Monday, January 18, 2010

Evolution's Kobayashi Maru Scenario

By mandating methodological naturalism evolutionists place themselves into a no-win scenario. Like Star Trek's Captain Kirk who reprogrammed the computer in order to defeat the Kobayashi Maru scenario training exercise, evolutionists can only cheat their way out of their methodological naturalism mandate. If they give a straight answer they undermine their own claims about evolution. The problem here is not methodological naturalism itself, which is a perfectly reasonable way to do science. The problem is that, in the hands of evolutionists, it becomes dogma rather than guidance. And the problem is not merely a philosophical fine point--in mandating methodological naturalism evolutionists reveal the absurdity of their ideas and simultaneously do substantial harm to science.

Evolutionists mandate methodological naturalism but they don't explain exactly what this means. The reason why we do science is because we don't have all the answers. If we had all the answers then there would be no reason for science. Methodological naturalism places a constraint on the answers which we do not yet have. In so doing, something is lost.

We either lose objectivity by assuming that all of reality conforms to our constraint, or we lose any guarantee of completeness by limiting science to those phenomena within our constraint, or we lose any guarantee of realism by forcing a constraint which excludes explanations which could be true.

Of course we could get lucky. It could be that reality conforms to our constraint and that we have not excluded any true answers. In this case, if all of reality is strictly naturalistic then methodological naturalism is a good mandate. But we don't know that right now. So the question for evolutionists who mandate methodological naturalism is: what do we forfeit, objectivity, a guarantee of completeness, or a guarantee of realism?

Why methodological naturalism is a no-win scenario

These are the alternatives and evolutionists cannot accept any of them. If they explain that they believe nature and its origins are completely naturalistic then this would reveal a non scientific presupposition. They would lose scientific objectivity.

If they explain that science should be limited to naturalistic phenomena then they would be admitting that we have no guarantee that evolution can explain all things. They would also be giving sanction to the problem of identifying natural versus supernatural phenomena, an activity which they insist is non scientific.

On the other hand they could explain that if science ever encounters a problem outside the bounds of naturalism then its answers are fictional. In this case science is not limited, but it comes at the cost of opening the door to fictional explanations, and so losing the guarantee of realism. This too is unacceptable. Evolutionists insist their idea is an accurate description of nature and a fact.

Justifications and what they reveal

So how do evolutionists explain their methodological naturalism mandate? Not surprisingly they rarely if ever provide a logical answer. This question was well understood four centuries ago when thinkers seriously engaged such questions about how science should work. Bacon and Descartes worked through these issues and explained their positions. But we cannot expect such reasoning from evolutionists today. Instead evolutionists respond with a battery of fallacies which are, frankly, embarrassing.

As is typical, many of their responses are attacks on the questioner. For instance, they say that the questioner is attacking methodological naturalism, or that he is smuggling in supernatural assumptions. But asking evolutionists for clarification is not attacking methodological naturalism. And the only assumption being made is that nature and its history might not be completely naturalistic. In other words, science might stumble upon a problem that doesn't fit methodological naturalism. If anything it is the evolutionists who are making heroic assumptions by mandating methodological naturalism.

SETI and ID

Another response that evolutionists give is that methodological naturalism is simply the way science works, period. But in fact the way science works is a complicated question. From Leibniz to Linnaeus the history of science is littered with examples of the blackballing and embracing of ideas that today's methodological naturalism would find confusing.

And if you think times have changed think again. More recent scientific ideas such as quantum mechanics and the Big Bang seem to push the envelope. Particles are waves (sometimes), observers influence outcomes, and the universe and its natural laws began in a one-time explosion. And the evolutionist's appeal to a multiverse hardly falls neatly within methodological naturalism.

And what about all the metaphysical claims upon which evolutionary thought is motivated and justified? Why is it OK to mandate naturalism with theological claims but not OK to allow for design based on empirical science?

Another recent confounding example is the SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) project which looks for intelligent radio signals from distant planets. SETI and ID share the same relationship with methodological naturalism, and yet evolutionists give a pass to the former while rejecting the latter.

This is contradictory. If you attempt to dismiss ID as not in accord with methodological naturalism, then you also dismiss SETI. On the other hand, if you say SETI passes the methodological naturalism test, then you also give ID a pass. You cannot blackball one without blackballing the other. You cannot let one in without letting the other in.

Lucky stars

The evolutionist's methodological naturalism mandate also makes their claim that evolution is a fact appear suspicious. How curious it is that not only is evolution's naturalism-only story mandated by science, but it also turns out to be true. Do evolutionists ever realize how lucky they are? Or do evolutionists ever think twice about their serendipity?

Meanwhile skeptics wonder if the game has been fixed. Is it really such a coincidence that the paradigm that is mandated is also the one that is declared to be a fact?

This brings us to what is perhaps the greatest problem with the methodological naturalism mandate: the damage it causes to scientific progress. The most common response evolutionists give, when asked about their methodological naturalism mandate, is that science has shown naturalism to be true. We once thought that everything from lightning and earthquakes to love and consciousness were supernatural phenomena, but we now have scientific explanations for all these things. If there were evidence that any phenomenon is not completely natural then we would think twice, but given the complete lack of such evidence, methodological naturalism is the obvious choice.

The problem here is that the methodological naturalism mandate drives the evaluation of the scientific theories. Once it is mandated that all phenomena must be described naturalistically, it is only a short step to assuming that all phenomena can be described naturalistically, and indeed have been described naturalistically. From a scientific perspective it would be absurd to think we have a plausible explanation for the DNA code, histone IV, biosonar or consciousness. What we have is speculation driven by the demand for natural explanations. It is not that the data reveal such explanations, it is that we require such explanations.

Naturalism is now unscientific according to the evolutionist's own criterion of testability. This is because naturalistic explanations are the only explanations that are allowed. They therefore cannot be tested because they are true by definition. The only testing that can be done is between different sub-hypotheses of naturalism.

The mandating of methodological naturalism is bad for the philosophy of science and, not surprisingly, bad for science itself. It places evolutionists in a no-win situation, like Star Trek's Kobayashi Maru scenario training exercise. The difference is that rather than solving the problem like Captain Kirk, evolutionists make matters worse for themselves by continuing to mandate methodological naturalism. Religion drives science and it matters.

45 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter: If they give a straight answer they undermine their own claims about evolution.

    In fact, those with contrary positions on Uncommon Descent are frequently banned. Or were you being ironic?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius Hunter,

    Your post is almost content free. Two questions to try to understand if there is any steak hiding under that sizzle:

    1) How would you go about testing a non-material cause? The scientific method can be applied to any phenomena that can be observed, hypothesized about, predicted, and tested. Methodological naturalism is just the name referring to that set of criteria. If your "non-material" phenomena can't be observed or tested, what makes you think they even exist?

    2) How, exactly, does the SETI program eschew methodological naturalism? It is looking for signals that might be generated by living beings something like humans. (More accurately, it is attempting to falsify the null hypothesis that no simple signal exists in the H and OH region of the spectrum.) Unless you're assuming your conclusion by asserting that all life has a non-material component, SETI is a valid scientific research program.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: SETI and ID share the same relationship with methodological naturalism, and yet evolutionists give a pass to the former while rejecting the latter.

    SETI is a naturalistic hypothesis. It points to human-like organisms evolving on planets circling other stars. Humans are not supernatural beings and science can quite easily observe and test hypotheses about humans.

    Cornelius Hunter: Methodological naturalism places a constraint on the answers which we do not yet have. In so doing, something is lost.

    Methodological Naturals doesn't constrain all answers, just scientific answers. It doesn't preclude other means of knowing, including revelation.

    Cornelius Hunter: They would also be giving sanction to the problem of identifying natural versus supernatural phenomena, an activity which they insist is non scientific.

    Methodological Naturalism is a heuristic, not a philosophy. Supernatural is defined in the common manner of demons, angels and miracles. So in epidemiology, demon-possession is not a valid hypothesis.

    Cornelius Hunter: The most common response evolutionists give, when asked about their methodological naturalism mandate, is that science has shown naturalism to be true.

    Then that would be Philosophical Naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius Hunter: Unless you're assuming your conclusion by asserting that all life has a non-material component, SETI is a valid scientific research program.

    This illustrates your confusion.

    Humans are subject to scientific investigation. We can study their carbon chemistry. We can observe their activities. For instance, we can show that their mechanical actions are limited by the Laws of Thermodynamics. Cut off the fuel and oxygen, and they stop moving.

    Theories of planetary formation indicate that Earth is not unique in being a planet that orbits a star warmed enough, but not too much, so that water is liquid on its surface. Theories of abiogenetics indicate that life may naturally arise on such planets. Theories of evolution indicate that intelligent organisms could evolve on other planets.

    Hence, the hypothesis (albeit weakly entailed) has been proposed that human-like organisms may develop radio technology that could be detected from planets orbiting other stars. Not one step of the hypothesis requires a leap beyond natural entailments.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cornelius Hunter: Your post is almost content free.

    Not at all. You posted on Uncommon Descent saying of those who advocate Methodological Naturalism, "If they give a straight answer they undermine their own claims about evolution."

    As most such advocates are moderated on Uncommon Descent (meaning having their comments delayed for hours), or outright banned, asking for a "straight answer" is downright ironic. You did mean it ironically, didn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zachriel,

    I think you accidentally responded to my response to Cornelius Hunter's nearly content free post.

    Patrick

    ReplyDelete
  7. Patrick: I think you accidentally responded to my response to Cornelius Hunter's nearly content free post.

    Quite so. Read "Cornelius Hunter" and didn't realize it was a salutation rather than an attribution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cornelius Hunter -

    Forgive my abrupt nature on the previous thread. I had assumed you were ignoring my posts. Now I see you addressing them here.

    Or, to be more specififc, not really addressing them.

    "The reason why we do science is because we don't have all the answers. If we had all the answers then there would be no reason for science."

    Totally agree here.

    "Methodological naturalism places a constraint on the answers which we do not yet have. In so doing, something is lost."

    Okay, I can see that.

    But why do you specifically level this
    accusation at 'evolutionists'?

    EVERY scientific field presupposes methodological naturalism. Every one. Not just biology, and not just those biologists who accept evolution. And yet you single these people out for this particular criticism.

    "in mandating methodological naturalism evolutionists reveal the absurdity of their ideas and simultaneously do substantial harm to science."

    Science mandates methodological naturalism! The theory of evolution does too - because it is a scientific theory!

    "The problem here is that the methodological naturalism mandate drives the evaluation of the scientific theories. Once it is mandated that all phenomena must be described naturalistically, it is only a short step to assuming that all phenomena can be described naturalistically, and indeed have been described naturalistically."

    This is actually a reasonable point. If science insists on explainaing things naturally then if it ever came across unnatural phenomenon, it would simply not be able to explain it. But again, you are here criticizing a point of science, not evolution. This point affects chemists and physicists just as much as it does biologists. So why do you single out 'evolutionists' for criticism?

    "Another response that evolutionists give is that methodological naturalism is simply the way science works, period."

    Exactly so.

    "From Leibniz to Linnaeus the history of science is littered with examples of the blackballing and embracing of ideas that today's methodological naturalism would find confusing."

    Is it?

    "More recent scientific ideas such as quantum mechanics and the Big Bang seem to push the envelope."

    Neither of these are a challenge to methodological naturalism. In fact, they are both ideas BUILT ON methodological naturalism.

    "Particles are waves (sometimes), observers influence outcomes, and the universe and its natural laws began in a one-time explosion."

    Same here. All ideas built on the mandate of methodological naturalism.

    "And the evolutionist's appeal to a multiverse hardly falls neatly within methodological naturalism."

    D'oh! What in Hades does the multi-universe theory have to do with evolution? Evolution is a theory of biology!

    "The mandating of methodological naturalism is bad for the philosophy of science and, not surprisingly, bad for science itself."

    No, the mandating of methodological naturalism is UTTERLY ESSENTIAL for science. You cannot do science without it. ANY science - chemistry, biology or physics.

    And whilst I appreciate you may be right that blindly accepting meodological naturalism is flawed (and thus that the whole of science is totally wrong), you are wrong to say science is on your side. It is not. You are criticising science as a whole, despite apparently either not being aware of it or not being willing to acknowledge it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Zachriel -

    "In fact, those with contrary positions on Uncommon Descent are frequently banned."

    I found that too. I was banned there for criticizing a post in what I believe to be totally reasonable terms. But in fairness that isn't something I've seen from Cornelius Hunter here. As you can see he generally lets dissenters have their views.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Patrick:


    "Your post is almost content free."

    Actually it is the MN mandate that is almost content free.



    "How would you go about testing a non-material cause? "

    It depends on the particular phenomenon in question. See next for an example.


    "The scientific method can be applied to any phenomena that can be observed, hypothesized about, predicted, and tested."

    No, you've already stated that you don't accept this. You said ID fails as science, but it passes all those tests. Consider the DNA code. The evolutionary prediction is that the particular code we find in biology is a consequence of historical contingency ("frozen accident") whereas the ID prediction is that there are design reasons for the code. It is now beyond question that the evolution prediction failed and the ID prediction succeeded as there are several, very sophisticated, design reasons for the code.



    "Methodological naturalism is just the name referring to that set of criteria. If your "non-material" phenomena can't be observed or tested, what makes you think they even exist?"

    Did I say I think that?



    "How, exactly, does the SETI program eschew methodological naturalism?"

    Did I say that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Zachriel:


    "Humans are not supernatural beings and ..."

    Can you elaborate on how you know this is true?



    "Methodological Naturals doesn't constrain all answers, just scientific answers. It doesn't preclude other means of knowing, including revelation."

    Agreed.



    "Methodological Naturalism is a heuristic, not a philosophy. Supernatural is defined in the common manner of demons, angels and miracles. So in epidemiology, demon-possession is not a valid hypothesis."

    Why is that true?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ritchie:

    ====
    "Particles are waves (sometimes), observers influence outcomes, and the universe and its natural laws began in a one-time explosion."

    Same here. All ideas built on the mandate of methodological naturalism.
    ====

    So how is it that ID fails on MN?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Zachriel: Humans are not supernatural beings

    Cornelius Hunter: Can you elaborate on how you know this is true?

    The distinction between natural and supernatural is not well-defined. With reference to Methodological Naturalism, we mentioned folk-usage as in demons and miracles.

    A more stringent definition avoids the demarcation between natural and supernatural, and renders Methodological Naturalism as a mere a heuristic. Any claim that posits an extraneous entity or force or one that does not have clear empirical entailments is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

    SETI is (albeit weakly) entailed in empirical science.

    Zachriel: So in epidemiology, demon-possession is not a valid hypothesis."

    Cornelius Hunter: Why is that true?

    Because demon-possession (as normally construed) does not have clear empirical entailments (historically) and is extraneous (in the light of modern germ theory).

    Cornelius Hunter: So how is it that ID fails on MN?

    Because unlike a scientific theory, ID doesn't encompass clear scientific claims. It's best not to even use the term unless clearly defined in terms of specific claims. Here's an example:

    Cornelius Hunter: the ID prediction is that there are design reasons for the {genetic} code.

    That's way to vague to be of use. The fact that the genetic code is partially optimized has long been known. The question is whether it was maximally optimized. It's not. Not only that, but it can be shown that it has a non-functional stereochemical affinity that is consistent with evolution from a more primitive relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cornelius Hunter,

    Patrick wrote: "The scientific method can be applied to any phenomena that can be observed, hypothesized about, predicted, and tested."

    Cornelius Hunter: No, you've already stated that you don't accept this. You said ID fails as science, but it passes all those tests.

    No, it does not. There is no scientific theory of ID, it explains no observations, it makes no predictions, and because of that cannot be tested.

    If you dispute this, please document the scientific theory of ID and detail the testable predictions that put that theory at risk of disconfirmation.

    Cornelius Hunter: Consider the DNA code. The evolutionary prediction is that the particular code we find in biology is a consequence of historical contingency ("frozen accident") whereas the ID prediction is that there are design reasons for the code. It is now beyond question that the evolution prediction failed and the ID prediction succeeded as there are several, very sophisticated, design reasons for the code.

    If this came from someone at UD, I'd suspect they were just repeating something they heard on a creationist web site. With your background, I can only assume you are deliberately spreading falsehoods.

    There are no ID predictions because there is no scientific theory of ID. ID is scientifically vacuous.

    Unless you can provide peer-reviewed papers to back up your claims, you should stop making them.

    Patrick: "Methodological naturalism is just the name referring to that set of criteria. If your "non-material" phenomena can't be observed or tested, what makes you think they even exist?"

    Cornelius Hunter: Did I say I think that?

    You said very little in your post. Let's try to rectify that here. Please provide an example of a non-material phenomena and explain how it could be observed.

    Patrick: "How, exactly, does the SETI program eschew methodological naturalism?"

    Cornelius Hunter: Did I say that?

    Again, you said very little of substance in your post. Please explain how SETI and ID are similar, in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cornelius, I just wanna say, I think your blog has become my favorite, your posts are always sharp, witty, straight to the point, and always add the bit of necessary humor. It's just so enjoyable to read your posts, keep it up!

    --Johan--

    ReplyDelete
  16. If I may add my 2 cents, it's interesting to see how MN logic fails whenever we apply it to real world scenarios.

    If we had to apply MN logic to real world scenarios we would be forced to explain the origin of all operating systems, computer applications & websites without invoking software developers purely because the operation and of these do not require software developers.

    MN logic goes something like x:

    x operates by itself, therefore:

    x had to originate by itself

    ReplyDelete
  17. johan: If we had to apply MN logic to real world scenarios we would be forced to explain the origin of all operating systems, computer applications & websites without invoking software developers purely because the operation and of these do not require software developers.

    Perhaps Cornelius Hunter could explain that represents a faulty understanding of Methodological Naturalism (or not).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Zachriel:


    ============
    Any claim that posits an extraneous entity or force or one that does not have clear empirical entailments is not a valid scientific hypothesis. SETI is (albeit weakly) entailed in empirical science. [...]

    unlike a scientific theory, ID doesn't encompass clear scientific claims. [ID's prediction that there are design reasons for the genetic code is] way to vague to be of use.
    ============

    So the demarkation criteria includes a threshold of usefullness that must be exceeded? Does evolution's prediction that the genetic code is a consequence of historical contingency exceed the threshold?

    Also, how does SETI encompass clear scientific claims if ID doesn't?



    ============
    The fact that the genetic code is partially optimized has long been known. The question is whether it was maximally optimized. It's not. Not only that, but it can be shown that it has a non-functional stereochemical affinity that is consistent with evolution from a more primitive relationship.
    ============

    I'll assume that by "maximally optimized" you mean either (1) at the optimum rather than near it, or (2) optimized over all the relevant costs rather than a subset of the costs. In any case, how do we know what cost function to use, and why is maximal optimization "the question" ?

    Also, is it a problem for evolution that the partial optimization of the genetic code must have occurred prior to the existence of the at least some of the cost function (eg, the code must have evolved before eukaryotes evolved)?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Patrick:

    =========
    what makes you think they even exist?" ...

    You said very little in your post. Let's try to rectify that here. Please provide an example of a non-material phenomena
    =========

    Actually I said quite a bit, but I think the problem here is that I didn't say what you want to argue against. If you are saying non-material phenomena do not exist then, OK, you have introduced a metaphysical claim, and your answer is A. If not, then you still have not answered the question.




    "Please explain how SETI and ID are similar, in detail."

    They are similar in the sense that both explain certain observations as a consequence of intelligence. You say that that is scientific in the former but not in the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Johan:

    "Cornelius, I just wanna say, I think your blog has become my favorite, your posts are always sharp, witty, straight to the point, and always add the bit of necessary humor. It's just so enjoyable to read your posts, keep it up!"

    Thanks so much, I appreciate your comments as well.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Cornelius Hunter: Does evolution's prediction that the genetic code is a consequence of historical contingency exceed the threshold?

    The claim would need to be made specific to be testable, but yes.

    Cornelius Hunter: Also, how does SETI encompass clear scientific claims if ID doesn't?

    A narrow-band radio signal with a Doppler-shift consistent with a planetary orbit is quite specific.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cornelius Hunter: I'll assume that by "maximally optimized" you mean either (1) at the optimum rather than near it, or (2) optimized over all the relevant costs rather than a subset of the costs. In any case, how do we know what cost function to use, ... ?

    It's a translation system, so the hypothesis is that it is optimized for rubustness with regard to translation errors. There is significant support for this as the canonical code is one in 10^6 compared to the set of random codes. The fitness landscape is very rugged, and the code is not at a global, or even local maxima. The result is consistent with partial optimization truncated by the increasing complexity of the enveloping system.

    Cornelius Hunter: and why is maximal optimization "the question" ?

    You had said, the ID prediction is that there are design reasons for the {genetic} code. Perhaps you had something else in mind.

    Cornelius Hunter: Also, is it a problem for evolution that the partial optimization of the genetic code must have occurred prior to the existence of the at least some of the cost function (eg, the code must have evolved before eukaryotes evolved)?

    Long before eukaryotes. It must have already been well-established before the most recent universal common ancestral community evolved.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cornelius Hunter: They are similar in the sense that both (SETI & ID) explain certain observations as a consequence of intelligence. You say that that is scientific in the former but not in the latter.

    That's because SETI defines intelligence in terms of technological capabilities, and posits this as a consequence of the evolution of carbon-based life. From that, it makes and tests specific and (weakly) entailed empirical predictions.

    When vague, ID is not testable. When specific, it's contradicted by the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cornelius -

    "So how is it that ID fails on MN?"

    It doesn't, specifically. ID accounts for anything MN could provide - and much more besides.

    Which is kinda the problem.

    ID accounts for EVERY CONCEIVABLE thing. And thus, predicts nothing and explains nothing.

    ID fails as a scientific theory.

    ReplyDelete
  25. johan -

    "MN logic goes something like x:

    x operates by itself, therefore:

    x had to originate by itself"

    Not at all. MN merely necessitates that X has an origin which can be explained without turning to the supernatural.

    If X is, say, a computer programme, it is perfectly within the bounds of MN that it was created by human beings - because human beings are natural creatres that we know exist.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Zachrial:

    "That's because SETI defines intelligence in terms of technological capabilities, and posits this as a consequence of the evolution of carbon-based life. From that, it makes and tests specific and (weakly) entailed empirical predictions."

    I didn't know SETI entailed that. Why does that make SETI scientific and ID not scientific?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Zachriel: That's because SETI defines intelligence in terms of technological capabilities, and posits this as a consequence of the evolution of carbon-based life. From that, it makes and tests specific and (weakly) entailed empirical predictions."

    Cornelius Hunter: I didn't know SETI entailed that.

    It's based on the possibility of Earth-like planets and Earth-like technological organisms on planets orbiting other stars. It's not based on some vague non-corporeal concept of intelligence, and it proposes a very clear test. And even if they have a positive result, that result would be subjected to withering skepticism—as it should.

    More importantly, SETI doesn't claim to have detected anything. ID (as normally construed) claims far more than it can show.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Zachriel:

    ========
    It's a translation system, so the hypothesis is that it is optimized for rubustness with regard to translation errors. There is significant support for this as the canonical code is one in 10^6 compared to the set of random codes. The fitness landscape is very rugged, and the code is not at a global, or even local maxima.
    ========

    Is it possible that other design costs exist in addition to minimizing translation errors? For example, could data compression via overlapping genes, DNA repair, mRNA structure, transcriptional signals, and splicing signals, to name a few, also be design costs? If so, how do we know which to choose for the cost function?

    ========
    Long before eukaryotes. It must have already been well-established before the most recent universal common ancestral community evolved.
    ========

    Is it a problem for evolution that a code that supported eukaryotes so well (eg, supporting splicing signalling) evolved before eukaryotes evolved? Or are we just living in the right universe?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Zachriel:

    "ID (as normally construed) claims far more than it can show."

    If ID was more conservative in its claims would it then be scientific?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Zachriel:

    =========
    Cornelius Hunter: Also, how does SETI encompass clear scientific claims if ID doesn't?

    A narrow-band radio signal with a Doppler-shift consistent with a planetary orbit is quite specific.
    =========

    Is ID's IC (irreducible complexity) insufficiently specific?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "How would you go about testing a non-material cause?"

    What makes you think all causes are testable (by science)? That's the point -- the assumption of the sufficiency of science to explain everything that is embedded in methodological naturalism. As opposed to Cornelius' point, that something is lost when we try to do so. Cases in point are self-consciousness, free will,and moral sense, all of which defy adequate scientific explanation. Operative word, "adequate".

    "How would you go about testing a non-material cause?" Let's think of material as mechanical, and think of non-material as personal.

    In the case of a person, you might ask them "why" they did something -- that would be a form of test. Or, you might diligently inquire to see if they have communicated or written anything on the matter.

    Science is a tool. But it is a limited tool -- something that naturalists are loathe to admit.

    ReplyDelete
  32. If x was the evidence of prior intelligent activity we have to be able to reach this conclusion scientifically if we were busy with science. However if we took MN seriously, we simply wouldn't be able to reach this conclusion, meaning we wouldn't be busy with science and though we would construct fictitious models and we would label these "scientific" or the "natural explanation"

    --Johan--

    ReplyDelete
  33. When vague, ID is not testable. When specific, it's contradicted by the evidence.//--Zachriel

    wow, so ID is both not allowed according to the rules of MN, plus in addition it's contradicted by the evidence? how can something be contradicted by the evidence when design is ruled out prior to investigation?

    wow it's like Cornelius says, evolutionists are very lucky their explanation is the only one allowed to play according to the rules PLUS it's "confirmed" by the evidence, wow, amazing.

    ///More importantly, SETI doesn't claim to have detected anything. ID (as normally construed) claims far more than it can show.///

    It's irrelevant if SETI discovered alien signals or not, the point is if they had to play by the rules of MN, they wouldn't even be allowed to conclude a signal was composed by aliens, instead MN will rule out this possibility prior to investigation. Meaning the second we say a signal is not reducible to random noise, according to MN we would be invoking "super naturalism"

    --Johan--

    ReplyDelete
  34. RkBall -

    "What makes you think all causes are testable (by science)?"

    A good question. And to be frank, if there was a cause that was not testable, then how would we know anything about it? As far as I can see, we wouldn't. Which doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. It just means that it would be unidentifiable by science.

    That does however leave us with the tricky question of how exactly we would know anything about the universe if we discount the scientific method. How would we then identify truths about the world? Through personal belief and 'revelation'? Such processes are FAR, FAR more inaccurate and unreliable than science has ever been.

    "Science is a tool. But it is a limited tool"

    Perhaps so. But it is still the best tool we have for ascertaining the truth about how the universe works. Besides, that is not what Cornelius is saying. He is saying that it is SPECIFICALLY the theory of evolution is limited by MN - and that this is unscientific. You at least have grasped the point that to criticize MN is to criticize the WHOLE of science. I wish that other ID-ers realize the same.

    But again, it leaves you with the problem of how to discover the truths about the world. What process is more reliable than the scientific method?

    ReplyDelete
  35. johan -

    "However if we took MN seriously, we simply wouldn't be able to reach this conclusion, meaning we wouldn't be busy with science and though we would construct fictitious models and we would label these "scientific" or the "natural explanation""

    The inconvenient fact of the matter here is that science does actually work - or at least, it seems to. We have walked on the moon, decoded the human genome, broken the sound barrier, created the internet, cloned sheep and given successful heart transplants. These are real world achievements. Achievements which were made possible by science. Achievements we presumably wouldn't have been able to do if science was built on 'fictitious models'.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Richie

    Achievements which were made possible by science.//

    Achievements made possible by operational science, not origins science, big difference. We can build rockets not because Newton explained where gravity comes from, but because Newton gave us a fairly accurate(not perfect) mathematical description of the mechanics involved in gravity.

    Why are you throwing in naturalism with science? as if they are in the same camp? Naturalism and science do not automatically go together no more than philosophical naturalism and reality automatically fo together.

    --Johan--

    ReplyDelete
  37. johan -

    "Achievements made possible by operational science, not origins science, big difference."

    Is there? What is the difference? What on Earth is 'operational science' and 'origins science'? Science is science, surely.

    "Why are you throwing in naturalism with science? as if they are in the same camp?"

    MN is a core mandate of science. All science. Every branch, every field. The presumption of Naturalism is absolutely key to performing science of any kind.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Cornelius Hunter: Is it possible that other design costs exist in addition to minimizing translation errors?

    Of course. One of those is the necessity of stability in the genetic code for the evolution of complex interactions.

    You can "suppose" whatever you want. You can test whatever you want. Perhaps the Designer has included a watermark of the name of His favorite pet Unicorn. But science requires evidence.

    We have evidence of a history of evolution over vast spans of time. We have specific evidence that the genetic code is robust with regard to translation errors. We have evidence from network theory that fundamental systems, once established, become resistant to change.

    Cornelius Hunter: Is it a problem for evolution that a code that supported eukaryotes so well (eg, supporting splicing signalling) evolved before eukaryotes evolved? Or are we just living in the right universe?

    That's like Lincoln remarking that his legs weren't so very long, just long enough to reach the floor.

    Evolution cobbles together new systems from whatever it has on hand. Then it optimizes the relationships so that they appear to the casual observer to be designed that way. But when we look back—and we can look back—, we can see the haphazard historical process.

    Cornelius Hunter: If ID was more conservative in its claims would it then be scientific?

    At best, it would be sciency speculation. Nothing wrong with that! And far better than foolish certainty.

    Cornelius Hunter: Is ID's IC (irreducible complexity) insufficiently specific?

    No, because Irreducible Complexity (meaning a system that is sensitive to perturbation, such as the removal of an essential component), was predicted a hundred years ago based on evolutionary theory. A well-documented case is the mammalian middle ear, whose evolution was predicted from embryonic data long before the discovery of supporting fossil evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Is there? What is the difference?//

    There is a big difference, the one area deals with the how the universe and subsystems in the universe work and the other deals with how the universe originated and how subsystems in the universe originated, operational science is thus metaphysically neutral, this doesn't have any metaphysical implications. Origins science on the other hand does have metaphysical implications.Science especially here simply cannot afford to start off on any presuppositions, whether religious or philosophical.

    MN is a core mandate of science.//

    As the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend showed, rules have never helped science, and these rules will not help here either. MN not only restricts but it also dictates how one interprets physical evidence.

    The presumption of Naturalism is absolutely key to performing science of any kind.//

    This has to be the most absurd thing I have heard in a while, no the Germans studied the captured Russian t34 tank not because they assumed the tank was the result of purely naturalistic processes, they studied it because they believed the tank was designed. To view subsystems in the universe as designed systems would be a much better motivator for studying them in detail as opposed to viewing everything as a fluke.

    --Johan--

    ReplyDelete
  40. Johan: It's irrelevant if SETI discovered alien signals or not, the point is if they had to play by the rules of MN, they wouldn't even be allowed to conclude a signal was composed by aliens, instead MN will rule out this possibility prior to investigation.

    That is not correct.

    Methodological science is more than capable of determining that humans built the Empire State Building and the Pyramids. SETI is an extrapolation of what is known about planetary systems, biology, and technological organisms.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Johan: This has to be the most absurd thing I have heard in a while, no the Germans studied the captured Russian t34 tank not because they assumed the tank was the result of purely naturalistic processes, they studied it because they believed the tank was designed.

    Where did you ever get the idea that Methodological Naturalism can't consider the role of humans (or posit human-like organisms)? Naturalism in Methodological Naturalism refers to the distinction between Natural and Supernatural, not between natural and artificial.

    ReplyDelete
  42. johan -

    If 'origins science' has no metaphysical implications, then how exactly is it science? By what means does it progress? How does it operate? It cannot be by observation, experimentation and testing hypotheses.

    Clearly your definition of either science or naturalism differs vastly from mine.

    Science is the process of finding truths about the world around us by observation, forming hypotheses, and performing experiments to test them. To do so, we must make certain assumptions - one of which is that miracles do not happen. This is naturalism.

    To illustrate this, perhaps we see an apple fall to the ground. An observation. How interesting. Lets now drop a ball and see what happens to it. Does it fall down, float up, stay in mid air? We hypothesise it will fall like the apple. We let the apple go. It falls down. Interesting.

    If we are good little scientists who assume, as naturalism demands, that the world is governed by regular and constant forces, we can summarize that there seems to be a force pulling the object down. We can then perform further experiments to find out more about this force. Does the ball ALWAYS fall down? Does it fall at a constant rate? Do all dropped objects fall? Do they fall at the same speed?

    But we are here assuming that the force here is natural - ie, not subject to the whims of some supernatural force.

    If we, as you seem to desire, reject any constrains on science AT ALL, then we can say nothing at all about our experiment because the fact that the ball dropped might have been a miracle. If it is possible to violate natural laws, then this might have been a demonstration of a violation of a natural law rather than a demonstration of the law in action.

    Science, simply cannot proceed without assuming that miracles do not happen, because if it does, then the result of any particular experiment, or any single observation might be a miracle.

    Zachriel is spot on. Naturalism does insist that everything originated on its own. Things may well have been designed and created. But not if you have to invoke supernatural entities to do the designing.

    "As the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend showed, rules have never helped science, and these rules will not help here either."

    Science simply cannot operate without rules.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Zachriel is spot on. Naturalism does insist that everything originated on its own."

    Ooops. I meant 'Naturalism does NOT insist that everything originated on its own.'

    ReplyDelete
  44. Histone H4 is mentioned. It's not correct to say that amino acid changes in H4 cause no problems. Don't get me wrong, Michael Behe's work was very good. I'm always amazed how people remain unaware of his work, essentially repeat his experiment, and are surprised to learn that many changes in H4 are viable. However, a mutant can be viable (not die) but still have problems. H4 is the most conserved of the histones, and as expected, changes in its amino acids are most likely to cause phenotypic effects. Here is the latest data from Huang et al. (2009) in Genome Research, Volume 19, pages 674-681 in their article entitled "HistoneHits: a database for histone mutations and their phenotypes":
    * between yeast and humans, H4 is 92% conserved at the amino acid level
    * 87% (89 out of 102) of the amino acids in H4 show some detectable phenotypic effect if altered by mutation
    * in contrast, for a much less conserved histone such as H2B, only 26 of the 112 tested amino acids have so far shown a phenotypic effect when altered (H2B has 130 amino acids in yeast, but 8 have yet to be tested)
    * mutations of the most conserved amino acids are 2.8 times more likely to give phenotypes than mutations of the least conserved amino acids

    ReplyDelete
  45. Just want to say your article is brilliant. The clearness in your post is simply spectacular and i can assume you are an expert on this subject. The issue you have chosen is the relevant to today .I appreciate your efforts , keep it up and thanks for this
    baby furniture

    ReplyDelete