Science can be wrong about some things and still make great discoveries and inventions. One can believe the earth is flat or that electrons are nothing more than tiny billiard balls and still make progress. The history of science is a fascinating story of erroneous theories and beliefs intertwined with remarkable progress. And even today’s life science research journals are full of asinine statements, arising from a belief in evolution, mingled with perfectly good scientific research. Most scientists can distinguish between the hard data gathered in the laboratory and the obligatory evolutionary framework into which the data are forced and presented. You focus on the former in order to make progress and tolerate the latter in order to get funded. Such are the practical realities of working in science.But the origins debate is different. Here the evolution paradigm itself is questioned. That evolutionary framework and filter through which all data and hypotheses must fit is up for debate. Perhaps evolution, or at least core parts of the framework, are not true.
One may scorn at such folly and remain within the paradigm. Or one may argue against such folly. But one may not do both. It makes no sense to interpret the evidence from within the paradigm, and then argue that such interpretations prove the paradigm. In order to defend evolution as true, one must examine the evidence from a theory-neutral perspective.
Here is a simple example: A new horse fossil is discovered and evolutionists decide where it fits best amongst the already known fossils. It may not fit perfectly, and the evolutionists may be unsure about which twig in the evolutionary bush is right for this new fossil (or if perhaps a new twig should be hypothesized). But they believe evolution is true and so the fossil must fit somewhere. They announce to the world that horse evolution is now better understood and apologists then use the finding as an example of powerful evidence for evolution. After all, the evolution of the horse has been revealed.
But of course the fossil revealed no such evolutionary step—it was interpreted as an evolutionary step. Unfortunately this sophistry is common. All the time I see evolutionists making just this sort of argument. Arthur Hunt, for instance, uses de novo genes in just such an argument. Genes that are found in only one or a few allied species are sometimes thought to be newly evolved. Hunt realizes the evolution of such genes might seem “difficult to some” as there are “judicious” events that must have occurred.
Now from within the evolution paradigm, there is the question of whether such genes really are de novo. Could they not have evolved via some other mechanisms, such as lateral gene transfer. Evolutionists investigate such options, and sometimes can find none that work. In these instances they conclude a gene must be newly evolved. Hunt explains these issues and then erroneously argues that since the other evolutionary options have been eliminated for these genes, therefore they must be de novo genes, and therefore de novo genes do not pose a problem for evolution. He writes:
I would encourage readers to read the paper … This is the best way to appreciate that this one pillar of [design] thought, that new protein-coding genes cannot arise by “natural” means, is an illusion.
Design can occur by natural means but that is another story. What is even more problematic than this caricature of design is Hunt’s argument for evolution according to its own assumptions.
The paper, of course, provides no compelling explanation for the blind evolution of de novo genes. As usual the paper presupposes that such blind evolution must have occurred. Therefore the paper’s conclusions must be carefully weighed rather than simply employed as evidence for blind evolution. This logical fallacy is, unfortunately, pervasive in the origins discussion.
Cornelius: "It makes no sense to interpret the evidence from within the paradigm, and then argue that such interpretations prove the paradigm. In order to defend evolution as true, one must examine the evidence from a theory-neutral perspective."
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what a "theory-netural perspective" really means in practice. How exactly does that work? In science, at some point or other, one is going to have to make a hypothesis and then use that as a launching pad for further discovery.
Sure, people (and IDers say this all the time) can say "follow the evidence where it leads", but implicit in this is some kind of hypothesis, even if it is not clearly articulated. I'm not sure there is much real science going on if we can't at least prepare to make some preliminary hypotheses that can be put out there for testing (BTW - this is something Dr. Hunter seems unwilling to do, which makes me wonder about the value of his musings at times and whether he is actually prepared to any real science).
Cornelius: "But of course the fossil revealed no such evolutionary step—it was interpreted as an evolutionary step. Unfortunately this sophistry is common."
Or, you could say that they are applying the evidence to an existing hypothesis and finding that it fits and confirms the hypothesis? How different is the horse fossil example from somebody like Behe deciding that the flagellum is IC? Isn't he also interpreting based on a pre-defined hypothesis? What's the difference?
Hi Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that you do not, here or anywhere else in your blog, provide even a single tiny hint of a suggestion of positive experimental (that is to say, tested by direct, repeatable, and controlled experiment) evidence that even comes close to showing that the conclusions drawn by Zhou et al. are wrong, says much more than all the words you actually do type here.
CWest:
ReplyDelete"In science, at some point or other, one is going to have to make a hypothesis and then use that as a launching pad for further discovery."
This is a classic claim of rationalism. And rationalists claim this as though it were fact. I'm not saying they are wrong--only that they can't know they are right.
"Or, you could say that they are applying the evidence to an existing hypothesis and finding that it fits and confirms the hypothesis? How different is the horse fossil example from somebody like Behe deciding that the flagellum is IC? Isn't he also interpreting based on a pre-defined hypothesis? What's the difference?"
You missed the point. I'm not making a statement against hypotheses. My point merely is about arguments for evolution that entail evolutionary premises.
AG:
ReplyDelete"I think that the fact that you do not, here or anywhere else in your blog, provide even a single tiny hint of a suggestion of positive experimental (that is to say, tested by direct, repeatable, and controlled experiment) evidence that even comes close to showing that the conclusions drawn by Zhou et al. are wrong, says much more than all the words you actually do type here."
You are making my point for me. Evolutionary apologists erroneously use journal papers--a genre with no pretension of theory neutrality--as evidence for the theory that is presupposed by the paper. Zhou et. al. write:
"de novo gene origination from non-coding sequences plays an unexpectedly important role during the origin of new genes, and is responsible for 11.9% of the new genes"
This is not a statement that they have discovered the mechanism for de novo gene origination. It is merely a statement that the known (blind evolutionary) alternatives have been exhausted to the point that they feel de novo origination is the only option left. This doesn't mean they have evidence the genes blindly evolved. That simply is the only option remaining under evolution.
It is simply begging the question to use their statements about de novo gene origination as indicative of a blind evolutionary origin. It is perfectly fine for evolutionists to make such statements to each other, but there is no science behind such claims. The claims rest on the religious presupposition that evolution is true.
You are part of a religious movement within science.
Cornelius: "This is a classic claim of rationalism. And rationalists claim this as though it were fact. I'm not saying they are wrong--only that they can't know they are right."
ReplyDeleteActually I thought I was making a case for an approach that is really just the standard scientific methodology...what do you suggest instead? Again, how exactly does this "theory-neutral perspective" work without hypotheses?
"You missed the point. I'm not making a statement against hypotheses. My point merely is about arguments for evolution that entail evolutionary premises."
But isn't what you call an "evolutionary premise" really just another way of saying "scientific hypothesis"? And you avoided my example of Behe interpreting the flagellum as IC. Isn't he also using an ID "premise" instead of an evolutionary one? (And as such I think there's good reason to think that his premises have been falsified.)
Cornelius: "You are part of a religious movement within science."
ReplyDeleteHuh? Ag asked a perfectly reasonable and straightforward observation (which I agree with) that you generally duck and weave from ever proposing any experimental approach or hypothesis-defining, and your response is the above which seems, frankly, just off the wall. Obviously your understanding of "science" is different from what is considered mainstream (perhaps you would like to enlighten everybody exactly what you think science is, because you are clearly reading from a different book...)
CWest:
ReplyDelete"Actually I thought I was making a case for an approach that is really just the standard scientific methodology...what do you suggest instead? Again, how exactly does this "theory-neutral perspective" work without hypotheses?"
You are asking questions that philosophers have spent centuries trying to answer. I discuss this a bit in the final chapter of *Science's Blind Spot*.
"But isn't what you call an "evolutionary premise" really just another way of saying "scientific hypothesis"? And you avoided my example of Behe interpreting the flagellum as IC. Isn't he also using an ID "premise" instead of an evolutionary one?"
No, sorry about the shorthand. The "evolutionary premise" is that evolution *is true*. This has farther reaching implications than a mere hypothesis. In the Zhou paper, they find genes for which there is no known mechanism of origin. But since they assume evolution is true, they conclude that the genes originated from non-coding sequences. (There are genes where there is at least *some* suggestion of this, but others where no similar sequences are found.)
Behe, oth, is not forcing contradictory evidence into his hypothesis. He is looking at phenomenal molecular machines, factories, cities, etc, saying these evidences support design and do not support evolution. I don't think there much comparison. If you think Behe is wrong that, of course, is a different matter. But I don't think the reasoning is comparable.
AG and CWest:
"I think that the fact that you do not, here or anywhere else in your blog, provide even a single tiny hint of a suggestion of positive experimental (that is to say, tested by direct, repeatable, and controlled experiment) evidence that even comes close to showing that the conclusions drawn by Zhou et al. are wrong, says much more than all the words you actually do type here."
"Huh? Ag asked a perfectly reasonable and straightforward observation (which I agree with) that you generally duck and weave from ever proposing any experimental approach or hypothesis-defining, ..."
I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand how de novo genes arose, and many biological wonders for that matter. But I see the fact that biology is dominated by dogma as an important underlying problem. The purpose of this blog is to alert people to that fact. I hope you are not protecting evolution by demanding that the messenger also solve the problem, or have a plan for solving it, or ...
" and your response is the above which seems, frankly, just off the wall. Obviously your understanding of "science" is different from what is considered mainstream (perhaps you would like to enlighten everybody exactly what you think science is, because you are clearly reading from a different book...) "
A different book? How about books by Coyne, Miller, Ridley, Futuyma, Gould, Dobzhansky, Ruse, Williams, Eldredge, Dawkins, etc, etc? How about *Origins* by Darwin? How about books by Kant, Hume, Liebniz, Wolf, Ray, Cudworth, Burnet, etc? If you are saying that science should not be driven by religion then I'm delighted. Unfortunately an ought is not an is--evolution is a religious theory. One manifestation are today's absurd scientific arguments for evolution.
I happen to feel that science should go easy on the metaphysics and try to follow the evidence.
"Behe, oth, is not forcing contradictory evidence into his hypothesis. He is looking at phenomenal molecular machines, factories, cities, etc, saying these evidences support design and do not support evolution."
ReplyDeleteBehe's argument clearly entails design premises - he assumes that design exists in the natural world. Just as the evolutionists assume evolution exists - so far so uncontroversial. But that's all Behe has! An assumption, and things that look like they were designed. One simply cannot conclude that design exists from that flimsy evidence. In order to demonstrate design Behe has to show it in action. By contrast, evolution clearly and unequivocally has been demonstrated. Evolution exists, that is no longer in question.
CH: "You are asking questions that philosophers have spent centuries trying to answer. I discuss this a bit in the final chapter of *Science's Blind Spot*."
ReplyDeleteOK, but I doubt if my local library will carry your book. Was hoping you could at least summarize in a couple of sentences...would at least be useful to know your thoughts on the scientific method.
CH: "Behe, oth, is not forcing contradictory evidence into his hypothesis. He is looking at phenomenal molecular machines, factories, cities, etc, saying these evidences support design and do not support evolution. "
By "support design" then you mean Behe is effectively using a preliminary hypothesis? After all, at some point he must have had to consider the possibility of design? That idea must have come from somewhere? Or did the fagellum arrange themselves in letters and spelled out the words "We are designed". We also have to consider the fact that Behe is a deeply religious person, there is the distinct possibility of confirmation bias happening here. He obviously was open to the idea in order to let the evidence take him to that place.
CH: "I happen to feel that science should go easy on the metaphysics and try to follow the evidence."
This phrase is used over and over. How exactly does it work? Don't you need to have some hypothesis, some inkling, some assumption that guides where you look? Obviously you do.
CH: "I hope you are not protecting evolution by demanding that the messenger also solve the problem, or have a plan for solving it, or ..."
I was hoping at least you might have some positive useful ideas of moving the science forward - perhaps in the way of suggesting an experimental approach, or alternative hypotheses (in other words actually "doing" some science, because apparently you do consider yourself a scientist).
Your "deconstructive" approach is very negative. I think the history of science shows us that science moves forward not just by making a vacuum but by filling that vacuum with new ideas, new theories, new paradigms even. The problem is that you don't even want to give the slightest hint of what might fill that vacuum so it's actually quite depressing and exasperating to read your blog. I think you would have a bigger audience if you would at least be prepared to stick your neck out on occassions and propose some alternatives. Otherwise your blog is starting to feel extraordinarily repetitive and without much clout. I suspect until you actually propose a hypothesis of your own or pragmatically show how this "new neutral science" should be practiced, you aren't going to make much traction with the "science is religion" approach...