries to be pragmatic. Wow. The philosophers of science (is that the right term?) are apparently still discussing what science is. (I went to a decent public high school and never heard about these things. Is philosophy of science a requirement for science majors at most colleges?)

So who is deciding what is science and what is not? And who has the authority to decide what is science and what is not?

I think those questions may be close to the heart of the debate over what to teach at public schools. I mean, if science is defined as "studying how things work and automatically disregarding any supernatural possibilities" then I can see why ID (assuming the intelligent designer is supernatural) would not be science. But I would have to wonder how and why science was defined that way.

I am still welcoming suggestions for reading. Anyone? Anyone?

January 7, 2009 @ 7:43 PM

49. trimtab wrote:

Katherine wrote:

"So who is deciding what is science and what is not? And who has the authority to decide what is science and what is not?"

Mostly scientists, with contributions from philosophers of science.

"I mean, if science is defined as "studying how things work and automatically disregarding any supernatural possibilities" then I can see why ID (assuming the intelligent designer is supernatural) would not be science. But I would have to wonder how and why science was defined that way."

The reason why science is defined that way is because no evidence has ever been provided of supernatural events or "theistic entities". Therefore, no scientific knowledge of the supernatural is otherwise possible. Also, the reliance by science on the empirical world is the only means of knowing with certainty how and why anything works. The surest knowledge we have is derived through scientific means. Any and every other "means" of generating objective knowledge is a comparable failure. Introspection and revelation can't hold a candle to science. Science works. ID et al. do not.

BTW, you will discover that in spite of the fact that philosophers and scientists study the nature and foundations of science and the scientific method, none of their debates leave any room for ID/Creationism. The only way for ID/Creationism to break through is to come up with objective evidence. And even if IDers managed to disprove the theory of evolution (i.e. falsify it), that still would not support ID. In other words, it does not follow that if evolution is proven false, therefore ID is true. ID still needs to satisfy scientificity criteria before being elevated to the ultimate rank of "scientific theory", namely:

1) ID must be supported by empirical evidence.
2) ID must be testable/verifiable/replicable.
3) ID must be falsifiable.
4) ID must be have explanatory power.
5) ID must be have predictive power.
6) ID must be able to explain what the previous theory it replaces could explain (if applicable).

January 7, 2009 @ 10:30 PM

50. Ed wrote:

Ok, so, this is turning into a great and very engaging debate.

I guess this forum is so fittingly called Ramblings, because we have all done so in a great length.

So, just let me see if I got this right: we are debating whether or not ID is a science just so that we can conclude whether or not it should be included into a public school science class.

Even if ID is not a science, what is wrong with teaching it in a public school science class (as an alternative to evolution)? Sure, there's the "separation of church and state" thing, but does teaching ID in a public school automatically mean we are colliding "state" and "church"? It's not like we are pointing a gun to the heads of the teachers to teach it, nor are we pointing a gun to the students to accept it and thus to believe in God.

I don't want the government to tell me if I should or should not believe in and worship a god. The government should get lost and mind its own business and let me worry about what I want to believe in or not. I will believe what I want. I don't need the government to dictate it to me. But, somewhere along the way, when I do need to search for a greater meaning in life (i.e. something spiritual), I don't want the government to ban me from doing it.

All I am saying is, why not teach both evolution and ID and let the kids decide for themselves?

After all, we believe in democracy and freedom. (Thanks to democracy and freedom we can have this debate online and not being shut down by the government.) We teach our kids in the classroom the values of democracy and freedom. But we also tell them about dictatorship, authoritarian form of government and some brutal military regimes worldwide. Why can't we teach both evolution and ID in the classroom as well?

I am worried that the US is the only country in the world that is slowly kicking anything that seems religious out of the classrooms, while countries which previously banned this topic are slowly putting religion back in the classrooms, even public school classrooms.

January 10, 2009 @ 10:05 AM

51. Cody wrote:

A few things to get off my chest . . .

Trimtab wrote:
"The reason why science is defined that way is because no evidence has ever been provided of supernatural events or "theistic entities"."

First, this is an extremely ethnocentric statement. The vast majority of people on this planet can attest to personal experiences with "supernatural" phenomena and point to hard evidence such as healings, curses, miracles, etc. It's a purely Eurocentric world view that discounts the testimonies of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans a priori because they are ridiculously considered uncivilized or uneducated. When was the last time you seriously weighed the empirical evidence testified to by an Amhara farmer or a Naga pastor, Trimtab? On what rational basis do you reject such a overwhelming amount of testimony?

Second, "supernatural" event occur in immense numbers all the time even in the U.S. How many times have I heard a story that ends with, "The doctors say it was a miracle." You have created in your mind a formula that automatically precludes any possibility of divine/spiritual intervention in the universe that can be empirically confirmed. If you deny this, then tell me how you distinguish between what is "supernatural" and what is "unexplainable?" I'll pose an example case so we something to work with:

Joe had a malignant tumor in his brain and the doctors were giving him about 2 months to live. They stopped all treatment. Joe gave up all hope, but not his friends. Joe's friends began praying and fasting for him to recover. A few weeks later, Joe went to a regular doctor's appointment, was poked and prodded and scanned and faxed -- the result, no more tumor. It was completely gone and the doctors had no explanation.

Now, this isn't what we may consider normal human experience, but stuff like this happens. In fact, I heard this basic story just last week. Question, what do you do with it? It it "natural" (i.e. that which occurs without divine/spiritual intervention) or is it "supernatural" (i.e. that which results from divine/spiritual intervention)? But you don't treat this question like you would most other questions. You don't take into consideration the simple facts that people asked a divine/spiritual being to heal Joe, no one else was trying to heal Joe, and Joe was healed. While it seems like the most reasonable answer, the one that most of humanity would lean towards first, your mind automatically begins to try to come up with other explanations. Why? Because of a fundamental presupposition that goes as follows: (a)Supernatural events do not occur. (b)Joe got better. (c)Therefore Joe's recovery must not have been a supernatural event. [ABC]

Your defense of this untenable position is that while scientists may not now be able to explain Joe's recovery in naturalistic terms, given time, they will be able to. And even if they never can explain it, that doesn't mean that there isn't a naturalist explanation because of ABC.

There are, of course, two problems with that defense. One is that the ABC argument is a tautology. And secondly, there is an inherent fallacy in assuming that if an event can be explained in some detail that is it therefore not the result of divine/spiritual intervention. The fallacy is in assuming that a divine/supernatural being wouldn't make use of what otherwise might be considered naturalistic means. So, the resurrection of Jesus was certainly supernatural, but the Gospel writers are not claiming that He came back to life without the use of oxygen, a heartbeat, metabolism, etc.

So, you know, I have no problem assuming that it was the aspirin that made my headache go away. That's the easiest explanation to come to. But Joe's tumor? It wasn't the aspirin.

Let's go back to your original statement:

"The reason why science is defined that way is because no evidence has ever been provided of supernatural events or "theistic entities"."

Interesting, the tautology is even in this statement. By "that way" you are referring to the automatic dismissal of supernatural possibilities. You are saying, "scientists" can define science in a way that automatically precludes the supernatural because there is no evidence for the supernatural. But clearly there is evidence. There are the countless Joe cases and the enormous testimony of the vast majority of the global population all contemporary to us. Moreover, there are historical records from every culture on the planet that testify to miraculous events -- some with very impressive attestation (e.g. the resurrection of Christ). All of this is "evidence", strictly speaking. But all of this is discarded automatically, isn't it? And why? Because, supernatural events don't happen. This "evidence" suggests that supernatural events do happen. Therefore, this must be faulty evidence - it must be discarded.

Science doesn't know what it is anymore. The Enlightenment was hard you guys and your still trying to recover. I understand. I feel your pain. It took us theologians a while to. But we're back, baby!

Next Trimtab quote:
"You haven't read my other posts. Yes, what you call "Macro-evolution" (which, incidentally, does not exist as an ontologically different phenomenon from "micro-evolution, i.e., there is only micro-evolution, whether applied to short or long time frames) can be validated, is validated, and can also be falsified. To fully observe micro-evolution over long periods of time, all you need is... time."

You are a bit out on a limb from other evolutionists on this, Trimtab. Stephen Gould makes a distinction between micro and macro in his "Return of the Hopeful Monster" an in at least one journal article. Gould consistently denied the possibility that gradualism (microevolution) could account for transmutation (macroevolution)and said that "The decisive step in evolution, the first step towards macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires ANOTHER evolutionary method than the sheer accumulation of micromutations." Gould is hardly a proponent of ID. By eliminating the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, you are effectively ignoring a rather substantial ongoing debate among those generally hold to transmutation. I know it serves your position well to present evolutionists as a united front. However, the debates are fierce and positions are extreme. You have some proposing that it must have been that at some point a bird hatched out of a reptile's egg. And on the opposite pole those who propose an evolutionary process so "gradual" as to be imperceivable and changes so subtle as to be without function. I mean, what does it even mean to believe in evolution? There is no definition, no agreement, no unified theory. It's an endlessly sprawling theoretical blob, devotees of which can only seem to agree on one thing--God has left the building.

And all you need is time? How much would you like? How long have mammals been around? One evolutionary scientist, a rather famous one named Steven Stanley, says that time cannot account for the degree of transformation Darwin (and neo-Darwinists) suggests because there just simply isn't enough of it. You need ten million? A hundred? Five hundred? Stanley says that forming a bat or a whale from a "primitive little mammal" via micromutation is "clearly preposterous. Chronospecies by definition grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodentlike form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not a bat or a whale!" BTW, a chain of 10-15 chronospecies is a chain 10-15 million years long! So, how much time do you need? And, oh yeah, there is no fossil evidence that supports the concept of a chronospecies (missing link) anyway. Stanley was just responding to a purely speculative explanation of why the fossil record doesn't apparently support Darwinian-style evolution.

January 10, 2009 @ 11:54 AM

52. trimtab wrote:

Ed wrote:

"Even if ID is not a science, what is wrong with teaching it in a public school science class (as an alternative to evolution)?"

... Because it is not an alternative to evolution! There is nothing to teach. And the reason there is nothing to teach is because ID is not knowledge. ID is mythology, non-science, and nonsense. Remember, it has no direct or indirect empirical basis.

"Sure, there's the "separation of church and state" thing, but does teaching ID in a public school automatically mean we are colliding "state" and "church"? "

YES. See the ruling in the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial. ID was demonstrated to be religiously motivated and an explicit and intentional means by its authors of introducing religious content in the school curriculum.

"It's not like we are pointing a gun to the heads of the teachers to teach it, nor are we pointing a gun to the students to accept it and thus to believe in God."

A large percentage of religiously-inclined teachers (and school boards) in US schools either don't teach evolution, or they teach it badly (i.e. misrepresent it), thus undermining science education. Also, a large percentage of non-religiously-inclined teachers don't teach or partially teach evolution because of peer pressure and parental intimidation from parents and students. Things are dismal as they stand already, no need to point a gun at anyone for damage to be done.

"I don't want the government to tell me if I should or should not believe in and worship a god. The government should get lost and mind its own business and let me worry about what I want to believe in or not. I will believe what I want. I don't need the government to dictate it to me. But, somewhere along the way, when I do need to search for a greater meaning in life (i.e. something spiritual), I don't want the government to ban me from doing it."

The government IS NOT telling you what to believe. That's one of the great benefits of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and it's implied "wall of separation between church and state." You can believe what you want, when you want it, where you want it, in the "private sphere." I.e., At home, at your church, on the street, at the mall, in a public park or square, even in your free time at school, etc. Just not in the "public sphere," i.e., through representational institutions like municipal, state, and federal institutions, of which public schools are part.

"All I am saying is, why not teach both evolution and ID and let the kids decide for themselves?"

For two reasons:

1) “[It is the business of a public school] to provide a disciplined introduction to the best scholarly ideas.” This precludes ID, for it is not the best scholarly idea. Heck, it isn't even scholarly at all. So much so, according to science, that it isn't even wrong!

2) Kids don't yet have the baggage necessary to evaluate such questions (which are excellent ones, BTW). This would detract from science teaching. And, out of fairness, you would have to allow this for every other subject matter in schools (public and private), math, physics, chemistry, home economics, abstinence-only sex ed., phys. ed., English, history (hellooooo historical revisionism, white-supremacy, pro-slavery, anti-Jew, etc.), geography, etc. For every one of these disciplines there are so-called "competing theories", some of which are more scientific than others, to say the least. Open the door to revisionism in biology (which is what ID is relative to evolution), and the floodgates bust open in every other field. Not sure any education could ever be had under those circumstances. That's why committees of experts get to determine (or should get to determine) school syllabi, and not people like Joe the plumber.

"After all, we believe in democracy and freedom. (Thanks to democracy and freedom we can have this debate online and not being shut down by the government.) We teach our kids in the classroom the values of democracy and freedom. But we also tell them about dictatorship, authoritarian form of government and some brutal military regimes worldwide. Why can't we teach both evolution and ID in the classroom as well?"

We can't teach both because it's not about "freedom of speech" at all. The content of school syllabi is better left in the hands of experts. If you wish to have your say, you must become one and abide by the processes that have been elaborated by our best truth-engendering institution: science. You can't just decide what the truth is in a committee. There have to be more objective ways of deciding so. And it turns out that science is the best way we have of deciding the truth of matters. Voting for ID as a truth does not make it so in reality.

And leaving it up to the majority, out of an appeal to democracy, is not necessarily a good idea. Maybe you might want to learn something about "the tyranny of the majority." Or just think of how deep of a scientific abyss the US would become if, out of a care for "freedom of speech" your school syllabi diluted the content to include ID, creationism, and any number of the 2500+ creation myths running around in the minds of the 300 million US citizens. Wait, that's just regarding evolution. Then there's numerology in math class. Countless revisions in history, rampant ethnophobia in ethics class, alchemy and new-age crystals in chemistry class, astrology in physics, etc.

Good luck.

January 10, 2009 @ 2:08 PM

53. Ed wrote:

Folks,

Suddenly we are turning "the United States of America, one nation under God" into the Communist States of America, one nation under Science"?

By not allowing God (religion/ church) into the classroom we are just like living in the time resembling the communist states' (like the former Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam) glorious days, when they USED to teach science and not religion in their classrooms. That's why the communist countries were so good at science. They used to rank among the highest in the world when it comes to a science competition.
Nowadays the opposite is true. human beings' hunger for something spiritual has propelled these former and current communist states into allowing God into the classroom and society, while we, a nation founded under the Judeo-Christian principles are abandoning God.

Folks, if you believe that God/ ID/ creationism/ religion is a myth, it still doesn't explain why it should not be taught.

January 10, 2009 @ 7:36 PM

54. trimtab wrote:

Cody, long time no white...

you wrote:

"The vast majority of people on this planet can attest to personal experiences with "supernatural" phenomena and point to hard evidence such as healings, curses, miracles, etc. It's a purely Eurocentric world view that discounts the testimonies of Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans a priori because they are ridiculously considered uncivilized or uneducated. When was the last time you seriously weighed the empirical evidence testified to by an Amhara farmer or a Naga pastor, Trimtab? On what rational basis do you reject such a overwhelming amount of testimony?"

No "objective," "scientific" evidence has ever been found by any body (and I mean ANYBODY) regarding the existence of supernatural entities of phenomena. Period. All first-hand accounts and other personal belief are best explained through psychosomatic or placebo effects, self delusion, and other psychological explanations. There is nothing Eurocentric about requiring the standards of science to be upheld. And I will uphold the scientific standards in the presence of anybody, whether they be American, European, African, Asian, or Martian.

"Second, "supernatural" event occur in immense numbers all the time even in the U.S. How many times have I heard a story that ends with, "The doctors say it was a miracle.""

Please, have you not assimilated the notion of "black box" yet? Saying "it's a miracle" is just another way of saying "this is absolutely not the outcome we were expecting." Also, throughout the history of humanity, every time we have uttered the words "it's a miracle," there have always been better empirically motivated explanations. The use of these words often stem from ignorance or a corrupted understanding of probabilities, or both. For every cancer anecdote of successful recovery in the face of great improbabilities, there are a pathetically huge number of other cases that wall within the norm, and an equally minuscule number of cancer patients that were caught way early but who get swept away in spite of the positive prognosis.

"But you don't treat this question like you would most other questions."

Yes you do. Every time, in the history of humanity, that we ascribed supernaturalism to what we couldn't explain we were wrong. Sorry. To you, Joe's case is a miracle, and all the poor sods who kick the bucket were... planned deaths that fit into some inscrutable destiny. How convenient. If this is comforting, soothing for you, fine. But don't tell me this is scientific. Every time science tries to ascertain if some purportedly supernatural/para-normal phenomenon exists, it's a bust. Recently, intercessory prayer as thoroughly tested, using double-blind + control group methodology. Prayer = FAIL. Sorry.

"Your defense of this untenable position is that while scientists may not now be able to explain Joe's recovery in naturalistic terms, given time, they will be able to. And even if they never can explain it, that doesn't mean that there isn't a naturalist explanation because of ABC."

There is nothing untenable about this position, for it has been empirically supported for millennia. Also, science admits they cannot prove the non-existence of theistic supernatural omnipotent entities. But the TOTAL ABSENCE of any objective scientific evidence positively supporting said entities DOES constitute a form of evidence. This form of evidence calls scientists towards skepticism. And, as time goes on, the more various phenomena such as intercessory prayer are debunked, the more justified scientists and skeptics feel in their assignment of zero probabilities for the existence of said entities.

By the way, your tautology is actually a syllogism, and a broken one at that. Also, no scientist would likely make such a grave error.

Again, regarding the holding hand of supernatural entities, if they interfere with the natural world, this should be detectable. The fact that we cannot detect it is telling, and much more consistent with a theory of the world that does not include said entities. Occam's razor obliges one to favor the simpler explanation than the one involving extra "entities."

"So, you know, I have no problem assuming that it was the aspirin that made my headache go away. That's the easiest explanation to come to. But Joe's tumor? It wasn't the aspirin."

Leap of faith. I respect that, it's your call, and "freedom of speech" grant's you the right to believe and say anything. But there is nothing scientific about your conclusion. Nothing.

"Interesting, the tautology is even in this statement. By "that way" you are referring to the automatic dismissal of supernatural possibilities. You are saying, "scientists" can define science in a way that automatically precludes the supernatural because there is no evidence for the supernatural."

The reason why science excludes supernaturalism is because supernaturalist explanations

1) do not explain anything;
2) cannot be tested;
3) cannot be falsified;
4) cannot explain anything;
4) cannot predict new phenomena;
6) cannot replace existing scientific theories.

Nothing tautological here. No broken syllogism here. Just a pragmatic rejection of an approach (i.e. accepting supernaturalism) that fails empirically. Totally!

BTW, the evidence you refer to, e.g., Joe's case, in support of supernaturalism is invalid. I.e., from the evidence, nothing allows us to objectively conclude in the existence of supernatural entities. I.e., the conclusion fails to tell anyone what it is that makes the conclusion necessary.

"You are a bit out on a limb from other evolutionists on this, Trimtab. Stephen Gould makes a distinction between micro and macro in"

I think you might be confusing the useful methodological fiction that "macroevolution" consists of and Gould's "punctuated equilibrium." Yes, biologists often use micro- and macroevolution in their jargon, but their use is specific. For example, at the following link,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Wikipedia references the following use:

"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population."

Here, "macroevolution" does not imply a new form of evolution, the nature of which is ontologically different from "microevolution," it's just a different scale at which to view changes that have occurred through the only real kind of change, called "microevolution," or simply "evolution." To support this, see further in the same article:

"Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one - the only difference between them is of time and scale. However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor - macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in macroevolution occurring over a single generation."

Read further still the section called "Criticism of macroevolution." You will realize that your criticism of me and your misuse of S. J. Gould are simply dead wrong. The disunion you paint is contradicted by this Wikipedia article, as well as by many well known biologists. If you think there is a widespread, fierce debate, capable of ultimately falsifying evolution, you have to start giving us some references if you want to be taken serious. I suggest you start with the Wiki article linked above and read other articles like the one on "science" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Don't know much about Steven Stanley, but his ideas and those of Gould on punctuated equilibrium seem date back 35 years, and since then, the scientific community has moved on. The consensus seems to accept that speciation occurs at variable speeds. It's not either all gradual, or all quantum in degree. This false dichotomy has been abandoned by the scientific community long ago. Stevens and Gould fought for their ideas, and, in response, the scientific community adapted the theory of evolution by abandoning pure gradualism. Pure gradualism was just a methodological fiction to begin with, albeit a useful one.

January 10, 2009 @ 10:50 PM

55. trimtab wrote:

Ed,

Your fear mongering is classic, but misguided. The US government is not allowed to teach religion or atheism to children (i.e. indoctrinate them) because of your Constitution. Your Constitution was devise so as to prevent abuse, usually in the form of fascist theocratic regimes. (Think Saudi Arabia, Iran.)

However, YOU can teach religion to your children (i.e. indoctrinate them), you just can't do it with public money. Isn't it great?! You can believe anything you want. Your children can believe anything they want. But you and your children just can't pretend that reality is just the way you pretend it to be. The consequence of having 300 million people believing reality to be any cockamamy idea that comes through their mind would be devastating. That's why you have laws, bureaucracy, science, etc. Science just happens to knows darn better than you and your children what reality actually is. That's why, when you go to the hospital, you are provided science-derived modern medicine, not intercessory prayer. Prayer just does not work. Medicine does. Period.

Science has nothing to do with atheism or religion. You reach your own conclusions and believe anything you want. But if you make claims of existence, you better be able to back it up. That's what science is good at. It's top dog at backing up its assertions. Religion, not good at all. ID, ditto. Remember, backing up one's claims has to be objective, otherwise, it's no better than the next fraud.

BTW, Stalin, Mao and Pot were leaders of non-theistic cults. Very dogmatic, where science had to conform to party ideology. In some areas, where they stuck to science, they fared well, in others, where they didn't follow the scientific method, they tanked.

If today the US is having a hard time measuring up to other countries, either economically or academically, it might have something to do with the anti-elite, anti-intelligence, anti-science, anti-liberal agenda of the neo-conservative right-wing over the past 35+ years. Plus dreadful economic policies (Reaganomics, anyone?). Back when the US kicked ass, in the 50's through 70's, it was in part because of a well trained, technologically and scientifically-trained workforce. This has waned over the last 3 decades, with enrolment going down in science departments, while emerging countries like China and India, who lagged terribly back then, have caught up with Europe and North-America, mainly because of their investment in science, technology, and education.

Right-wing neo-conservatism seems to have latched onto the religious right and developed into a self-reinforcing spite machine, promoting fear and hatred of others, motivated by an inability to accept change, to question authority, and by an intense desire to conform authority and dogma. Education, especially educated people, seems to scare the daylights out of neo-cons. Climate science denial is rampant among these people. As is denial of evolutionary theory, and an inexplicable revulsion for species conservation. It's all related to the Bible and delusions of rapture, sadly, and to the "conservation" of big business, especially in the energy sector (oil, coal).

We are far from paleo-conservatism. And granted, full-bore liberalism has it's pitfalls, but somewhere along the way, somebody lost track of the ball and let it drop. Science is not the enemy. You make it into your enemy at your own peril, and the peril of others, and that of future generations.

Cheers.

January 10, 2009 @ 11:47 PM

56. Cody wrote:

I'm gonna shoot for focus here and limit my comments to the following paragraph:

"No "objective," "scientific" evidence has ever been found by any body (and I mean ANYBODY) regarding the existence of supernatural entities of phenomena. Period. All first-hand accounts and other personal belief are best explained through psychosomatic or placebo effects, self delusion, and other psychological explanations. There is nothing Eurocentric about requiring the standards of science to be upheld. And I will uphold the scientific standards in the presence of anybody, whether they be American, European, African, Asian, or Martian."

First . . .

"No "objective," "scientific" evidence has ever been found by any body (and I mean ANYBODY) regarding the existence of supernatural entities of phenomena.

Define "objective evidence" and then demonstrate that you have genuine "objective" evidence for anything.

"All first-hand accounts and other personal belief are best explained through psychosomatic or placebo effects, self delusion, and other psychological explanations."

Why are they best explained this way? Considering the sheer volume of such accounts, why are the "all" best explained this way?

"There is nothing Eurocentric about requiring the standards of science to be upheld."

Where did you get these "standards of science" and on what basis to you hold them up as universally sound? Have your "standards of science" been established via empirical processes? Are they falsifiable?

January 11, 2009 @ 12:07 AM

57. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

"Define "objective evidence" and then demonstrate that you have genuine "objective" evidence for anything."

1) From the "Scientific Evidence" entry in Wikipedia:

"Evidence is information, such as facts, coupled with principles of inference (the act or process of deriving a conclusion), that make information relevant to the support or disproof of a hypothesis. Scientific evidence is evidence where the dependence of the evidence on principles of inference is not conceded, enabling others to examine the background beliefs or assumptions employed to determine if facts are relevant to the support of or falsification of a hypothesis."

Generally, introspective experiences are notoriously subjective, they do not lend themselves easily to experimentation. Therefore, it is difficult for others to access the "evidence" or to identify the introspective events as facts that can be replicated and verified. Also, theses events are intermittent, making them difficult so study.

2) From the "Evidence" entry on Wikipedia:

"One must always remember that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim."

Therefore, if you are making the positive claim that introspective revelations are direct manifestations of supernaturalism, you must provide the evidence, preferably to the standards of science so as to avoid observer bias. It is not up to me to "demonstrate that [I] have genuine "objective" evidence for anything."

"Why are they best explained this way? Considering the sheer volume of such accounts, why are the "all" best explained this way?"

They are best explained this way because many, many more such accounts, involving unverifiable entities, have in the past best been explained thusly. The added benefit of ascribing these so-called manifestations of theistic entities, extraterrestrials, ghosts, etc., to psychological delusion is that this satisfies Occam's Razor.

"Where did you get these "standards of science" and on what basis to you hold them up as universally sound? Have your "standards of science" been established via empirical processes? Are they falsifiable?"

These "standards of science" are the distilled principles that philosophers and scientists have been cultivating for the past 2.5 millennia. Some of them are of a logical/rational nature, others are empirically derived, while others may be arbitrary or even aesthetic. These are meta-scientific principles, and therefore to not necessarily fall under the purview of falsifiability. And not all of them apply to a given field of inquiry. The main reason these standards of science are cherished by scientists the World over is because they Just Work(TM), while EVERY other system of knowledge production fails, comparatively. There simply is no contest.

January 11, 2009 @ 10:45 AM

58. Cody wrote:

Let's continue on this line . . .

Trimtab wrote:
"Therefore, if you are making the positive claim that introspective revelations are direct manifestations of supernaturalism, you must provide the evidence, preferably to the standards of science so as to avoid observer bias. It is not up to me to "demonstrate that [I] have genuine "objective" evidence for anything.""

First, I'm looking for you to define "objective evidence" not "evidence". Second, you are dismissing an overwhelming amount of testimony as non-evidence on the basis that such testimony is not "objective evidence". So, if "objective evidence" is the only kind of evidence that is acceptable in your view, you must demonstrate that there is such a thing as "objective evidence."

"They are best explained this way because many, many more such accounts, involving unverifiable entities, have in the past best been explained thusly. The added benefit of ascribing these so-called manifestations of theistic entities, extraterrestrials, ghosts, etc., to psychological delusion is that this satisfies Occam's Razor."

So, if everyone else jumps off a bridge . . . Upon what basis should I accept Occam's Razor? Why should we presume that the simplest answer is the correct one? Why should theories related to psychological delusion be considered the simplest explanations?


"These "standards of science" are the distilled principles that philosophers and scientists have been cultivating for the past 2.5 millennia."

So, they are inherently subjective?

"Some of them are of a logical/rational nature, others are empirically derived, while others may be arbitrary or even aesthetic."

Which ones are which?

"These are meta-scientific principles, and therefore to not necessarily fall under the purview of falsifiability."

So, the very foundation of science is "meta-science?" Is this different that pseudo-science? Here are two claims:

(a) The universe was created by an intelligent designer.

(b) All scientific claims must be falsifiable.

Why must "a" be falsifiable and empirically founded but not "b"?

"The main reason these standards of science are cherished by scientists the World over is because they Just Work(TM)"

Nice, you just turned science into a folk religion. In addition to being a pastor-type, I'm also something of a missiologist (applied anthropology), and folk religions are essentially belief systems built upon and adhered to because they "work." Shamanism works and works with a very high degree of consistency. Now, I'm not a shaman nor do I go to one. Why? Because I don't believe it's true. You seem to be saying that "science" is a set of beliefs and practices that are "cherished by scientists the world over" because they work. Shamanism is a set of beliefs and practices that are cherished by shamanists the world over because they also work. You might say, well, perhaps it "works" in the experience of the shamanists, but for different reasons. And, I know for sure that a shaman would point at your system and say the same thing. Yeah, it works, but not for the reason that you say.

So, question, why should I prefer your folk religion to Shamanism?

"while EVERY other system of knowledge production fails, comparatively. There simply is no contest."

I really don't think this is true. But, you have to establish what it means to fail or succeed.

January 12, 2009 @ 2:52 PM

59. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

"So, if "objective evidence" is the only kind of evidence that is acceptable in your view, you must demonstrate that there is such a thing as "objective evidence.""

The impossibility of verifying evidence precludes objectivity. Your evidence must be reviewed by others, replicated by others, etc. Without this "objective" access to the facts, very little science is possible. It turns out that many of the introspective dispositions of believers and delusional individuals are being investigated more and more by psychologists, through the use of MRI technology, to great effect.

"So, if everyone else jumps off a bridge . . . Upon what basis should I accept Occam's Razor? Why should we presume that the simplest answer is the correct one? Why should theories related to psychological delusion be considered the simplest explanations? "

I don't quite get that jumping off a bridge part... But to answer your question, psychological theories are more likely to be correct because they manage to provide explanations just the same, but need one less entity that supernatural explanations, i.e., the theistic entity.

"So, they are inherently subjective?"

But their efficacy can me studied and evaluated. It turns out they are remarkably efficient and reliable.

"Which ones are which?"

You can Google, I presume? If indeed so, look up "scientific method", or any of the other links I provided up till now. From there, you'll find lots of information.

"So, the very foundation of science is "meta-science?" Is this different that pseudo-science? Here are two claims:
(a) The universe was created by an intelligent designer.
(b) All scientific claims must be falsifiable.
Why must "a" be falsifiable and empirically founded but not "b"?"

Nothing to do with pseudo-science. Claim (a) is a scientific proposition, while claim (b) is meta-scientific proposition. According to science, (b) is a requirement that applies to (a).

"Nice, you just turned science into a folk religion."

I don't think so. For science to be religion, it would need to be accepted on faith, and make proclamations based on the edicts of some immutable fundament, like a bible. No such luck, as I, including all scientists worthy of that title, would cease to accept science and turn to something else if it failed to explain and predict with great reliability. I accept scientific theories and rely on the scientific method because of their empirical success. No dogma here, no religion, and no fundamentalism either.

I would question your assertion that shamanism "works with a very high degree of consistency." As far as I know, folk medicine, other than through the placebo effect, does not "work" very well. Also, science does not work "all" the time. But it is quite effective, much more so that shamanism, plus, it goes much further than merely tribe members convincing themselves through self- and group-conditioning/pressure, hallucinogenic plant extracts, and fear: science works verifiably and objectively. With science, you don't just "think" something is true, you know it in a way that helps preclude bias, fraud, self-deception and delusion.

"I really don't think this is true. But, you have to establish what it means to fail or succeed."

To succeed, you merely need to actually explain something, as opposed to, e.g., offering another black box. You need to make predictions that are verifiable and turn out to be true. You need to have the a priori possibility of failing. You need to establish tests that are replicable and confirmed.

What other system of knowledge generation do you know? How does it compare to science? E.g., what are the contributions of ID to any field of science, or to humanity? Name me one contribution made by ID, or any other system of knowledge production. (Please make sure this knowledge is specific, as I won't accept any black boxes, or woo-woo, fuzzy wakaloon mumbo jumbo. E.g., it could be specific knowledge that leads to, directly, something worthy of modern electronics or modern medicine, something useful, but, preferably, something true.)

January 12, 2009 @ 10:24 PM

60. Katherine wrote:

trimtab, I really appreciate your responses to my posts but I feel like we're somehow missing each other. I acknowledge your 6 point list detailing why ID is not a scientific theory but I am choosing not to respond to that because (besides needing to understand more about what each point means) I am still stuck on how to define science.

I can get why modern science looks for natural (in the "not supernatural" sense) explanations. The supernatural is not predictable or controllable and therefore can be difficult to study by observation and experimentation.

Since I can't draw a Venn diagram in this comment box, let me try to describe one:
1. Draw a large circle & label it Truth. This would be all truth. Outside the circle would be false things.
2. Inside Truth, draw a smaller, tangent circle labeled How Things Work.
3. Within How Things Work, draw a smaller circle also tangent to Truth & label it Natural. Things within the Natural circle work according to natural laws as we understand them. Things outside Natural but within How Things Work do not and are labeled Supernatural.
4. Within the Natural circle, draw a smaller circle also tangent to Truth & label it Science as Defined by "Scientists".

When elementary school children do their science projects, they are taught that science is about "how things work." They are not taught that science is solely focused on natural explanations. They are taught that science is truth (& you would certainly hope that whatever the subject, children are being taught the truth).

So my first point is that when the average person thinks of the school subject/department of science, he or she thinks of the How Things Work circle, not the Science as Defined by "Scientists" one. Note that the How Things Work circle may be larger than the other one. (I am allowing for null sets.)

My second point: Let's say we make another circle labeled The History of Life on Earth. How do we know that this circle belongs entirely within the circle of S.a.D.b."S."? How do we know that this circle belongs entirely within the Natural circle?

The "evolutionary history of life" (as described by the Wikipedia article of the same name) assumes The History of Life is entirely contained in the Natural circle. This assumption may not be true. Evolution is presented in American public schools under the auspices of How Things Work, as truth. This combo is what troubles me.

Possible solutions I see: 1) Have philosophers of science make the circle of S.a.D.b."S." the same as How Things Work. 2) Have someone demonstrate that there is nothing in the Supernatural space (i.e. the Natural circle is the same as How Things Work). 3) Don't teach The History of Life in a class on How Things Work.

If the Venn diagrams didn't work for you, I can try set notation...

January 13, 2009 @ 1:21 AM

61. Cody wrote:

"The impossibility of verifying evidence precludes objectivity. Your evidence must be reviewed by others, replicated by others, etc. Without this "objective" access to the facts, very little science is possible. It turns out that many of the introspective dispositions of believers and delusional individuals are being investigated more and more by psychologists, through the use of MRI technology, to great effect."

Hmmm . . . not seeing a definition of objective evidence here. Unless you mean peer review and replication. But that just seems to multiply subjectivity doesn't it. Is it your position that more subjective interpreters of data result in more objectivity?

"psychological theories are more likely to be correct because they manage to provide explanations just the same, but need one less entity that supernatural explanations, i.e., the theistic entity."

(1) Why does this make the theory more likely to be correct? (2) Why is "one less entity" considered simpler?


"But their efficacy can me studied and evaluated. It turns out they are remarkably efficient and reliable."

So, because something works we like it. I have found that with a remarkably high rate of efficiency and reliability that every time a black cat crosses my path and I throw salt over my shoulder, bad things don't happen to me.

"You can Google, I presume? If indeed so, look up "scientific method", or any of the other links I provided up till now. From there, you'll find lots of information."

You like to tell me to go Google - I hope that's not a euphemism. My purpose in this dialog isn't to discover what is written on Wikipedia by some anonymous contributor, but to consider your perspectives. So, which "principles of science" are in your view logically derived, which are empirically established, which are aesthetic, and which are arbitrary?

[I'll leave my quote in for the next piece]

CODY:
"So, the very foundation of science is "meta-science?" Is this different that pseudo-science? Here are two claims:
(a) The universe was created by an intelligent designer.
(b) All scientific claims must be falsifiable.
Why must "a" be falsifiable and empirically founded but not "b"?"

TRIMTAB:
"Nothing to do with pseudo-science. Claim (a) is a scientific proposition, while claim (b) is meta-scientific proposition. According to science, (b) is a requirement that applies to (a)."

That seems oddly convenient for you. So any claim I make about the natural world must be founded upon a principle the claims of which cannot live up to that same standard? So, how do we know the "meta-scientific proposition" is true?


CODY:
"Nice, you just turned science into a folk religion."

TRIMTAB:
"I don't think so. For science to be religion, it would need to be accepted on faith, and make proclamations based on the edicts of some immutable fundament, like a bible. No such luck, as I, including all scientists worthy of that title, would cease to accept science and turn to something else if it failed to explain and predict with great reliability. I accept scientific theories and rely on the scientific method because of their empirical success. No dogma here, no religion, and no fundamentalism either."

You are assuming a definition of religion that is not an accurate one. While faith plays a key role in Christianity (and a lesser but still significant one in Islam and Judaism), the same cannot be said for the vast majority of the rest of the world's religions. The idea of an "immutable fundament, like a bible" is also foreign to most of the world's religions. Hinduism, for example, (with its billion followers) doesn't have this kind of concept. Nor does Buddhism (add another billion or so followers). But this is besides the point, because I wouldn't consider your view of science (as you described it) to be as sophisticated as the views of religiously orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists.

Rather, I compared your views to folk religion (and I don't have any idea, nor do I care, how Wikipedia defines folk religion). Folk religion rarely has much to do with faith. Folk religion is almost entirely practical. For example, ancestor worship is done because every time the family stops doing it, something bad happens. Moreover, folk religionists don't have in mind some kind of "immutable fundament." Nor, for that matter, are they all that theistic, in the sense of being concerned about a supreme being. So, I describe your view of science as folk religion because it is based entirely on practical concerns - it "just works." The primary concern is about practicality, which your next paragraph confirms, rather than with truth.

TRIMTAB:
"I would question your assertion that shamanism "works with a very high degree of consistency." As far as I know, folk medicine, other than through the placebo effect, does not "work" very well."

Well, I appreciate the "as far as I know" phrase. My assumption is that folk religion hasn't been your primary field of study. But, the sheer fact that scores of people revert back to shamanistic practices even long after Western medicine has been introduced into a culture must say something about its effectiveness. Don't get me wrong, when I get a headache, I'm reaching for the Tylenol. But it has nothing to do with me believing the the local Shaman can't effectively treat a headache. It has to do with truth. Truth that, among other things, weighs in on what is right and what is wrong. But I'm getting off track.

TRIMTAB:
"Also, science does not work "all" the time."

Right. Why not?

TRIMTAB:
"But it is quite effective, much more so that shamanism"

You got any data on that? Besides, now you just sound like a rival shaman.

TRIMTAB:
"plus, it goes much further than merely tribe members convincing themselves through self- and group-conditioning/pressure, hallucinogenic plant extracts, and fear: science works verifiably and objectively."

What does it mean for something to work verifiably and objectively? Are you just saying it really, really works?

TRIMTAB:
"With science, you don't just "think" something is true, you know it in a way that helps preclude bias, fraud, self-deception and delusion."

Really? Like Piltdown man? Or more like Nebraska man?

TRIMTAB:
"To succeed, you merely need to actually explain something, as opposed to, e.g., offering another black box. You need to make predictions that are verifiable and turn out to be true. You need to have the a priori possibility of failing. You need to establish tests that are replicable and confirmed."

Says who? It seems arbitrary to take the "black box" (the fundamentally unexplainable) off the table. I like Katherine's verbal venn diagram here. On predictions and verifications and replication, any shaman worth his salt can do that.

TRIMTAB:
"What other system of knowledge generation do you know? How does it compare to science? E.g., what are the contributions of ID to any field of science, or to humanity? Name me one contribution made by ID, or any other system of knowledge production. (Please make sure this knowledge is specific, as I won't accept any black boxes, or woo-woo, fuzzy wakaloon mumbo jumbo. E.g., it could be specific knowledge that leads to, directly, something worthy of modern electronics or modern medicine, something useful, but, preferably, something true.)"

So, you are defining a "system of knowledge generation" as something that helps us make IPODs and Tylenol? I think I would like to reject that definition. Or at least say, I'm not that interested in it. I mean I'm happy to let the chemists make the tylenol - though I'm not sure how being a neo-Darwinist will help them make it better. In terms of generating knowledge, history does pretty good. Philosophy. Sociology. Heck, I even like some theologians. ID says that "nothing comes from nothing" and, well, since not too many other people are saying it, it seems like a valid thing to bring up. I don't know what a "woo-woo" is. On the other, I think you mean "fuzzy wuzzy" which is a derogatory term for a nomadic camel-herding people group in northeast Africa known as the Beja. It was Kipling who famously called them that. But, since it's kind of a belittling term, you may owe 2 million people an apology. It doesn't have anything to do with "mumbo jumbo" which probably derives from a Congolese phrase. You got me on wakaloon too.
January 12, 2009 @ 10:24 PM

January 13, 2009 @ 10:31 AM

62. trimtab wrote:

Kaherine wrote:

"Since I can't draw a Venn diagram in this comment box, let me try to describe one:
..."

You went ahead and gave us "science, as defined by theologians" (SaDb"T"). You postulate with great ease a set called Truth (could mean many different things), containing both the supernatural and the natural. To you, this goes without saying, but I am rather less certain. Postulate all you want, but don't teach it as science. Teach it as theology if you wish, but don't pretend its "knowledge" is scientific.

"When elementary school children do their science projects, they are taught that science is about "how things work." They are not taught that science is solely focused on natural explanations. They are taught that science is truth (& you would certainly hope that whatever the subject, children are being taught the truth)."

School children are taught using simplifying assumptions. Assaulting children with hard core philosophy of science is not conducive to ideal learning. Science is not, and should not be, taught as if it is the unquestionable truth. It is a method leading to tentative truths, the certainty of which can be measured to varying degrees of personal and collective satisfaction. (Much, much less can be said of theology/supernaturalism.)

Indeed, I do hope children are being taught the truth. That's what science and philosophy aspire to do. Bodies of knowledge must account for the means by which they are constituted. Science does so through the scientific method, which encompasses skepticism, creativity, and logic/reason, among others. Theology uses other means. But it cannot rely on the empirical basis. It does not have the equivalent of the scientific method. You can't call the object of theology identical to that of science. You can't call theology "science."

"The "evolutionary history of life" (as described by the Wikipedia article of the same name) assumes The History of Life is entirely contained in the Natural circle. This assumption may not be true. Evolution is presented in American public schools under the auspices of How Things Work, as truth. This combo is what troubles me."

Your appellation "How It Works" is rather limiting. A priori, science is open to the discovery of any and every object that can be brought to our attention, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, science is not limited to merely "How things work," but encompasses "What exists," and "Why things are thus." Personally, do not accept Gould's Non-Overlaping Magesteria between science and religion.

If the scientific content presented to youths troubles you because it is depicted as truth, and that this truth merely pertains to naturalistic explanations à la "How it works," then do something about it. Get religious education in US schools to talk about the fact that supernaturalism exists (but then expect the opposing view to also be presented, i.e., that supernaturalism does not exist). Or have this discussed in humanities or philosophy classes in high-school and college. But if you plan on having supernaturalism taught in a science class, you had better be prepared for the assault:

1) Got any evidence to back that up?
2) Is your hypothesis falsifiable?
3) Got some kind of experiment?
4) What's your protocol?
5) Can it be replicated?
6) Has it been confirmed?
7) What does you hypothesis explain?
8) Got any predictions?
9) Have those materialized?
10) Does your disruptive hypothesis subsume phenomena previously covered by an other scientific theory?
...

Philosophy will discuss anything. However, science has specific criteria that you must satisfy. It has had these criteria since the beginning. This should be of no surprise to anyone, other than, perhaps, to religious folks.

Anything short of satisfying these criteria disqualifies supernaturalism from being taught as science. Why? Because failure to satisfy these scientificity criteria LEADS TO NO OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE, WHATSOEVER. No objective knowledge? No science. No certainty. No truth. Tell me what knowledge has ever been derived from theology/religion, the certainty of which can rival with modern medicine, modern electronics, quantum mechanics, the theory of gravity, the atomic theory of matter, and the theory of evolution?

So, postulate all you want, be certain all you want, stay convinced to the core about the existence of omnipotent, supernatural, theistic entities. That's fine by me. I'm really OK with that. But you shouldn't peddle it "as science" in schools. And you shouldn't accuse scientists of conspiring to violate your constitutionally protected right to free speech (à la Ben Stein). This has nothing to do with free speech, as universities, as well as every academic institution (except perhaps private institutions), have the duty “[...] to provide a disciplined introduction to the best scholarly ideas.”

And remember, I, as well as any and every agnostic, adogmatic, and atheistic scientist, will change my mind and accept, in a heart beat, the existence of supernaturalism, the minute it can be demonstrated to intersect with the natural world so as to satisfy normal scientific requirements. In other words, don't go telling anyone that I'm closed-minded, fundamentalist, or even religious in the same sense as you. I do consider myself religious, but not in a theistic, political, socialistic, or dogmatic sense. I am in awe before the universe. I just stop there. And I don't miss a thing, quite the contrary. I believe I miss even less.

And thanks to you and Cody for being so tolerant and having me pursue this exchange with you. I just recently checked out you site and your staff and contact info. I hope you don't get the impression that I'm attacking your religious belief. I don't have such intentions. However, the issue of science education is very dear to me. In this respect, I'm only trying to confront your views as they apply to the place of science in society.

When science is questioned by such a large group as American Christians, most Muslims around the world, not to mention Hindus, etc., i.e., by creationists and fundamental literalists, everyone should be worried. Redefining science in the context of Dominionism, Reconstructionism, or Theocracy, is not a good idea. I'm hoping to better understand yours and Cody's point of view in this respect. I don't think we've yet touched on the core of your apprehensions regarding the teaching of science. Many religious people see Expelled and agree with the premise of the movie. "There's a 'left-wing' conspiracy going on." "ID and creationism are (scientific) theories just the same." "Free speech dictates that they should be taught alongside evolution." Etc. I just hope I can successfully explain why these beliefs are, in my opinion, totally wrong.

January 13, 2009 @ 11:34 AM

63. trimtab wrote:

Cody wrote:

“Hmmm . . . not seeing a definition of objective evidence here. Unless you mean peer review and replication. But that just seems to multiply subjectivity doesn't it. Is it your position that more subjective interpreters of data result in more objectivity?”

Objective, as in being able to share with others your personal (first-person point-of-view) experiences. It’s about finding a common ground or an understanding with others regarding such experiences. I don’t want to be trapped in some post-modernist methodological relativism, which ultimately leads to solipsism. If that’s where you’re taking us, I want no part of it. Pure objectivity does not exist, granted. It can only come from the interplay of multiple subjective points-of-view. Call it inter-subjectivity. But I’m afraid that’s all we can shoot for.

“ "psychological theories are more likely to be correct because they manage to provide explanations just the same, but need one less entity that supernatural explanations, i.e., the theistic entity."

(1) Why does this make the theory more likely to be correct? (2) Why is "one less entity" considered simpler? ”

Because of a principle called Occam’s Razor, and because empirical evidence seems to suggest this as well. Say you have the following:

1) A theory that explains some aspect of the world and requires at most four entities (say, the four forces, i.e., electromagnetism, gravity, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force).

2) An other theory explaining the same aspect of the world, but requiring five entities (say, the same four forces plus a posited fifth force).

Ceteris paribus, both theories serve the same purpose, explain the same phenomena, have the same predictive power, etc. Science tends to prefer the theory with fewer entities. If four entities are sufficient to explain something, then adding a fifth is seen as incorrect. This principle is often debated, as these kinds of comparisons are notoriously difficult to defend, as theories with differing numbers of entities are often not equal, all else being equal. A classic example is the opposition between the Ptolemaic system of planetary motion (geocentrism) and the heliocentric model. The Ptolemaic system needed to call upon more entities than the heliocentric model, and was also not falsifiable.

“So, because something works we like it. I have found that with a remarkably high rate of efficiency and reliability that every time a black cat crosses my path and I throw salt over my shoulder, bad things don't happen to me.”

No, you haven’t. You can delude yourself in believing that there’s a causal relation between the occurrence of a black cat crossing your path and those superstitious actions, but there is no such relation. Correlation does not imply causation. Belief that something works is not sufficient. Again, science is not about dogma, or superstition. It’s about knowing in a way that precluded interpretation errors, biases, fraud, subjectivity, etc.

“So, which "principles of science" are in your view logically derived, which are empirically established, which are aesthetic, and which are arbitrary?”

Falsifiability is in my view a logical meta-scientific principle. Simplicity and elegance are of an aesthetic nature. The need to replicate experiments is an empirical principle. Occam’s Razor seems arbitrary to some, while others feel it stands to reason.

CODY:
"So, the very foundation of science is "meta-science?" Is this different that pseudo-science? Here are two claims:
(a) The universe was created by an intelligent designer.
(b) All scientific claims must be falsifiable.
Why must "a" be falsifiable and empirically founded but not "b"?"

TRIMTAB:
"Nothing to do with pseudo-science. Claim (a) is a scientific proposition, while claim (b) is meta-scientific proposition. According to science, (b) is a requirement that applies to (a)."

CODY:
“That seems oddly convenient for you. So any claim I make about the natural world must be founded upon a principle the claims of which cannot live up to that same standard? So, how do we know the "meta-scientific proposition" is true?”

I don’t want to seem facetious, but you weren’t comparing apples with apples. If you felt an injustice, maybe it stemed from the fact that claim (a) was not meta-scientific to begin with, or should I say “meta-supernaturalistic.” Come up with a meta-supernaturalistic premise, then you won’t have to falsify it. I certainly won’t hold you up to it.

“Rather, I compared your views to folk religion (and I don't have any idea, nor do I care, how Wikipedia defines folk religion). Folk religion rarely has much to do with faith. Folk religion is almost entirely practical. For example, ancestor worship is done because every time the family stops doing it, something bad happens. Moreover, folk religionists don't have in mind some kind of "immutable fundament." Nor, for that matter, are they all that theistic, in the sense of being concerned about a supreme being. So, I describe your view of science as folk religion because it is based entirely on practical concerns - it "just works." The primary concern is about practicality, which your next paragraph confirms, rather than with truth.”

I stand corrected on the definition of folk religion. However, you assumption that folk religions “just work” seems to be true only from the point of view of its practitioners. Science would not ascribe much credence to the “truths” of folk religion. If you’re about to claim that this can also be said about practitioners of science, i.e., that obviously scientists think they’re right, just like folk religionists think they’re right, then you’d be wrong. Scientists would be in a position to justify objectively their beliefs, and infirm a folk religious belief that is in contradiction with a scientific truth. E.g., science could document and demonstrate that failure to worship the ancestors does not lead to bad things. (And just in case you’re thinking of invoking the incommensurability of these belief systems, thus putting them on the same level and asserting their equal power at generating knowledge, that’s post-modern relativism. No knowledge is possible if you go down that path.)

“But, the sheer fact that scores of people revert back to shamanistic practices even long after Western medicine has been introduced into a culture must say something about its effectiveness. Don't get me wrong, when I get a headache, I'm reaching for the Tylenol. But it has nothing to do with me believing the the local Shaman can't effectively treat a headache. It has to do with truth. Truth that, among other things, weighs in on what is right and what is wrong. But I'm getting off track.”

Shamanism and folk traditions that purport to accomplish feats of magic can be evaluated through the scientific lens. As a matter of fact, they do not fare well. There might be millions of people seeking the services of shamanistic priests and traditional healers, but when the numbers are crunched, they die just as frequently as those who are not treated. Their pain is just as present, they just have their minds off of their pain, temporarily. Alternative medicine suffers from the same departure from truth as shamanism. Self conditioning, placebo, denial, peer pressure, intimidation, desire to please or conform, belief that correlation implies causation, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and a bazilion fallacies later, spread over a sizeable population, spread over countless centuries, you’re bound to believe anything. But it’s still false and the falsehood can be demonstrated, commensurably.

TRIMTAB:
"Also, science does not work "all" the time."
CODY:
“Right. Why not?”

Because its theories are falsifiable.

TRIMTAB:
"But it is quite effective, much more so that shamanism"
CODY:
“You got any data on that? Besides, now you just sound like a rival shaman.”

Say what? Are you fracking with me? Communication with spirits? Omens? Clairvoyance? Are you for real? In the West, fraudsters since the 19th century have tried their best at conning people out of their money, yet all attempts to verify any one’s ability to speak to the dead has failed. Now you’re telling me scientists are just idiots because all they had to do is study shamans? Oh, and you want data? Try your local university department of paranormal studies. Lots of universities around the World researched paranormal phenomena, some departments operating for over 20 years. Worldwide results: nothing! No trace of any paranormal phenomena, shamanistic or otherwise. Look up Skeptic Magazine, or The Skeptical Enquirer for links, articles, and learned references.

“What does it mean for something to work verifiably and objectively? Are you just saying it really, really works?”

No, I mean “it works,” as opposed to “it doesn’t work.” One is right (and can be shown to be demonstrably so), while the other merely believes being right, but cannot refute the falsification or supply supporting evidence of an empirical nature that can be verified and duplicated by others.

TRIMTAB:
"With science, you don't just "think" something is true, you know it in a way that helps preclude bias, fraud, self-deception and delusion."
CODY:
“Really? Like Piltdown man? Or more like Nebraska man?”

Granted, science is subject to fraud and error. But it is also a self-correcting process. The frauds you reference here were caught and the science was corrected. I never said science had absolute truth or was perfect. There are no proofs in science, only demonstrations and support for scientific theories. How would you correct errors or fraud in shamanism? Religion?

TRIMTAB:
"To succeed, you merely need to actually explain something, as opposed to, e.g., offering another black box. You need to make predictions that are verifiable and turn out to be true. You need to have the a priori possibility of failing. You need to establish tests that are replicable and confirmed."
CODY:
“Says who? It seems arbitrary to take the "black box" (the fundamentally unexplainable) off the table. I like Katherine's verbal venn diagram here. On predictions and verifications and replication, any shaman worth his salt can do that.”

Says who? Scientists, who else? OK, so you ARE fracking with me. Firstly, the unexplainable may exist, but is not assumed to exist by science. Secondly, the unexplained is never off the table, as far as science goes. NEVER. Science just says “We don’t know,” but keeps looking for answers. Thirdly, scientists don’t go off imagining colorfully-named entities as placeholders for explanations that don’t currently exist. Explaining with non-explanations, why, that’s shamanistic! IDers and creationists seem to have much in common with shamanism.

“So, you are defining a "system of knowledge generation" as something that helps us make IPODs and Tylenol? I think I would like to reject that definition. Or at least say, I'm not that interested in it. I mean I'm happy to let the chemists make the tylenol - though I'm not sure how being a neo-Darwinist will help them make it better. In terms of generating knowledge, history does pretty good. Philosophy. Sociology. Heck, I even like some theologians. ID says that "nothing comes from nothing" and, well, since not too many other people are saying it, it seems like a valid thing to bring up. I don't know what a "woo-woo" is. On the other, I think you mean "fuzzy wuzzy" which is a derogatory term for a nomadic camel-herding people group in northeast Africa known as the Beja. It was Kipling who famously called them that. But, since it's kind of a belittling term, you may owe 2 million people an apology. It doesn't have anything to do with "mumbo jumbo" which probably derives from a Congolese phrase. You got me on wakaloon too.”

Nice attempt to trivialize science. iPods and Tylenol are mere practical outcomes of knowledge derived from scientific theories. These artefacts are useful and work reliably. We place a great deal of trust in them, for the underlying science is solid. It is explanatory and predictive, and these artifacts are living proof of certainty we can have in our scientific theories. You may not be interested in this definition of “knowledge system,” but it’s at the core of the point I’m making: iPods and Tylenol cannot be derived from ID/Creationims, only from scientific theories!

All of the life sciences make sense in light of the theory of evolution, nothing else. No other theory or explanation allows ALL of the life sciences to be so logical. As a theory, evolution collapses the chaos of the monumental quantities of data into a simple organizing principle that no other theory or hypothesis has yet been able to match.

History is a proto-science. Very useful, great methods, but poor at the experimental level. No replication is possible. Predictions are rather iffy, especially about the past. Philosophy deals mostly with the a priori. Knowledge derived by it is mostly at the meta-scientific level. Quite essential, when applied to knowledge itself, but not great to make sense of the natural world in general. Sociology is a discipline that has, in the Freudian tradition, hard-science-envy, being a “soft-science.” But, most scientists agreed that however complex its object of study might be, it is nonetheless a naturalizable discipline, i.e., one that reduces to the laws of nature and is amenable to explanation by hard-sciences.

Theology. Its object of study is inaccessible, undefinable, untestable. As a discipline, it is non-falsifiable, non-explanatory, non-predictive. No high degree of certainty has ever come from theology. Not even a low degree of certainty. I couldn’t parse the following sentence about ID. But ID sure has no better track record than theology. I was going to say it’s worse than that of theology, but then I remembered that it’s no better than fairyology.

January 13, 2009 @ 10:34 PM

64. Ed wrote:

I rely very heavily on financial theories in my line of work. I always thought that finance was a science, but I guess it is not, because finance:
1) does not explain anything (why is the world in this deep financial mess?);
2) cannot be tested (who can develop a formula that can guarantee that an investment will yield a 50% return in a year's time -- and test it?);
3) cannot be falsified (well, too many financial data are falsified, and the whole world just took it in);
4) cannot predict new phenomena (finance never saw this mess coming. And, no financial theory can tell me what's going to happen next year);
5) cannot replace existing scientific theories (the financial theories have always been going around the concept of supply and demand -- though they can be distorted sometimes -- so nothing new has ever come up)

But, then again, how can Biology or Darwinism be a science (based on the above rules)? Can anyone ever prove to me that Darwinism is correct?

January 14, 2009 @ 1:50 AM

65. trimtab wrote:

Ed wrote:

"I rely very heavily on financial theories in my line of work. I always thought that finance was a science, but I guess it is not, because finance:"

Economics is considered as a soft science (i.e. a social science). Like sociology, and political science, its object of study is notoriously complex and difficult to circumscribe.

I don't know enough about this field to say if it indeed, a priori, cannot explain, be tested, be falsified, predict, and supersede, but I would think that it could or does succeed in many of these requirements.

It's not because economics has failed to predict the current economic troubles that it must be abandoned. Granted, economics has its detractors, and its track record and foundational support is a little weak. But it's still a rather young discipline, and the object of study is highly complex. Perhaps in time.

"But, then again, how can Biology or Darwinism be a science (based on the above rules)? Can anyone ever prove to me that Darwinism is correct?"

Biology is a general field of study. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and it satisfies many scientificity criteria, including the ones you enumerated:

1) It allows the entirety of the life sciences to make sense, i.e., it explains an awful lot.
2) It can be tested, has been abundantly tested for 150 years, more so than any other scientific theory.
3) It is absolutely falsifiable.
4) It has made, and continues to make, innumerable predictions that have been confirmed.
5) It did replace other hypotheses, quite successfully, I might add.

BTW, scientific theories can never be proven, only supported. Only in math or in logic will you find the formalisms necessary to enjoy such a level certainty. For everything else, there's science.

January 14, 2009 @ 9:20 AM

66. Ed wrote:

Trimtab,

But many religious concepts are seemingly similar to that. Even if religious concepts cannot be proven (for sake of argument), for sure they can be supported.

Science might be able to explain to us scientifically the origin of life (again, for sake of argument), but they can never tell us the meaning of life. It takes religious concepts to explain to us the meaning of life.

I love science, don't get me wrong. I have been able to enjoy many things in life because of science. Christianity does not forbid us from enjoying what science has accomplished.

For instance, I can travel all around the world on an airplane, thanks to science. I love my new car with all its fancy technologies, thanks to science. My two children were born in a very beautifully decorated hospital delivery room with sophisticated medical equipments, thanks to science. Blackberry and internet, thanks to science. Live soccer games from Europe on my tv screen in Asia, thanks to science. Getting so excited when Obama won the presidency and be able to watch it unfold live on CNN while I was in Asia, thanks to science.

Science has helped humankind a lot throughout history, no doubt about that. It has made our lives easier. But, it has not made our lives more meaningful.

Ok, so I am not a scientist (btw, nor am I a theologian.) Can you explain to me how evolution satisfy the above criteria to be called a science, while religion does not?

January 16, 2009 @ 2:14 AM

67. trimtab wrote:

Ed wrote:

"But many religious concepts are seemingly similar to that. Even if religious concepts cannot be proven (for sake of argument), for sure they can be supported."

I don't believe religious "concepts" are, as you claim, "similar to that." But, hypothetically, some of them could be supported.

"Science might be able to explain to us scientifically the origin of life (again, for sake of argument), but they can never tell us the meaning of life. It takes religious concepts to explain to us the meaning of life."

You make two suppositions. First, that science is limited to answering certain questions. Indeed, science can answer "what" and "how" questions, but it can also inform us in the quest for answers to "why" questions. Much more so that what religious people generally (want to) believe. Surely, you're heard some religious tenor claim "science tells us how things work, religion tells us why." Often, this get repeated like a mantra and ends up being believed. Yet, it is false. Religious people either don't like the answers, or they don't take "I don't know yet" for an answer.

Also, religious people generally accept uncritically any religious answer to "why" questions. How do you know those answers are accurate? What means of verifying those answer do you have? How do "religious concepts" constitute or lead to an answer? To what degree of certainty? Yes, yes, I know, it's a faith thing, you can't be expected to "know" like a scientist "knows." (Which brings me back to the original post, regarding the teaching of religious beliefs as science, like ID and creationism: these are not scientific hypotheses, you can't derive any kind knowledge from them, of any degree of certainty, whatsoever. Therefore, they have no place in the science curriculum.)

"Science has helped humankind a lot throughout history, no doubt about that. It has made our lives easier. But, it has not made our lives more meaningful."

Funny, I find mine to be more meaningful exactly because of science. (I'm not trying to be facetious, I really do find my life enriched by the findings of science and derive great significance from it.)

Science is much more than "iPods and Tylenol," for those are merely superficial, technological derivatives that are a manifestation of the underlying science.

"Ok, so I am not a scientist (btw, nor am I a theologian.) Can you explain to me how evolution satisfy the above criteria to be called a science, while religion does not?"

I've answered much of this in previous posts in this thread. But, here we go again:

1) Does your hypothesis stem from direct or indirect observation, i.e., does it rely at some point on the empirical basis.

a) Evolution does rely on observation to formulate its original hypothesis regarding the diversity of life forms. And from that point forward, it continues to support it through the empirical basis.
b) Religion (Abrahamic religions, at least), well, I'm no sure. It's hypothesis seems to be based on observations of the world, but it's general (contemplative?) and seems to stop there (argument from ignorance).


2) Is your hypothesis falsifiable?

a) Evolution is falsifiable to the hilt. Pretty much Every one of its predictions constitutes a falsifiability test. (Remarkably, each time, evolution passes with flying colors.)
b) Religion cannot be falsified. There is no test that could be devised, a priori, to test the God hypothesis and that could fail, for that failure could always be explained by the omnipotent supernatural being doing its "works in mysterious ways" thing. No test, nothing, could disprove its existence.


3) Is there a central experiment at the basis of your hypothesis?

a) Evolution now has tons of such experiments, combining various fields such as biology, genetics, geology and archeology.
b) Religion has not a single experiment to test its hypothesis.

4) Can the experiments be replicated?

a) Evolution: yes.
b) Religion: no.


5) Have the results confirmed you hypothesis?

a) Evolution: yes. All the time. (Tiktaalik, anyone?)
b) Religion: no. Because no experiment to begin with.


6) Does the hypothesis have explanatory power?

a) Evolution: yes. Makes sense of the entirety of the life sciences. 'Nuff said.
b) Religion: no. Replaces questions with black boxes (i.e., non-explanations).

7) Can your hypothesis make predictions?

a) Evolution: yes. Lots.
b) Religion: ?? I guess the answer is yes, lots too.

8) Do the predictions confirm the hypothesis?

a) Evolution: yes. All the time.
b) Religion: no. (More accurately, not to my knowledge.)

For each of these, we could go into much greater detail if you wish. I'd be interested in knowing which points are the least clear to you, or seem the most debatable.

Again, don't take this as an affront to your beliefs, but rather an attempt on my part to put science and religion in the proper context in regard to science education.

January 16, 2009 @ 11:14 AM

68. TheeVonz wrote:

It seems to me that anyone who believes in God also believes that He created the universe, and that he did it with intelligence.

Maybe more people could agree if we called it Intelligent Creation? It seems debating if it stands up to the definition of scientific theory is a waste of time.

January 19, 2009 @ 8:49 AM

Add a New Comment

Your Name:

Your Email/URL (Optional):

Your Comment:

Enter the code you see below:

 

Comment Guidelines: No HTML is allowed. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Thanks.