Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The Evolutionist is "Shocked, Shocked to Find Religion in Here"



Religious doctrinaire PZ Myers claims there is no religion in evolution. That was after he said he believed god wouldn't make this world, and before he ridiculed a journalist for believing in miracles. But after seeing Paul Nelson and Ronald Numbers discuss the issue, Myers reveals he is deeply in denial:


The argument from biological imperfections is not theological, no matter how vociferously Nelson asserts that it is, because no biologist is simply saying what [Nelson] claims they are; the interesting part about imperfections like the recurrent laryngeal nerve or the spine of bipeds or mammalian testicles isn't simply that they seem clumsy and broken in a way no sensible god would tolerate, but that evolution provides an explanation for why they are so. We can build a case that these structures are a product of historical antecedents, and have a positive case for them as consequences of common descent. Nelson is misrepresenting the argument, and Numbers just went along with it.

It is not news that people live in denial of their own commitments and convictions. But the degree to which evolutionists are in denial is remarkable. The metaphysics embedded in their thought is exceeded only by their denial of it. It is a truly fascinating mythology.

The reason given by evolutionists such as Myers for why their theological proclamations don't count is that "evolution provides an explanation for" the imperfections. This reasoning is so problematic it seems unnecessary to rebuke. Can evolutionists really be serious? Unfortunately they are, so here goes.

First, as a simple matter of logic, the evolutionary so-called "explanations" for imperfections do nothing to remove the theological claims. Second, as Elliott Sober pointed out with logical rigor, it is precisely from the metaphysical premises that the argument from imperfection derives its strength. Third, the notion that "evolution provides an explanation" is absurd. That's like saying bed-time stories provide an explanation. See here, here, here, here, here and here for the evolutionary aburdity that vision (and that imperfect blind spot) just "evolved." Fourth, the theology has historically and continues today to drive evolutionary thought.

The seventeenth century cleric Nicolas Malebranche argued for simple, blunt means of creation to explain imperfections and evil in the world. His theodicy laid the groundwork for Leibniz and others. And the seventeenth century botanist John Ray argued that the world's “errors and bungles” reveal indirect creation mechanisms. These are merely two examples of how evolutionary thought was being formulated centuries before Darwin. And here are just a few examples from later thinkers:

“Thus, God's choice, not having the slightest motive for tying [the planets] to one single arrangement, would reveal itself with a greater freedom in all sorts of deviations and differences” –Immanuel Kant, 1755

“I needed all my skeptical and metaphysical subtlety to elude [the design argument, but] here [referring to imperfections and evil] I triumph.” –David Hume, 1779

The hierarchical clustering of the species is "utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.” –Charles Darwin, 1859

“I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the [parasitic wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or the cat should play with mice.” –Charles Darwin, 1860

“The strange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of Orchids cannot be necessary per se, since exactly the same end is gained in ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it not then an extraordinary idea to imagine the Creator of the Universe contriving the various complicated parts of these flowers as a mechanic might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it not a more worthy conception that they are some of the results of those general laws which were so co-ordinated at the first introduction of life upon the earth as to result necessarily in the utmost possible development of varied forms?” –Alfred Wallace, 1870

“If whales were made at once out of hand as we now see them, is it conceivable that these useless teeth would have been given them?” –Joseph Le Conte, 1891

Unless “one is prepared to believe in successive acts of creation and successive catastrophes resulting in their obliteration, there is already a strong presumptive indication that evolution has occurred.” –Sir Gavin de Beer, 1964

"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce." –Stephen Jay Gould, 1980

What could have possessed the Creator to bestow two horns on the African rhinoceroses and only one on the Indian species?” –Douglas Futuyma, 1983

“It has turned out to be easier to evolve variations on the five-digit theme, than to recompose the limb structure. If species have descended from common ancestors, homologies make sense; but if all species originated separately, it is difficult to understand why they should share homologous similarities.” –Mark Ridley, 1993

Would God “really want to take credit for the mosquito?” –Ken Miller, 1999

“There are too many deficiencies, too much cruelty in the world of life. To assume that they have been explicitly created by God amounts to blasphemy. I believe God to be omniscient and benevolent. The design of organisms is not compatible with such beliefs.” –Francisco Ayala, 2002

Evolutionary thought is, and always has been profoundly religious. Of course that is nothing new--religious mandates have always been influential. What is remarkable is the denial of evolutionists about their own arguments and convictions.

110 comments:

  1. I've never understood what the hell you meant by evolution being a religion, until now. Now I get it.

    If a granite boulder is at the bottom of a hill, and it matches the granite outcrop at the top of the hill; and if scientists believe it rolled to the bottom, and ignore the possibility that it was put there directly by unspecified gods/fairies/djinn/spirits, then creationists and IDers complain that scientists have a metaphysical presupposition that God does not exist and are damn atheists. Don't pack warm clothes-- you won't need 'em, atheists!

    On the other hand, if scientists believe the boulder rolled to the bottom of the hill, and superstitionists scream at them that unspecified gods/fairies/djinn/spirits put the boulder there; and if scientists then take the bait, and point out that said unspecified gods/fairies/djinn/spirits must be acting just like Newton's laws that makes rocks roll down hills; which would make them tricksters or deceptive; so therefore god/fairie/djinn/spirit theories can accomodate all data sets, thus predicting no data set...

    Then Cornelius Hunter will say, 'See? See? They mentioned gods/fairies/djinn/spirits! Therefore, their 'Newton's law of gravity' is THEISTIC! Religion drives Newtonian physics, and it matters.'

    So Corny, you got us either way. If we don't mention God, we're damned atheists. If you scream at us about God God God and so we mention God, you say, "Seee? Religion drives science!"

    Bottom line: science should be biased against theories with lotsa tunable free parameters. Evolution has some free parameters--OK, lots--but fewer free parameters than all competitors, and fewer than Corny says. So, evolution wins.

    You ID people keep screaming that Intelligent Design is science, ooh, it's science! Either it is or it isn't. If it's a scientific theory, then it has to compete by making distinguishable predictions and it has to have fewer tunable free parameters.

    Unspecified gods/djinn/spirits/fairies have lots tunable free parameters. They love us, they're angry at us, it's a perfect world, no it's a fallen world, they reward us, they punish us. They can fit any data set, therefore predicting no data set.

    Competing fair and square, evolution is the best theory we've got-- lotsa confirmed predictions, fewer tunable free parameters.

    But you IDers want special pleading-- you want ID as a scientific theory-- but not compete fair and square against other theories.

    You want to be recognized as an Olympic skater, then special pleading, special pleading, gimme at least a bronze medal after you fall on your ass again and again. This ain't the Special Olympics and everybody is not a winner for showing up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If we could cpme up an answer as to why a Creator would create things that are imperfect, then that removes that arguement as proof of evolution.

    So you to resort to saying that only naturalistic explanation are not allowed. But who gets to make the rules?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't follow. Do you mean to say "So you to resort to saying that only naturalistic explanation are [] allowed" with no "not" in it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Diogenes

    To maybe rephrase your point, and since the topic came up in some recent posts: You can’t really do science without taking any philosophical standpoint. The minimal standpoint to take would be methodological naturalism and falsificationism. The only way I can think of to avoid that would be to argue that you don’t care about philosophy but you just use the most successful methodology. But that would open up your position to criticism, too. One could argue that this in itself is a philosophical standpoint. The other problem would be to determine what is meant by most successful.
    But if I understand Cornelius Hunter’s position correctly he says that in principle you can use methodological naturalism and falsificationism but you ought to give it up if that fails. Now that renders at least one problem. This problem would be how to determine when the method fails.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Admin: You can’t really do science without taking any philosophical standpoint.

    Science is a methodology, so you can do science without any philosophical dispositions whatsoever. You can do science with philosophical dispositions directly contrary to science. Like Heisenberg's horseshoe, you don't even have to believe science works. You can be a Christian, Buddhist, atheist, even a robot. As long as you follow the scientific method, you're doing science. Albeit, humans, being what they are, it helps if they believe in what they're doing. But it's not required. Scientific labs often have at least one functionally capable nihilist.

    Now, to say that science makes *meaningful* statements about the world requires some notion of meaningfulness. We can parsimoniously derive the scientific method based only on the reasonable reliability of memory, that is, that memory is reasonably consistent from moment to moment. From this bare axiom, induction and the scientific method can be constructed.

    Start by making a mark.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Zachriel

    "derive the scientific method based only on the reasonable reliability of memory"

    That's a really interesting point. Could you recommend something for further reading?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius Hunter,

    We were starting to get along but you had to pull out the Darwin's Ichneumonidæ quotemine, didn't you?

    I'm aware that both you and Behe used it in your mass marketed books. Therefore, I would expect you should be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the quote. Darwin had written it in a private letter to Asa Gray where he was struggling with the concepts of good and evil.

    Here is how Darwin ended the letter...

    "On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—

    Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,—a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,—and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.

    Most deeply do I feel your generous kindness & interest.—

    Yours sincerely & cordially
    Charles Darwin"


    http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2814

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "If a granite boulder is at the bottom of a hill, and it matches the granite outcrop at the top of the hill; and if scientists believe it rolled to the bottom, and ignore the possibility that it was put there directly by unspecified gods/fairies/djinn/spirits, then creationists and IDers complain that scientists have a metaphysical presupposition that God does not exist and are damn atheists. Don't pack warm clothes-- you won't need 'em, atheists!"



    Gravity is a scientifically demonstrated mechanism to move things down.

    Darwinism isnt. It argues on average integrated complexity goes up when the tendency should be down (just like gravity pulling things down). Darwinism goes against scientifically demonstrated, laboratory tested observations.

    Darwinism is anti-science. One does not have to believe ID is true in order to see Darwinism is false.

    By the way here is Darwin commenting on his youth, and it would be appropo to describe his life:


    "I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement" --Charles Darwin

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zachriel writes:

    "Science is a methodology, so you can do science without any philosophical dispositions whatsoever."

    But what is the methodology of science?

    Is it "follow the evidence wherever it leads" or is it "science seeks to find natural explanations for observations in nature"?

    Either approach is based on a philosophical disposition. My own suspicion is that there is no such thing as doing anything without a philosophical disposition. You do what you do based on your philosphical dispostions whether or not you are consciously aware of them.

    Then Zachriel says:

    "You can do science with philosophical dispositions directly contrary to science."

    This statement I will agree with, except that it presents a problem. Who is to decide what philosophical dispostion is directly contrary to science? Would somebody decide that following the evidence wherever it leads is contrary to science because it might lead to conclusions that are contrary to that person's philosophical disposition?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thought Provoker:

    ====
    I'm aware that both you and Behe used it in your mass marketed books. Therefore, I would expect you should be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the quote. Darwin had written it in a private letter to Asa Gray where he was struggling with the concepts of good and evil. Here is how Darwin ended the letter...

    -----
    "On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. ...

    Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws,—a child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by action of even more complex laws,—and I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter.
    -----
    ====


    Strange, you seem to think the end of the letter somehow counters the earlier wasp passage, when in fact it merely reinforces the point. I guess you haven't read my "mass marketed" books.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Diogenes:

    ======
    then creationists and IDers complain that scientists have a metaphysical presupposition that God does not exist
    ======

    Since no one made that complaint, and since you fell for the "Science is Real" spoof, why should anyone listen to you?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Salvador says:
    ============
    Gravity is a scientifically demonstrated mechanism to move things down.

    Darwinism isnt. It argues on average integrated complexity goes up when the tendency should be down (just like gravity pulling things down).
    =============

    Nice try Sal, try that on the non-scientists, they'll eat it up.

    This statement doesn't mean anything. What the hell is "integrated complexity"? Is this different than Irreducible complexity which has been shown to be reducible in every case examined so far? Change of terminology, eh? How would you measure "integrated complexity"? In what units? The same units as regular complexity?

    And for that matter, how would you measure regular complexity? Kolmogorov complexity? No, point mutations can increase that.

    Complexity = Tornado probability? By which I mean the usual Discovery Institute measure, low probability of arrangement of parts by completely random assembly, which is many, many, MANY orders of magnitude different than probability of random mutation+selection. No, if that's what you mean, gene duplication causes tornado probability to go way down and complexity to go way up. If you were consistent in your math. You're not.

    Don't point me to Dembski's stuff Sal, I know about how the DI rapes Information Theory.

    I don't even know how you would compute the average. Average in a single species? Average over many genera? What if the species branch? Do you take the average of species-averages?

    Darwinism does not argue that your mystical intuitions about information or info shminfo as I call it, must go up.

    You say the "tendency should be down." Why "should" it be down? Based on what? Your mystical intuitions? OK, now scientists have to build a machine to disprove your feelings.

    ====================
    Darwinism goes against scientifically demonstrated, laboratory tested observations.
    ====================

    Oh which would that be, Sal? Do tell me more. Typical creationist, going vague when it's time to back it up. Hit and run, eh?

    Evidence of recent evolution in the lab of novel functions include, as I'm sure you know, nylon oligomerases, PCP degradation, 2,4-dinitrotoluene pathway, PET plastic degradation, BG Hall's new beta galactosidase, atrazine chlorohydrolase, DNT degradation, Lenski's citrate uptake experiment, and I haven't even started on antibiotic resistance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cornelius-

    Are you still arguing the They Might Be Giants album is an anti-scientific spoof? Did you look at the context of the rest of the album?

    I see some people are trying to change the subject to whether common descent is 'true' or not. The bulk of the evidence supports it, and it has not been falsified.

    But lets recast this discussion back to what Diogenes and I have been trying to get a response to.

    Everyone here agrees on meteorology and plate tectonics and gravity correct?

    A fourth grade teacher is teaching earthquakes based on plate tectonics, weather based on ocean and air currents, and landslides based on graivty. A student objects-his parents are one of the millions of viewers of Pat Robertson, and he knows that Katrina and the Haiti earthquake and the California mudslides were caused by God as vengeance.

    The teacher responds: We're discussing natural explanations for why those occur, which are well understood. The student goes home-the parents are outraged the teacher included awful 'atheistic' (but really just non-theistic) views in the class. They demand the 'God did it theory' of weather and earthquakes be included. Since a single view of the christian god cannot be included, they demand it be framed as "weather earthquakes and landslides may or may not be designed to effect outcomes on the human population. We do not infer the nature of the designer."

    Why not? Is the teacher non-theistic or atheistic? She has posited a natural explanation over a metaphysical one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Follow-up:

    If pressed by the media why not to include the design theory for earthquakes, landslides and weather, she responds:

    We know how these things form. And anyway, why would a 'designer' use them? There are earthquakes and landslides everyday that kill no-one, and hurricanes often stay out at sea, and take weeks to come inland, allowing evacuations. They just don't seem designed to smite?

    Does that go too far? Why is she handcuffed from responding as such outside the classroom.

    How can the 'designed' activity argument be non-religious, and the rebuttal religious?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cornelius Hunter:
    "Strange, you seem to think the end of the letter somehow counters the earlier wasp passage, when in fact it merely reinforces the point. I guess you haven't read my "mass marketed" books."

    No, I can't say that I have read your books. At least not yet. I have read Behe's books and quite a bit of other things written by Behe, Dembski and others.

    I am curious if my addition "reinforces" your point then why didn't you include it? At least include Darwin's clear intent of the letter.
    "...I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become"

    Or even shorter...
    "Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical."

    I will admit to being confused as to how this reinforces the point you are trying to make. However, if you are happy with my including this, who am I to argue? I am glad to oblige.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Good post Robert.

    There is no scientific, nor philosophical, nor "metaphysical" distinction between Intelligently Designed killer hurricanes and killer tornadoes vs. intelligently designed origin of diversity of life.

    Darwin was making the same point in his letter, regarding killer lightning as due to natural forces and not intelligently designed.

    Why does Dr. Cornelius not say that "religion drives the theory that killer lightning is due to natural forces"? Why is he not deeply offended and angry and hurt as he is over Darwin?

    Real world: The distinction is just political. Fundamentalist leaders need to keep people superstitious, afraid and obedient so fundamentalist leaders keep their infallibility, and so the people won't ask what our corporate plutocracy is up to.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The teacher responds: We're discussing natural explanations for why those occur, which are well understood.

    The correct response is the absence of knowledge, not any sort of pretense of total knowledge. The truth is that we ultimately do not know the nature of nature and therefore cannot say why earthquakes happen.

    Another possibility, the teacher responds: "We are only talking about particular causes, which are generally well understood." This has a different tone than something along the lines of: "We almost know everything now, naturally."

    ReplyDelete
  19. "The correct response is the absence of knowledge"

    Ok, lets not teach anything to anyone. Also, I said 'well' understood.

    "We are only talking about particular causes, which are generally well understood."

    Better.

    So in a biology class, I'm free to teach particular naturalistic and well-understood causes (evolution) without risk of interference from other, religious hypotheses? Awesome.

    This also doesn't answer the questions:

    1) Is the teacher positing a non-theistic response, or an atheistic one?
    2) Should the 'design theory' of weather, etc be taught in schools, and included in textbooks?
    3) Is her response to the media in the follow-up out of line?
    4) Does religion drive the theory that these event have natural causes, and the way they are investigated and taught?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Real world: The distinction is just political. Fundamentalist leaders need to keep people superstitious, afraid and obedient so fundamentalist leaders keep their infallibility, and so the people won't ask what our corporate plutocracy is up to.

    Many leaders need to keep people ignorant but scientism combined with conspiracy theories about rich religious people taking over society and so on has a poor history. In the case of Communism it was the bourgeoisie, in Nazism the Jews.

    You assert: Right wing fundamentalists blame this alleged religion "materialism" for inspiring fascism and its opposite, communism...

    This only demonstrates abysmal ignorance. Fascism is merely a heretical branch of Communism, not its opposite. You might as well assert that Protestants and Catholics are opposites. Communism and Fascism are based on materialism and naturalism and there is as little difference between the two as between Catholics and Protestants.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Admin: That's a really interesting point. Could you recommend something for further reading?

    The key is that the definition is methodological, and yet should fully encompass what scientists actually do. As it is methodological, it requires no philosophical disposition. Something like playing chess requiring no particular philosophy.

    Doublee: But what is the methodology of science?

    The scientific method is normally defined as the process of proposing and testing hypotheses. More generally, it matches theory to observation.

    However, we don't want to oversimplify the process. Scientists often specialize in one aspect of the scientific method, observation or theory. With this division of labor, it is the community over time that completes the methodological cycle. As objectivity is defined in terms of jointly available experience, a community is always involved in the process of verification. Furthermore, sometimes there may be long periods of time separating the accumulation of evidence from a viable of explanation, or a hypothesis and it's experimental verification. Watching someone collect butterflies may not seem scientific, but if it is part of a larger process, then it can be considered a step in that process.

    Doublee: Is it "follow the evidence wherever it leads" or is it "science seeks to find natural explanations for observations in nature"?

    Distinctions between natural and supernatural, though useful heuristics, aren't necessarily well-defined.

    Doublee: My own suspicion is that there is no such thing as doing anything without a philosophical disposition.

    Only passion can motivate action. Thought is a servant of passion. Hunger motivates action.

    Doublee: Who is to decide what philosophical dispostion is directly contrary to science?

    It doesn't matter who decides, as it is irrelevant. A methodological definition avoids the philosophical conundrum. Indeed, most Earth scientists, being humans, are full of passions and contradictory thoughts. Yet, they still manage, on occasion, to do some pretty nifty science.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Cornelius,

    Since neither Diogenes nor Robert (nor the many commenters who have raised this issue with you before) have gotten an answer, let me ask:

    Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ok, lets not teach anything to anyone.

    Shrug, that's not what I said. The truth is that we do not know what the ultimate causes of things are. Someone might say events in multiple universes caused something, another might say we are in a simulation while another might say it was an act of God.

    So in a biology class, I'm free to teach particular naturalistic and well-understood causes (evolution) without risk of interference from other, religious hypotheses? Awesome.

    Not if you do not have the knowledge that you claim to have. The notion of "interference" implies that religious hypotheses are always wrong or a barrier to progress as we know it but history shows that's not the case. Progress would have been well served if more people has interfered with biologists teaching impressionable schoolchildren eugenics in the last century. Note that despite the mythology of Progress woven around the Scopes trial eugenics was part of the reason that William Jennings Bryan became involved in it. At any rate, you can't teach whatever you want simply you have a magic word like "evolution" which supposedly means that biologists actually have a scientific theory with general application.

    On a side note, the proto-Nazi Mencken (on his own account) convinced Clarrow to defend Scopes in the manufactured trial yet then reported on the trial as a journalist for the New York Times. In so doing he helped journalists and artists create yet another mythology of progress set against the backdrop of the supposedly primitive. I suppose if I were to create narratives and imagine creation myths I would imagine myself to stand at the pinnacle of progress as well. Little or no historical evidence is necessary, so why not? It seems that narratives of this sort are the main accomplishment of evolutionists of all sorts. These are the same narratives typical to progressives, Communists and Fascists. Evolution is typically ideological and political, as Scopes illustrates:
    Scopes did not instigate this historic legal challenge: He was merely the willing tool of others who objected to the statute. The idea began with the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"), then an obscure organization of socially prominent, politically radical New Yorkers.
    (The Scopes Trial and the Evolving Concept of Freedom by Edward J. Larson
    Virginia Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 3. (Apr., 1999) :512-513)


    By "politically radical" he means socialists and perhaps even communists.

    Is the teacher positing a non-theistic response, or an atheistic one?

    Given that naturalists themselves have begun imagining things about multiple universes the term "natural" is relatively meaningless (i.e. divorced from the close minded view that nature is a closed system, etc.) but being "natural" still tends to carry some weight in the minds of ignorant schoolboys. If another universe, of the many, is sentient and impacts this one would that be a natural or unnatural explanation? Atheistic or theistic?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?

    I have never seen a meteorologist argue that their knowledge of the weather is somehow tied to or verified by the fact that lightning strikes some people but not others. After all, why would God make the rain fall on the evil and righteous alike? That seems imperfect but they have a scientific explanation for it.

    They probably generally do not argue that way because they generally have not had naturalistic creation myths fused to their professional identities like many biologists have. I.e. the whole pattern of going from an amateur natural theologian to a professional scientist about the same time that Darwinian creation myths were prevalent is not there. This is only a hypothesis as to why every biologist I've ever talked to has been an imbecile. Another hypothesis could be that they actually do understand that they do not have the scientific knowledge that they often claim to have, therefore the shift to claims of theological knowledge about what God would and would not do. It's worth pointing out that a meteorologist who argued that they had some sort of explanation for or knowledge of lightning because it seemed imperfect to them that God would make it strike people would be wrong on all counts. It has been thought for millenia by theologians that God makes the rain fall on the evil and the good and so on.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Someone might say events in multiple universes caused something, another might say we are in a simulation while another might say it was an act of God."

    So in a 4th grade class, do we teach them God may have caused the hurricane or that they might live in the Matrix, or do we go with the neutral solution-the best known natural causes?

    Your sidetrack through the 'Monkey Trial' is neither here not there-and I think many of the historians of science quoted in regards to the progress narratives that shaped it and the tales of Galileo also turn out to vehemently oppose ID!

    So, because of these historical events, should I have to teach "the Matrix and the Designer and Centéotl, godess of Maize," when discussing plant selection, or do we go with the scientifically accepted, neutral solution?

    "If another universe, of the many, is sentient and impacts this one would that be a natural or unnatural explanation? Atheistic or theistic?"

    Cosmology is a bit tough, and I would argue there are some hypotheses in there that may not be scientific-non-testable or falsifiable right now. I also wouldn't teach a multiverse to 4th grades. But note, I chose gravity, meteorology, and plate tectonics. I'm also speaking or common descent, not abiogenesis, etc. Let us not obfuscate.

    We're still not really answering:
    "Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?"

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I have never seen a meteorologist argue that their knowledge of the weather is somehow tied to or verified by the fact that lightning strikes some people but not others."

    Yet Pat Robertson argues that Katrina struck due to god. Should his hypothesis regarding weather 'designed' to do harm be included in the classroom?

    Is the refutation of such curriculum on naturalistic terms a 'religious' argument?

    ReplyDelete
  27. On the other hand, if scientists believe the boulder rolled to the bottom of the hill, and superstitionists scream at them that unspecified gods/fairies/djinn/spirits put the boulder there; and if scientists then take the bait, and point out that said unspecified gods/fairies/djinn/spirits must be acting just like Newton's laws..."

    It seems that evolution is always "just like" something else. It's interesting how the topic is always evolution, yet the shift is always away from Darwin's supposed "laws" or the specification of supposed biological laws of any sort and toward Newton. (Ironically, an "ID creationist" who thought that his discovery of the mathematical structure to things proved the existence of God. Perhaps if biologists actually had a theory of evolution they might come to the same conclusion.)

    Even if you were correct and biologists had a specified theory of evolution instead of a collection of hypotheses that quickly degenerates into hypothetical goo which comports with all possible observations, their opponents would not necessarily be the equivalent of "superstitionists." Indeed, they might merely be opposed extending reductionism beyond its myopic scope based on a higher form of knowledge.

    E.g.
    Perhaps a simple illustration will help convince us that science is limited. Let us imagine that my Aunt Matilda has baked a beautiful cake and we take it along to be analyzed by a group of the world’s top scientists. I, as master of ceremonies, ask them for an explanation of the cake and they go to work. The nutrition scientists will tell us about the number of calories in the cake and its nutritional effect; the biochemists will inform us about the structure of the proteins, fats etc. in the cake; the chemists, about the elements involved and their bonding; the physicists will be able to analyze the cake in terms of fundamental particles; and the mathematicians will no doubt offer us a set of elegant equations to describe the behaviour of those particles.
    Now that these experts, each in terms of his or her scientific discipline, have given us an exhaustive description of the cake, can we say that the cake is completely explained? We have certainly been given a description of how the cake was made and bow its various constituent elements relate to each other, but suppose I now ask the assembled group of experts a final question: Why was the cake made? The grin on Aunt Matilda’s face shows she knows the answer, for she made the cake, and she made it for a purpose. But all the nutrition scientists, biochemists, chemists, physicists and mathematicians in the world will not be able to answer the question — and it is no insult to their disciplines to state their incapacity to answer it. Their disciplines, which can cope with questions about the nature and structure of the cake, that is, answering the ‘how’ questions, cannot answer the ‘why’ questions connected with the purpose for which the cake was made. In fact, the only way we shall ever get an answer is if Aunt Matilda reveals it to us.
    (God’s Undertaker:
    Has Science Buried God?
    by John Lennox :40)


    Biology is far from physics and given that the theory of natural selection predicts preservation and destruction, it may be that if biologists do rigorously specify an actual "theory of evolution" that it will not support progressive creation myths.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Salvador,

    You wrote...
    "Darwinism is anti-science. One does not have to believe ID is true in order to see Darwinism is false."

    I see you got the memo. You are an engineer. You used to forward positive arguments for ID. You used to point to Walt Brown's "Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" with pride. http://www.creationscience.com

    From the recent book Intelligent Design 101, ID's Creator, Phillip Johnson speaks...
    "My goal has been to unite the divided theists and open-minded skeptics of religion and divide the united evolitionist community."

    As you know, I am one of those "open-minded skeptics of religion". Just how do you expect to "unite" me without providing anything that even begins to make sense?


    "By the way here is Darwin commenting on his youth, and it would be appropo to describe his life..."

    More negative attacks? Are you really suggesting Darwin was an evil genius who pulled off what would be the greatest hoax in history for the "sake of causing excitement"?

    Every once in a while people used to tell me that Darwin recanted his theory on his death bed. That argument made absolutely no sense to me. They might as well have said Newton recanted his theories. Ideas either make sense or they don't regardless of the motivations and level of honesty of past thinkers.

    Say it could be shown Darwin was, indeed, a dishonest atheist who was thrusting his metaphysical beliefs on the world. While I might be surprised (since I don't believe that it's true), I wouldn't be "shocked", because the news would be irrelevant.

    An old dead guy doesn't do my thinking for me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "It seems that evolution is always "just like" something else"

    Well, I'll tell you what common descent isn't like, and that is a cake. BTW, the whole example is silly, and starts with the premise of a baker baking something we KNOW not to arise by natural processes.

    So, unless cakes self-replicate, and there is a fossil record of them going back through time, with:
    Genetics/Paleontology/Geographic Distribution
    Comparative Anatomy/Comparative Biochemistry
    Observed speciation, etc etc regarding cakes, what is the point?

    With those evidences, I might be inclined to teach the total science of cakes, that is what is totally known by those disciplines.

    I suppose we could teach the mythology of 'the baker' Aunt Matilda, or that we might live in Matrix and the cake is an illusion, or that there might be multiverses, meaning we live in one where a cake happened to appear, but as your own example states, "the only way we shall ever get an answer is if Aunt Matilda reveals it to us."

    Again, wouldn't the default be to teach what is known about the cake and not matters that can only be revealed by divine revelation?

    Does the religious presupposition that your dear Auntie exists affect the way cakes should be baked?

    ReplyDelete
  30. So in a 4th grade class, do we teach them God may have caused the hurricane or that they might live in the Matrix, or do we go with the neutral solution-the best known natural causes?

    We teach them whatever their parents want taught. Most parents will want them taught about observed patterns of cause and effect (leaving ultimate origins to them) but history shows that establishing notions of "natural" evolution based on the consensus of elites and imposing such views on disparate communities is far from neutral. Instead the notion tends to lead to the emergence of technically proficient barbarians, naturally. Note for example the way that eugenicists treated the Brush Mountain hill folk.

    Personally, I would teach them about observed patterns of cause and effect. I would give them my theological opinions and let them make up their own minds. It seems to me that most parents would do the same.

    ...when discussing plant selection, or do we go with the scientifically accepted, neutral solution?

    Naturalism is not the equivalent of neutrality, given the history of biology the focus on what is "natural" should be put aside in favor of focusing on specifying falsifiable theories subject to empirical evidence. This leaves naturalism as an open question which could be possibly be falsified based on empirical evidence if it was ever specified in the first place and the notion of "evolution" is similar.

    But note, I chose gravity, meteorology, and plate tectonics. I'm also speaking or common descent...

    Natural theology (and not even very good theology) has been included in notions and hypotheses of common descent for some time. So why there and not gravity? Do physicists note that a good Creator would not let people fall down and die as if it has something to do with or verifies the theory of gravity in some way? After all, it just doesn't seem right. The problem with comparing "evolution" to empirically verifiable science is that biologists have consistently failed to raise their epistemic standards with respect to evolution for well over a century.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well, I'll tell you what common descent isn't like, and that is a cake. BTW, the whole example is silly, and starts with the premise of a baker baking something we KNOW not to arise by natural processes.

    Not at all, in fact we know that both Aunt Matilda and the cake arose by natural processes, whatever natural means. Is she unnatural? Is she supernatural?

    Again, wouldn't the default be to teach what is known about the cake and not matters that can only be revealed by divine revelation?

    The default for me is to teach what parents want taught. If they can't come together as a community and decide that then public schools shouldn't exist. Most would want the structure of the proteins, the elements involved and their bonding and so on taught and higher levels of knowledge left to them or someone else. But if a community wanted higher levels of knowledge taught, including a closed minded view based on naturalism or scientism then that would be fine with me as well. I would disagree but they need to be left free.

    Does the religious presupposition that your dear Auntie exists affect the way cakes should be baked?

    Of course because the existence of persons is linked to the existence of morality which may guide how the cake should be baked. Religious presuppositions would also be why someone would use scientia/knowledge to focus on nuclear energy as opposed to nuclear weapons, which would in turn impact progress in knowledge/life in general.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "We teach them whatever their parents want taught."

    So majority rules? If the majority in a district are Scientologists or Wicca, than that creation mythology goes?"

    "Most parents will want them taught about observed patterns of cause and effect (leaving ultimate origins to them)"

    Cool with me. Common descent, natural interpretations of hurricanes and earthquakes but leave questions abiogenesis and natural evil for home/later/philosophy. Sadly for some of you, I think that pretty much rules out creationism and ID in the schools.

    "I would give them my theological opinions and let them make up their own minds."

    What if another parent doesn't want you 'giving' their children your own theological opinions? You might be pretty pissed if I gave your second grader my theological opinions.

    "Naturalism is not the equivalent of neutrality"

    Yet every example here suggests that. One one side theism, the other atheism. In the middle, the investigation of falsifiable hypothesis without regards to either. Probably what you want me teaching, too.

    "Do physicists note that a good Creator would not let people fall down and die as if it has something to do with or verifies the theory of gravity in some way?"

    Maybe they would, if constantly harassed by proponents of 'designed' landslides. I think they have, perhaps had too in regards to arguments for god stemming from cosmology and constants of physics. Oddly, I don't see too many proponents of teaching those in the classroom. Maybe a meteorologist would also have to make such statements, if confronted with the Pat Robertson version of meteorology. It would seem logical to point out not all hurricanes do damage, they are slow moving, and form (as far as we know) naturally.

    And it is off topic, and clearly where this conversation has to go for you to find what you think is defensible ground, but seriously, what is with you guys fiating that common descent is untrue? Even Behe concedes that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi mynym,

    I have noticed you are trying to fight the good fight here. While I would normally give you a break, you ventured into a subject near and dear to me.

    mynym: "Biology is far from physics..."

    Au contraire...
    "While physicists struggle to get quantum computers to function at cryogenic temperatures, other researchers are saying that humble algae and bacteria may have been performing quantum calculations at life-friendly temperatures for billions of years.

    The evidence comes from a study of how energy travels across the light-harvesting molecules involved in photosynthesis. The work has culminated this week in the extraordinary announcement that these molecules in a marine alga may exploit quantum processes at room temperature to transfer energy without loss. Physicists had previously ruled out quantum processes, arguing that they could not persist for long enough at such temperatures to achieve anything useful."

    http://www.hameroff.com/hotgreen.htm

    Quantum Biophysics is becoming the hot new thing (pardon the pun).

    The existence of Quantum Consciousness has been proposed for decades by the likes of Sir Roger Penrose (Black Hole mathematician).

    DNA acts like a quantum computer performing a search algorithm in order to assemble proteins.

    DNA molecules are also used to make man-made quantum computers.

    Do you think it is possible the basis of life (DNA) is directly controlled by Quantum Physics?

    It could go a long way to explaining where the self-organizing information comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  34. And we should remember that quantum mechanics is anathema to the religious hypothesis.

    After all, "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing...... but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

    ReplyDelete
  35. So majority rules? If the majority in a district are Scientologists or Wicca, than that creation mythology goes?

    Where has that happened historically? While you're looking out for the rights of imaginary minorities in what seems to be an imaginary world totalitarianism has emerged in the real world time and again. This is why I suspect that the local community can generally rule itself better than an oligarchy of elites. There will be exceptions which only prove the rule. Even if one community cannot rule itself well at least others will be left free to do so. One of the Founders even said that he would rather have the doctrines of Muslims freely and expressed and taught in public life than move towards the centralized tyranny, now seen in modern times in totalitarianism. If an elite and experts are to emerge who make the Constitution into "a thing of wax" (as Jefferson put it) while pulling decisions out of their own penumbras then we should not have State schools.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Au contraire...

    Not at all, of course physics at its weakest can be compared to biology at its strongest and so on but the fact remains that biology generally doesn't meet the same epistemic standards as physics. I.e. biology isn't physics in that sense.

    Of course for all we know everything is physics and I agree that emerging knowledge will impact biology. The last book I read on the topic was:
    (The Quantum Brain: The Search for Freedom and the Next Generation of Man by Jeffrey Satinover)

    You might enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Where has that happened historically? While you're looking out for the rights of imaginary minorities"

    I think there are some very real minorities who have had very rough times in the US. Historically, it it the government that must come to the rescue by imposing laws and standards.

    Creationist Teacher John Freshwater Accused of Burning Crosses into Students' Arms
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6120032-504083.html

    "Among the other allegations are that the teacher repeatedly told students that science wasn't fact and pushed a creationist agenda. He is also accused of citing a study that posited the possibility of a gene for homosexuality as an example of the fallibility of science, according to The New York Times.

    "Texas Science Curriculum Director Canned for Mentioning Evolution"
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/texas-science-c/#ixzz0hiHJF8YU

    Teacher fired for suspicion of being an atheist:
    http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/02/12/richard-mullens-teacher-fired-for-being-an-atheist.htm

    And conversely:
    "Student Wins Suit After Teacher Says Creationism 'Superstitious Nonsense"
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

    So I think standards, and some semblance of neutrality based on teaching what the consensus of the expert's is, to avoid representative of each side from imposing their views. (I think outside the classroom, and perhaps even in college classrooms are another matter).

    And I think it is a bit naive to think each
    locality can efficiently come up with its own standards, curriculum, and textbooks-and that everyone is going to play fair and be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thank you Robert for bringing my comment back in line with the thread's topic.

    Robert quoting Einstein: "Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing...... but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the 'old one'. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

    This is the famous Einstein quote usually paraphrased as "God doesn't play dice."

    It could be construed as a scientist conjecturing on what God would or would not do. Similar to what Dr. Hunter is concerned about in the opening post.

    At any rate, it is a statement about a metaphysical presumption on whether or not randomness exists.

    if Quantum Mechanics doesn't provide true randomness, then nothing does.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thanks Thought Provoker.

    I think it is a good example.

    Einstein posits a metaphysical (religious?) presumption. It is non-falsifiable, a hunch, not science.

    We can teach quantum mechanics without it. Inclusion of such a quote against the teaching of quantum mechanics could be conjured as theistic (because it supposes a god from the outset).

    Omission of the point would be non-theistic.
    (Happy medium, where I believe the teaching of common descent, and biological research lies).

    When pressed, using quantum mechanics to argue against a (hypothetical?) cosmological argument that relies on non-randomness similarly, is not a theological argument, regardless of its implications! I think this is the closest analogy to why PZ Myers is saying.

    I'll also reiterate the latest variant of the question-of-the-day here:

    Pat Robertson argues that Katrina was formed and struck due to god. Should his hypothesis regarding weather 'designed' to do harm be included in the classroom?

    Is the refutation of such curriculum on a 'religious' argument against god?

    ReplyDelete
  40. mynym: "...of course physics at its weakest can be compared to biology at its strongest..."

    At its weakest?!?!?!

    "Quantum mechanics is the most successful quantitative theory ever produced. Not a single one of the untold thousands of experiments done to test it has ever found the basic principles to be in error, and the agreement can sometimes go to ten significant figures (as in some predictions of quantum electrodynamics)."
    http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr320/lecture21.pdf

    The field of evolutionary biology should be so lucky.

    But there is one catch. Quantum Mechanics just doesn't make sense. Evolutionary biology at least has some believable "just so" hypotheses.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Zach,

    "Now, to say that science makes *meaningful* statements about the world requires some notion of meaningfulness. We can parsimoniously derive the scientific method based only on the reasonable reliability of memory, that is, that memory is reasonably consistent from moment to moment. From this bare axiom, induction and the scientific method can be constructed."


    I used to think in a similar manner until I read these books:


    The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science

    Scientific Method in Practice

    Historical Science is empirical and is scientific

    Christianity and the Nature of Science: A Philosophical Investigation


    If we just looked at one aspect common to all scientific methods, performing a reality check between observations and predictions, there is more to it than what you list.

    1. There is a correspondence theory of truth.
    2. There is an objective reality.
    3. We can know this reality.
    4. The laws of nature are regular enough to for predictions to work.
    5. Induction (which you listed), Deduction, Abduction.
    6. Our brains can know objective reality (which you listed).
    7. There are real things called numbers and the laws of logic and they work to make predictions and observations.
    8. Some knowledge is properly basic, and this serves as a foundation for other knowledge.

    Perhaps these other things I listed were implied by your basic list. If so, I would like to see how.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Diogenes:

    (That's me as laughingoutloud above)

    Your right I meant to say "Only naturalistic explanations are allowed." So who gets to make the rules?

    ReplyDelete
  43. It's always amusing to see atheist Darwinists claim their methods are based on reason and logic, and yet the whole doctrine of materialist Darwinism is that there is ultimately no reason at all to believe that mindless, feckless evolution produced an objectively reliable mind!!

    Materialist Darwinism is so chock full of self-contraditcion and metaphysical assumptions and poor logic that they perpetually prove the point of this specific topic even while denying it.

    "Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to *live in denial* of this fact." - from Biosemiotic Research Trends

    The above quote shows that other scientists are at least beginning to see the reality of this.

    There is also no reason to believe that one "pack of neurons" (to cite Crick) should be able to discern true reality against some other "pack of neurons).

    "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or are at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" -Darwin (1881 private letter)

    ReplyDelete
  44. Steve: 1. There is a correspondence theory of truth.

    Truth is a logical principle, a state.

    Steve: 2. There is an objective reality.

    3. We can know this reality.


    We don't have to deal with notions of reality. We methodologically study phenomena. Objectivity is based on commonality of sensory experience.

    Steve: 4. The laws of nature are regular enough to for predictions to work.

    Again, immaterial. We follow our methodology. If the world is regular, then we will converge on useful generalizations. If the world is chaotic, then our theories won't converge on a suitable generalization. Or if it's like the observable world, some things will be scientifically understandable, and some things won't.

    Steve: 5. Induction (which you listed), Deduction, Abduction.

    All three are part of the scientific method.

    Steve: 6. Our brains can know objective reality (which you listed).

    Objectivity is defined methodologically, that is, independent verification.

    Steve: 7. There are real things called numbers and the laws of logic and they work to make predictions and observations.

    Again, calling them real adds nothing to the methodology. We merely use the rules of logic, which as anyone familiar with computers knows, can be manipulated mechanically.

    Steve: 8. Some knowledge is properly basic, and this serves as a foundation for other knowledge.

    All knowledge builds on other knowledge. There is no reason—in principle—that a robot can't do science.

    None of this means that philosophies and metaphysics don't motivate and guide scientists. They certainly do! We don't want to trivialize. Most Earthling scientists are humans, so they tend to be rather erratic, and sometimes very imaginative. Though most science is done by systematic investigation and careful thought, occasionally crackpots can come up with good ideas. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Wow, I've been waiting all day, and I see no one can answer the big question of the day, and have decided to repeat the same old creationist canards instead.

    Question:
    "Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?"

    For context, see the top post and my questions at 9:54, for example. Seems the whole premise of this blog and ID should have some reasonable answer to such a simple question that Diogenes, I, and others have been asking.

    IRT lastest posts....

    natschuster
    "Your right I meant to say "Only naturalistic explanations are allowed." So who gets to make the rules?"

    We do. Pick a system. Popper works for me.

    Hitch
    "At all to believe that mindless, feckless evolution produced an objectively reliable mind!!"

    What would be the evolutionary advantage of an unreliable mind? Seems somewhat unfit. Conversely, what objective reason is there to believe your god endowed you with an objectively reliable mind? Might god trick you? What proof is there that you don't live in a simulation?

    At any rate, we can test the reliability of our mind, as memory can be tested. We could also test basic reasoning (which some of our primate relatives share, along with systems of ethics based on fairness). From that, we can get the rest and to usable methodologies.

    BTW, Hitch, can you provide a proper reference for the Biosemiotic research trends? I can't find that line by google scholar. I'd like to see the context, given your comrades' history of abusive quote-mining.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hi Robert,

    I had already looked it up. Google search, top pick is google books, page 6.

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=hts&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DMUS_enUS275US275&q=Biosemiotic+Research+Trends


    It looks legit.

    However, I'm not overly suprised by Biosemiotic experts thinking AI researchers aren't paying enough attention to their specialty.

    If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Zach,

    ----------------------------------------------
    "Steve: 1. There is a correspondence theory of truth."

    Truth is a logical principle, a state.
    ----------------------------------------------

    A person performing a reality check must assume this to be true. It is global metaphysical presupposition. It is a belief that is required to reach a particular conclusion, but itself cannot be proved. (Gauch, 112) Since the purpose of a reality check is to draw a conclusion between prediction and observation, an idea of truth must be presupposed.


    -----------------------------------------------
    Steve: 2. There is an objective reality.

    3. We can know this reality.


    We don't have to deal with notions of reality. We methodologically study phenomena. Objectivity is based on commonality of sensory experience.
    -----------------------------------------------

    This is true if science is a game with rules and all that is important are the rules. But science is not a game, it is a goal driven process with the goal being to figure out what is really going on. (Rusbult) Also, "Objectivity is based on commonality of sense experience" is a double presupposition (both metaphysical and epistemological, which must be assumed for one to make a reality check.



    ----------------------------------------------
    Steve: 4. The laws of nature are regular enough to for predictions to work.

    Again, immaterial. We follow our methodology. If the world is regular, then we will converge on useful generalizations. If the world is chaotic, then our theories won't converge on a suitable generalization. Or if it's like the observable world, some things will be scientifically understandable, and some things won't.
    -----------------------------------------------

    To even look for generalizations is a philosophical principle based on science being a goal driven process or a game. The outcome is going to be dictated by how the person doing the generalization philosophically approaches the process.




    Steve: 5. Induction (which you listed), Deduction, Abduction.

    All three are part of the scientific method.



    ---------------------------------------------


    I don't need to go farther because you can see the point. Reality checks are not possible without several global presuppositions.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi Hitch,

    Since you didn't indicate which "atheist Darwinists" amused you, I am curious whether of not you consider me to be one.

    I generally accept Common Descent and Natural Selection. I'm not too keen on Random Mutation but, then again, neither is Evolutionary Biologist and self confessed "Darwinist", Lynn Margulis.

    My religous outlook is similar to what Richard Dawkins says about being agnostic towards God and Fairies at the bottom of gardens. However, I probably have a more positive attitude at the prospect (I would think it would be "neat"). Note, I don't and wouldn't worship either of them.

    I am a reasonably strong critic of religious organizations and movements (e.g. Southern Baptists and ID Movement).

    So, am I an Atheist Darwinist?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Thanks Thought Provoker. I see it is David Abel Makes sense there. I've run across his writing, and given it quick reads. "Cybernetic flipping" and such-it is either genius or madness. My main complaint besides the difficulty of comprehending him is that he resorts to ever thinner lines in the sand- semantic distinctions like self-organization vs. self-ordering to make his points. There may be something there, and I think ID would have latched onto it in a big way, if anyone could make sense of it.

    But that is really immaterial to this thread....

    ReplyDelete
  50. keiths:

    ======
    Since neither Diogenes nor Robert (nor the many commenters who have raised this issue with you before) have gotten an answer, let me ask:

    Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?
    ======

    This is a good example of evolutionary thinking. Here's how it works:

    1. Evolutionist explains that created / designed species would not result in what we find in nature, and so the species must have evolved. See for example:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-read-darwin.html

    2. Normal person notes the obvious, that this evolutionary thinking entails non scientific (religious / metaphysical) claims.

    3. Evolutionist responds, "Well then, you must believe meteorology is religious or metaphysical."


    At this point it becomes clear to the normal person that evolutionists are not interested in following the data but rather in defending their strange ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thought Provoker:

    =====
    Or even shorter...
    "Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical."--Darwin

    I will admit to being confused as to how this reinforces the point you are trying to make.
    =====

    Well I'm confused at your confusion. If religion drives science, then why is Darwin's views not being "necessarily atheistical" confusing to you? Of course evolution is not atheistic, or atheism in disguise, it is religious.

    ReplyDelete
  52. There are also the assertions by Richard Dawkins about what "a tidy-minded designer" would and would not do.

    ReplyDelete
  53. C.Hunter: "This is a good example of evolutionary thinking. Here's how it works:

    1. Evolutionist explains that created / designed species would not result in what we find in nature, and so the species must have evolved. See for example:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-read-darwin.html

    2. Normal person notes the obvious, that this evolutionary thinking entails non scientific (religious / metaphysical) claims.

    3. Evolutionist responds, "Well then, you must believe meteorology is religious or metaphysical."


    At this point it becomes clear to the normal person that evolutionists are not interested in following the data but rather in defending their strange ideas.
    "

    Which is to say, the typical DarwinDefender is intellectually dishonest -- the typical DarwinDefender is morally worse than the common liar, for the common liar lies about some fact or other, whereas the intellectually dishonest man lies about the very nature of reason and truth.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thought Provoker/ stone thrower:
    I am a reasonably strong critic of religious organizations and movements (e.g. Southern Baptists and ID Movement).

    How is the "ID movement" religious?

    Please be specific and show us:

    1- Who ID says to worship.

    2- How ID says to worship

    3- When ID says to worship

    Or are you confusing the fact that many IDists are religious and then linking that to ID?

    Dishonest people do things like that...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ilion said: "Which is to say, the typical DarwinDefender is intellectually dishonest -- the typical DarwinDefender is morally worse than the common liar"

    I´m not sure this is true, well I´m sure is not allways true. Many Darwinians are honest people so afraid to admit the existence of something that create us, that hide themselfs behind the smallest probability that ramdonnes did the job.
    Calling them all dishonest do not help them to make the jump out of there.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dr Hunter

    Since neither Diogenes, Robert, KeithS (nor the many commenters who have raised this issue with you before) have gotten an answer, let me ask:

    Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?

    I ask as your response to Keiths was not an answer and perhaps you did not realise you had overlooked answring.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Steve: A person performing a reality check must assume this to be true.

    "Reality" is a poorly defined term.

    You don't seem to understand this methodology-thing. You don't have to believe anything. You just have to act a certain way. Like a computer.

    Steve: Since the purpose of a reality check is to draw a conclusion between prediction and observation, an idea of truth must be presupposed.

    We write down a prediction. We make an observation and compare it to the prediction. If it matches, we can call it "verified," with that term also having a methodological meaning.

    Steve: This is true if science is a game with rules and all that is important are the rules.

    That's what we mean by methodology.

    Steve: But science is not a game, it is a goal driven process with the goal being to figure out what is really going on.

    Some Zen Buddhists can do quite good work in science, but don't believe they're trying to figure out what is "really going on." They believe that what they observe is just a phantom, and not what is "really going on."

    ReplyDelete
  59. Alan Fox:

    ====
    Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?
    ====

    No, meteorologists do not say that low probability solutions must be a fact because their non scientific, religious beliefs mandate it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. “If species have descended from common ancestors, homologies make sense; but if all species originated separately, it is difficult to understand why they should share homologous similarities.” –Mark Ridley, 1993

    There is no question that a fantastic amount of speciation has occurred since the original creation.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Zachriel writes:

    "A methodological definition [for doing science] avoids the philosophical conundrum [of choosing the correct philosophical approach]."

    So then you would have no problem with following the evidence wherever it leads?

    I know it's not that simple. The challenge that the theory of evolution presents is that the evolutionary changes that we are most interested in (the major morphological transformations that occurred long, long ago) cannot be tested in the laboratory. I find it interesting that Eugenie Scott, when voicing her objection to intelligent design, said "You cannot put God in a test tube." Neither can you put thousands of years of evolutionary change in a test tube.

    We are dealing with a historical science and therefore we must invoke the methods of historical science.

    To cut to the chase, what method of historical science would you use? Do you agree with the rubric that science should not postulate causes for past effects that are different from the causes known to produce the same effects in the present?

    Also:

    "Indeed, most Earth scientists, being humans, are full of passions and contradictory thoughts. Yet, they still manage, on occasion, to do some pretty nifty science."

    Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Doublee: To cut to the chase, what method of historical science would you use?

    Propose hypotheses with testable entailments.

    Doublee: Do you agree with the rubric that science should not postulate causes for past effects that are different from the causes known to produce the same effects in the present?

    Propose hypotheses with testable entailments. The regularity of laws is a common heuristic, but is empirically founded, while some laws do change. Higgledy piggledy assertions won't lead to clear and specific entailments.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Robert:
    Question:
    "Does religion drive meteorology, and does it matter?"

    Of course there are metaphysical assumptions underlying all science.

    Still there is a major diff between meteorlogy and Darwinism that you should be able to discern yourself.

    Darwinism relies on assumptions about God (and circular reasoning).
    Meteorlogy does not.

    Darwinism has been contested because of it metaphysical assumptions ever since OOS came out.

    OOS itself contains references to a creator not doing this or doing that. It also contains so many "may haves, could haves, let us imagine, let us suppose" and the like it's amazing anyone ever accepted it as anything like serious science.

    "What would be the evolutionary advantage of an unreliable mind? Seems somewhat unfit."

    Well here we go again with the Darwinist ubiquitous and oh so bloody boring -center of the universe- "fitness", ie. survival!

    Why should anything survive at all?

    Survival for survival's sake - reproduction for survival's sake is inane in a pointless universe.

    "Conversely, what objective reason is there to believe your god endowed you with an objectively reliable mind? Might god trick you? What proof is there that you don't live in a simulation?"

    1) Why bring God into this if you don't even believe in one? Sounds insidious to me.

    2) If life is a mere simulation then all science is as vain as everything else in a purposeless universe and nothing at all can be known. In such a case nothing is even worth discussing.

    "At any rate, we can test the reliability of our mind, as memory can be tested. We could also test basic reasoning (which some of our primate relatives share, along with systems of ethics based on fairness). From that, we can get the rest and to usable methodologies."

    So you're saying we can use our brain to test our brain.
    Great point there Rob!
    I hope you can spot the problem.

    "BTW, Hitch, can you provide a proper reference for the Biosemiotic research trends?"

    You need to check the articles by David L Abel and Jack T Trevors. Some of the best on the web for debunking the whole chance hypothesis.

    Address: Director, The Gene Emergence Project, The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc., 113 Hedgewood Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20770-1610 USA and
    2Professor, Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Rm 3220 Bovey Building, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada

    Web site: http://lifeorigin.info/

    Article: http://books.google.com/books?id=GvRmYbN3n6UC&pg=PA51&vq=%22A+Sign,+or+Representamen,+is+a+First+which+stands+in+such+a+genuine+triadic+relation+to+a+Second,+called+its%22&source=gbs_quotes_r&cad=2_0#v=onepage&q=%22A%20Sign%2C%20or%20Representamen%2C%20is%20a%20First%20which%20stands%20in%20such%20a%20genuine%20triadic%20relation%20to%20a%20Second%2C%20called%20its%22&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  64. "No, meteorologists do not say that low probability solutions must be a fact because their non scientific, religious beliefs mandate it."

    I've never heard a evolutionary biologist say this either. It it the ID/Creationists, or (Pat Robertson in the meteorology example) who wishes to insert religion. It is YOUR argument that the exclusion or the refutation of such must be religious itself. I think the quantum mechanics example is the best example of why this is not the case. It is this analysis, provided in many examples throughout the comments that refutes the original post.

    I think most of the impartial viewers can see through the bluffs, and bluster that "Darwinists" are intellectually dishonest blah blah blah...

    At least pertaining to the original post, apparently the answer to "Does Religion drive Meteorology is "Yes."

    ReplyDelete
  65. "Why bring God into this if you don't even believe in one? Sounds insidious to me."

    Because that is your mechanism for knowing the mind works the way it does.

    "So you're saying we can use our brain to test our brain."

    Sure, against some fixed source-a book, a computer program. If my memory is reliable over time, we can derive reasoning and the rest.

    Got the Ref from thought provoker thanks.

    Thanks also for the admission that the answer to the questions "Does religion drive meteorology? Is yes. Does it matter?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Robert:

    "I've never heard a evolutionary biologist say this either."

    Try reading:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/evolutions-religion-revealed.html

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-read-darwin.html

    ReplyDelete
  67. "What would be the evolutionary advantage of an unreliable mind? Seems somewhat unfit."

    As has been pointed out, more than once (sometimes even by Darwinists), speaking in terms of fitness, an "unreliable mind" is not necessarily any less fit that a "reliable mind" ... it doesn't matter whether a small, defenseless primate "thinks" the lioness wants to eat him and therefore he should hide from her, or whether he "thinks" it's fun to play hit-and-seek with lionesses and therefore hides from her. In terms of fitness, what matters is that he not be eaten -- his “rationale” for always avoiding the lioness doesn’t matter.


    "What would be the evolutionary advantage of an unreliable mind? Seems somewhat unfit."

    As real-time observations, all around the world, are showing us, there is a severe group-fitness disadvantage to believing that Darwinism expresses any important truths about the nature of reality.

    Apparently, Darwinism fails the fitness test.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thought Provoker:
    Are you an atheist Darwinist?
    Judging by your self-protrait above I don't think so. Judging by your blog you're too far off of either atheism or deism - it seems you're stuck undecided.

    I suggest you lean in the "right" direction!
    ;-)
    A hyper intelligent origin of all is the only logically sound proposition.

    ReplyDelete
  69. See how quick you are to change the subject. We're back to minds, and runs of quotes off other pages.

    Is any refutation of a religious incursion into science religious itself?

    In my mind, those quotes are merely stating what we know about biology to refute the insertion of the religious design proposal.

    Why is it religious to use scientific evidences to refute non-scientific incursions?

    I'll reiterate using Einstein's Dice:

    "Einstein posits a metaphysical (religious?) presumption. It is non-falsifiable, a hunch, not science.

    We can teach quantum mechanics without it. Inclusion of such a quote against the teaching of quantum mechanics could be conjured as theistic (because it supposes a god from the outset).

    Omission of the point would be non-theistic.
    (Happy medium, where I believe the teaching of common descent, and biological research lies).

    When pressed, using quantum mechanics to argue against a (hypothetical?) cosmological argument that relies on non-randomness similarly, is not a theological argument, regardless of its implications! I think this is the closest analogy to why PZ Myers is saying."

    Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Robert:
    "Because that is your mechanism for knowing the mind works the way it does."
    Thats the only "mechanism" that holds up - no other one does including your atheist one - indeed, especially any atheist theory.

    Atheism is utterly illogical at the very roots.

    "If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."

    "Unless thought is valid we have no reason to believe in the real universe."

    "A universe whose only claim to be believed in rests on the validity of inference must not start telling us the inference is invalid..."
    - CS Lewis

    "So you're saying we can use our brain to test our brain."
    "Sure, against some fixed source-a book, a computer program. If my memory is reliable over time, we can derive reasoning and the rest."

    I don't think you you've seen the problem there yet. You're still testing your brain using your brain.

    Rweason is not dereived from memory. Computers have memory they don't reason.

    "Got the Ref from thought provoker thanks."
    No problem - I hope you'll read it slowly.

    "Thanks also for the admission that the answer to the questions "Does religion drive meteorology? Is yes. Does it matter?"

    Actually you've extrapolated incorrectly on what I actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Cornelius Hunter: Well I'm confused at your confusion. If religion drives science, then why is Darwin's views not being "necessarily atheistical" confusing to you? Of course evolution is not atheistic, or atheism in disguise, it is religious.

    It appears by your comment, you are suggesting atheism is not a religion. However, it is clear Darwin was indicating he felt his theories were neutral as to whether or not God exists; not necessarily atheistical and not necessarily theistical.

    You appear to be disagreeing with Darwin by suggesting evolution is inherently thiestical and, therefore, religious.

    If I were to say...
    "I cannot persuade myself that beneficent and omnipotent fairies would have designedly created weeds in my garden" in response to someone asking me about faities at the bottom of gardens
    ...would that mean I believe in fairies?


    However, I can appreciate the trouble you have with someone saying the equivalent of...

    "I'm not sure whether or not milk exists, but if it did exist it surely wouldn't come from cows."

    Meanwhile, I see you have provided some threads dealing with direct examples.

    I look forward to participating in those threads.

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  72. Robert:

    "See how quick you are to change the subject."

    Yet another good example of discourse with an evolutionist. Here's how this one goes:



    1. Evolutionist: Created / designed species would not result in what we find in nature, and so the species must have evolved.

    2. Normal person: This is a non scientific (religious / metaphysical) claim.

    3. Evolutionist: We never make any such claims.

    4. Normal person:

    5. Evolutionist: See how quick you are to change the subject.


    Responses from an evolutionist are not distinguishable from irrationality. Evolutionists are knowledgeable, smart people, but smarts do not translate into wisdom.

    Evolutionists are not idiots, but when discussing the theory, for all intents and purposes, there seems to be no distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Normal person: This is a non scientific (religious /metaphysical) claim." (In response to a strawman argument-always use a strawman!)

    So the answer is Yes. It is always religious to use science to rebut a religious claim that has interjected itself?

    Using quantum mechanics to disprove a cosmological argument based on non-randomness. Or preferring a naturalistic/emperical interpretation of hurricanes rather than the meteorology is no different than saying that design is not apparent, and all evidences indicate species have evolved.

    I understand the confusion that results when science is used to rebut non-science, and I'll admit, the phrasing used by some evolutionists perhaps goes to far. But, it results, much like the Einstein example, because they have been prompted to reply to a wholly religious argument.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Robert:

    Correction on #4:


    1. Evolutionist: Created / designed species would not result in what we find in nature, and so the species must have evolved.

    2. Normal person: This is a non scientific (religious / metaphysical) claim.

    3. Evolutionist: We never make any such claims.

    4. Normal person: {Provides citations}

    5. Evolutionist: See how quick you are to change the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  75. So the answer is yes?

    "I'll reiterate using Einstein's Dice:

    "Einstein posits a metaphysical (religious?) presumption. It is non-falsifiable, a hunch, not science.

    We can teach quantum mechanics without it. Inclusion of such a quote against the teaching of quantum mechanics could be conjured as theistic (because it supposes a god from the outset).

    Omission of the point would be non-theistic.
    (Happy medium, where I believe the teaching of common descent, and biological research lies).

    When pressed, using quantum mechanics to argue against a (hypothetical?) cosmological argument that relies on non-randomness similarly, is not a theological argument, regardless of its implications! I think this is the closest analogy to why PZ Myers is saying."

    Still waiting.....

    ReplyDelete
  76. Robert:

    "I understand the confusion that results when science is used to rebut non-science"


    1. Name a natural theologian, or a tradition, or simply the non scientific, religious, position that Darwin was rebutting at the end of Chapter 2:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-to-read-darwin.html


    2. If you cannot answer #1, then use Jerry Coyne's religious claims about embryology:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/jerry-coyne-why-embryology-proves.html

    3. If you cannot answer #1 and #2, then use any other religious claim made by evolutionists.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    If you do not feel like researching #1-#3, then let me help. Here are the answers:

    1. None.
    2. None.
    3. You can find occasional examples where evolutionists address historical claims made by natural theologians or creationists, but most of the religious claims made by evolutionists are their own.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    4. Given that evolutionists have falsified creationism and design, why does that prove evolution? Again, such as here:

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/02/jerry-coyne-why-embryology-proves.html

    Are there religious premises entailed in this evolutionary logic?


    Representative quotes:

    Ernst Mayr:
    The greatest triumph of Darwinism is that the theory of natural selection, for 80 years after 1859 a minority opinion, is now the prevailing explanation of evolutionary change. It must be admitted, however, that it has achieved this position less by the amount of irrefutable proofs it has been able to present than by the default of all the opposing theories.


    Stephen Jay Gould:
    Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin, in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic distributions that make the least sense.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Cornelius,
    Ah yes, the notion of "independent creations of species" that Darwin rebutted in that passage wasn't ever a tradition in biological thought. WHat's that you say? Linnaeus? never heard of him.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Cornelius,

    The original post was about PZ Myer's statement, and rebuttals of ID. Have all evolutionary biologists, including Darwin, throughout all time, refrained from making religious statements? Probably not. Should they? Probably not, except perhaps in the classroom.

    The Point is, much like the Einstein example, refutation of ID with science, or design arguments is NOT a religious argument.

    Onto your post:

    "whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations."

    That line? Religious? He's merely stating that without common descent, the observed data make no sense. Small "c" not Creation/Creator.

    "The “adding new stuff onto old” principle is just a hypothesis—and explanation for the facts of embryology. It’s hard to prove that it was easier for a developmental program to evolve one way rather than another. But the facts of embryology remain, and make sense only in light of evolution."

    Non-religious. A falsifiable hypothesis. A species that develops without adding new onto old would disprove it. The "why" is hard to answer-but it isn't the heart of his hypothesis, just an observation.

    "You can find occasional examples where evolutionists address historical claims made by natural theologians or creationists,"

    Such as the quote from PZ Myers.

    "Given that evolutionists have falsified creationism and design, why does that prove evolution?"

    They haven't. Neither is falsifiable. We can offer reasons design does not seem apparent, and why evolution is the best theory. But how could one ever refute a creator who makes things appeared designed?

    What are the quotes from leading evolutionary biologists supposed to prove? If no theory replaces the best working hypothesis in 150 years, it sounds good by me. Verification is rare, and hard to achieve, but not-falsified is fine.

    The last is actually in the context of refutation of the pervasiveness of design thinking, even in evolution textbooks. The preceding line is "But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator." It is, perhaps, a rare religious argument by a historian of science and philosophy discussing the implications of Darwin for people who believe in a 'Sensible God.' It isn't exactly the kind of thing you'd seen in the primary literature or a biology classroom.

    ReplyDelete
  79. But how could one ever refute a creator who makes things appeared designed?

    Or rather, a creator who makes things appear evolved...

    ReplyDelete
  80. Zachriel answers my question about historical science:

    "Propose hypotheses with testable entailments. The regularity of laws is a common heuristic, but is empirically founded, while some laws do change. Higgledy piggledy assertions won't lead to clear and specific entailments."

    I agree that the regularity of laws is empirically founded. But this is the first time I have read that some laws do change. In fact, this seems to contradict the assumption that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe. It also seems to make science difficult, if not impossible to do. In fact science succeeded because it was based on the assumption that we live in a rational universe. Are you saying that the experiment that science performs tomorrow may not yield the same results as that same experiment performed today?

    Is the theory of evolution the product of the regularlity of laws? Yes and no. At the lowest levels, biology must obey the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry.

    But at the level at which evolution occurs, science postulates a departure from regularity to explain the morphological transformations observed in the historical record. This departure from regularity is commonly called random variation and natural selection. I do not consider this a law-like process.

    As I understand your use of "higgledy piggledy", the theory of evolution then is a higgledy piggledy assertion. The theory does not lead to clear and specific entailments.

    And now I am beginning to understand your point. The heuristic proposed for historical science does not lead to clear and specific entailments, so therefore you do not accept it.

    I do accept the conclusion that there are no clear and specific entailments for historical science. There are no direct experiments that can be performed to conclusively show that one theory is truly better than another. We can only critically evaluate competing hypoheses and choose the best one. So we must be satisfied with a greater degree of uncertainty for a historical theory.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Zach,

    ------------------------------------------------
    Steve: Since the purpose of a reality check is to draw a conclusion between prediction and observation, an idea of truth must be presupposed.

    We write down a prediction. We make an observation and compare it to the prediction. If it matches, we can call it "verified," with that term also having a methodological meaning.

    ------------------------------------------------

    You are using the words "compare" and "matches which are forms of evaluation. For a scientist to do an evaluation, they must presuppose "matching" and "comparing" is something that must be done in the first place.

    Prove (preponderance of evidence not 100% certainty) to me how a scientist named "Zach" would perform an evaluation without first presupposing (believing) there existed ideas called "comparison" and "matching" and this method is what one should do. BUT! You must not use any evaluation in your explanation. Your explanation must not compare any premises to any conclusions nor match any evidence to any observations. To do so would be to assume evaluation to prove evaluation.

    If you can do this, you have made your case.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Doublee: I agree that the regularity of laws is empirically founded. But this is the first time I have read that some laws do change.

    It depends how you define law. Galileo's gravitational acceleration was fixed, but was replaced by Newton's inverse square law. The fine structure constant may change, but is replaced by a variable, a new law. A better example is that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are apparently inconsistent.

    Doublee: In fact, this seems to contradict the assumption that the laws of nature are the same throughout the universe.

    You had said you agreed it was empirical.

    Doublee: It also seems to make science difficult, if not impossible to do.

    Amazingly, scientists can keep two inconsistent theories in their heads!

    Doublee: Are you saying that the experiment that science performs tomorrow may not yield the same results as that same experiment performed today?

    Well, it depends. If you use Galileo's gravity, the retardation of the pendulum in the tropics is sufficient to show that you can get different results for the same experiment.

    Doublee: Is the theory of evolution the product of the regularlity of laws? Yes and no. At the lowest levels, biology must obey the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry.


    The previous discussion related to resolving some mundane philosophical questions about the scientific method. None of this is particularly relevant to evolution biology. Even quantum mechanics is rarely a factor. To answer your question, the Theory of Evolution is orthodox when it comes to its relationship to physical laws.

    Doublee: But at the level at which evolution occurs, science postulates a departure from regularity to explain the morphological transformations observed in the historical record.

    Huh? Just because physical laws don't change doesn't mean everything is "regular" in the sense you are using it. Look at clouds and lightning and rivers and volcanos and emeralds and complex organic molecules forming on asteroids.

    Doublee: This departure from regularity is commonly called random variation and natural selection. I do not consider this a law-like process.

    These mechanisms are completely orthodox with regards to physical laws, and directly observable.

    Zachriel: Higgledy piggledy assertions won't lead to clear and specific entailments.

    Doublee: As I understand your use of "higgledy piggledy", the theory of evolution then is a higgledy piggledy assertion.

    Not at all. A higgledy piggledy assertion is one comprised of ad hoc assertions, changeable laws or the whims of the gods made to suit the evidence regardless of what that evidence might be. On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution makes very specific predictions about a wide variety of phenomean, from genetics to geology.

    Doublee: The heuristic proposed for historical science does not lead to clear and specific entailments, so therefore you do not accept it.

    Again, quite the contrary. For instance, we can say with confidence that dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Steve: For a scientist to do an evaluation, they must presuppose "matching" and "comparing" is something that must be done in the first place.

    Computers compare and match, but don't presuppose anything.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Darn....still no actual response.....hmmm.....

    ReplyDelete
  85. Robert,

    ID is falsifiable.

    It can be falsified by demonstrating blind, undirected processes can account for that under investigation.

    IOW all you have to do to falsify ID is to actually start supporting the claims of your lame position.

    However you cannot so all you have is to try to bash ID.

    Heck you can't even provide a testable hypothesis for your position.

    So whine on- that is all you have.

    ReplyDelete
  86. ID guy: ID is falsifiable.

    Sorry, but that's not a valid criterion for scientific falsification. Not only are the terms poorly defined, but a valid scientific falsification is a *specific* observation that is entail in the claim.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Joe's experiment to disprove ID:

    Prove evolution. (I guess-he defines nothing).

    But what is the designer designed the world to look evolved?

    Note that prominent creationists insist this position is true-that god created a deceptive world.

    "Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: "The bones, artifacts, partially decayed radium, potassium-argon, uranium, the red-shifted light from space, etc.– all of it points to a greater age which nevertheless is not true."

    http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/AGEOFTHEUNIVERSE.htm

    ReplyDelete
  88. C.Hunter: "This is a good example of evolutionary thinking. Here's how it works:
    [walk-through]
    At this point it becomes clear to the normal person that evolutionists are not interested in following the data but rather in defending their strange ideas.
    "

    Ilíon: "Which is to say, the typical DarwinDefender is intellectually dishonest -- the typical DarwinDefender is morally worse than the common liar, for the common liar lies about some fact or other, whereas the intellectually dishonest man lies about the very nature of reason and truth."

    Blas: "I´m not sure this is true, well I´m sure is not allways true."

    But then, I didn't say that all Darwinists, without exception, are intellectually dishonest.

    But, the intellectually honest ones are few and far between. And one rarely encounters them on the internet.


    Blas: "Many Darwinians are honest people so afraid to admit the existence of something that create us, that hide themselfs behind the smallest probability that ramdonnes did the job."

    While it is true that "Many Darwinians are ... so afraid to admit the existence of something that create us...", it doesn't change the facts of the matter:
    1) 'modern evolutionary theory' is illogical and false;
    1a) that some or even "Many Darwinians are honest people so afraid to admit the existence of something that create us..." has no bearing at all on 'modern evolutionary theory' itself;
    2) the typical Darwinist is intellectually dishonest;

    ... and in fact, such a mental state *is* a reflection of intellectual dishonesty.


    Blas: "Calling them all dishonest do not help them to make the jump out of there."

    Most Darwinists *are* intellectuall dishonest. And I'm not going to lie about the fact. And, I don't *simply* call them intellectually dishonest.

    I don't value "niceness" much at all. I value truth and honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  89. [Part 1] Zachriel continues to challenge my thinking.

    Zachriel:
    "It depends on how you define law."

    I view a law as a fixed relationship among a set of variables, e.g. f = ma. Newton discovered certain laws of motion, but he did not discover how those laws operate under all conditions. Einstein did that. A law of nature did not change, but our understanding of that law did.

    Also a law may appear to change, but as in your pendulum example, science may not be aware of all the varibles affecting that law in a particular time or place.

    Zachriel:
    "Just because physical laws don't change doesn't mean everything is "regular" in the sense you are using it. Look at clouds and lightning and rivers and volcanoes and emeralds and complex organic molecules forming on asteroids."

    I agree. When I was talking about the levels at which laws operate I had in mind something as simple as filling a sink with water from the faucet. I see all these "random" bubbles forming and disappearing. If we could somehow instantaneously capture all the conditions at each instance in time, we could predict the pattern of bubbles at the next instance. The formation of clouds in the sky would be another example.

    With living systems, things get a little more complicated. As I said, at the lowest level, biology must obey the laws of physics and chemistry, and at every level that is examined, the laws of physics and chemistry must be obeyed. However, I would suggest that biological systems have developed their own set of laws, or dare I say operating instructions.

    For example, when a new protein is needed by the cell, a "set of instructions" is called upon to bring this about. Those instructions discover the need for the protein, know where to go in the DNA stand, know how to unravel the strand, use a code to translate the information in the strand, and ultimately know how to build and fold the required protein.

    To greatly oversimplify, it is the breakdown in this process (in spite of the fact that there are error correction mechanisms) that is a major component in the theory of evolution. That is why I contend that evolution is not a law-like process. It is the failure of the “biological program” that is responsible for evolution, not its correct operation. (continued...)

    ReplyDelete
  90. [Part 2] Zachriel continues to challenge my thinking.

    Zachriel:

    "These mechanisms [random mutation and natural selection] are completely orthodox with regards to physical laws, and directly observable."

    Yes and no. What is observable is described above. What is not observable is how this process (as crudely as I have described it), results in a major morphological transformation. Again, we are talking about a process that takes thousands and thousands (and millions) of years.

    And science is relying on a breakdown in a biological process rather than the routine operation of that process. What is the difference between the whims of the gods and the whims of nature? Can anyone make predictions based on whims? Can whimsical processes build complex, orderly structures?

    Zachriel:

    "For instance, we can say with confidence that dinosaurs roamed the Earth."

    Of course we can say that with confidence, because we have directly observed dinosaur fossils.

    What we cannot say with the same level of confidence is how that dinosaur came to be in the first place. We can only infer some process, that because it occurred in the ancient past and took thousands of years, cannot be directly observed or duplicated in the lab.

    My question is still on the table. What is a reasonable heuristic for explaining past events in the history of life?

    Is it reasonable to postulate a process that science hasn't directly observed is responsible for an event in the past? Then, science could postulate anything that fits its philosophical preferences.

    Until science can demonstrate that random processes can build the complicated structures that are observed in living things, the best answer for now is simply, "We don't know how evolution occurred."

    ReplyDelete
  91. Robert: "Or rather, a creator who makes things appear evolved..."

    Come on Rob, you know very well this isn't true at all.

    Richard Dawkins said, "...The world is divided into things that look designed, like birds and airliners; and things that do not look designed, like rocks and mountains. Things that look designed are divided into those that really are designed, like submarines and tin openers; and those that are not really designed, like sharks and hedgehogs. Darwinian natural selection, although it involves no true design at all, can produce an uncanny simulacrum of true design. An engineer would be hard put to decide whether a bird or a plane was the more aerodynamically elegant."

    ...it appears almost as if "the human brain is specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism." -Richard Dawkins

    “Biology is the study of the complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” -Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

    Reversing the facts doesn't make a new fact.

    The whole universe "looks" intentionally designed because it is!

    "All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology--that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact." -Michael Denton, Natures Destiny (p. 389)

    "Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning." --CS Lewis

    This is not hard!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Doublee: Newton discovered certain laws of motion, but he did not discover how those laws operate under all conditions. Einstein did that.

    Relativity is not consistent with Quantum Mechanics, nor does it resolve the problem of gravitational singularities.

    Doublee: A law of nature did not change, but our understanding of that law did.

    Is Newton's Law not a law?

    Doublee: As I said, at the lowest level, biology must obey the laws of physics and chemistry, and at every level that is examined, the laws of physics and chemistry must be obeyed. However, I would suggest that biological systems have developed their own set of laws, ...

    Hurricanes seem to have their own set of laws too. Only very powerful computers can build up a reasonable simulation based on fundamental principles. Much more complexity and you could argue it is due to some élan vital when it is only your limited perspective.

    Doublee: ... or dare I say operating instructions.

    Go ahead. Double dare!

    Doublee: That is why I contend that evolution is not a law-like process.

    The problem is you jumped a very long way based on an analogy to "operating instructions." No, evolution is not law-like as you defined it to be a "fixed relationship among a set of variables." So? That doesn't mean it isn't based on physical laws, or that its patterns aren't due to the large numbers of interactions involved.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Zachriel: These mechanisms [random mutation and natural selection] are completely orthodox with regards to physical laws, and directly observable.

    Doublee: Yes and no. What is observable is described above. What is not observable is how this process (as crudely as I have described it), results in a major morphological transformation.

    That would be adaptation. We can observe natural selection and random mutation.

    Doublee: What is the difference between the whims of the gods and the whims of nature?

    Natural forces can be observed.

    Doublee: Can anyone make predictions based on whims?

    Each gaseous molecule follows a chaotic course, yet perfume will quickly permeate a room.

    Doublee: Can whimsical processes build complex, orderly structures?

    Not by itself. But we know that random fluctuations can provide sufficient variation for selection to work. We can show this in silico and observe it in vivo. That doesn't "prove" that variation is random, of course. Just that it is sufficient.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Zachriel: "Relativity is not consistent with Quantum Mechanics"

    Zachriel, you should have suspected I would have something to say about Penrose's view of this.

    However, I'm at work, so I'll have to postpone my reply.

    Doublee, you have got my attention (in a good way).

    BTW, does "Doublee" mean BSEE?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Doublee: The heuristic proposed for historical science does not lead to clear and specific entailments, so therefore you do not accept it.

    Zachriel: Again, quite the contrary. For instance, we can say with confidence that dinosaurs roamed the Earth.

    Doublee: Of course we can say that with confidence, because we have directly observed dinosaur fossils.

    So we can historical claims do have clear entailments. We could pick a more complex example (such as, parenting behavior in Maiasaura), but the point would be the same.

    Doublee: What we cannot say with the same level of confidence is how that dinosaur came to be in the first place.

    We should always start with what we can establish with some confidence, in this case, we know that dinosaurs share a common ancestry, and that they descended from ancestral non-dinosaurian reptiles.

    Doublee: What is a reasonable heuristic for explaining past events in the history of life?

    Hypothesis-testing.

    Doublee: Is it reasonable to postulate a process that science hasn't directly observed is responsible for an event in the past?

    Yes, that's exactly right! You postulate. Then you test for its empirical implications. So if you think that whales descended from land mammals, you might look for whales with hind limbs in strata associated with the transition. This lends support to the hypothesis.

    Doublee: Until science can demonstrate that random processes can build the complicated structures that are observed in living things, the best answer for now is simply, "We don't know how evolution occurred."

    Your problem isn't the general process of historical reconstruction, but the particulars of biological history. Again, you have to start with Common Descent to make any sense of the evidence.

    We observe natural variation and selection. We observe evolution. We can show that the evolution we observe is much faster than required to explain the patterns over the broad scope of history. And we can show many specific transitions that are consistent with these processes.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Zach,

    I might have come across antagonistically, but don't take it that way. This has been a very fruitful conversation for me to work out some of the Philosophy of Science I have studied.

    What I think I have learned about your point of view:

    I get what you mean about science being just a methodology. You are not saying *no metaphysical assumptions* are needed, just a bare set which includes the things in your original list (induction, a mind, etc.). If you take this approach, science can be thought of as a game with rules. It is not until you start making claims about reality that science becomes a process with goals. Make no claims, and you can just stick to the game. Checking predictions to observations is just matching, so even a computer can do it.

    Problems I see that are apparent with your point of view:

    If science is thought of as a game with rules, then no presuppositions about truth or the existence of ideas are required. Once again, a computer doesn't do these things and it matches just fine. This is flawed.

    You did indicate induction would have to be presupposed. "From this bare axiom, induction and the scientific method can be constructed." which you refined later by saying "All three [induction, deduction, abduction] are part of the scientific method."

    One cannot just do a logical evaluation, having supposed its existence, without also believing one's observations exist, one's predictions exists, and that matching exists. To assume logical evaluations IS to make claims about the existence of things.

    Next, to claim an observation or prediction exists is to presuppose the truth of the proposition "An observation exists", "A prediction exists", and "the idea of Matching exists". You cannot include logic in your list of minimal requirements without secretly bringing in an assumption about truth. To say truth is just a "state" that obtains through matching brings with it the philosophical baggage that comes with all ideas about truth.

    A computer can do matching if it has been programed by a person who assumes the metaphysical positions I have described. The machine will do what it is told to do. So you are correct in that respect, but have moved the problem to the programmer and will have to deal with him/her instead of their proxy tool.

    Finally, it should be noted that reducing the scientific method to a game by refusing to make metaphysical claims, even if it could be done, would render the scientist doing so unable to say if the "matching" they have done represents what is really going on. That is exactly what Dr. Hunter's post is about. Evolutionists who are not playing a game, but are making metaphysical claims about what God would or would not do and what nature is really like. Then denying that they hold religious claims by saying either 1) they are just doing science (playing a game) or 2) metaphysical claims about God are not religious claims.



    It has been great to work these things out with you. Hope to talk to you again some other time.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Steve: I might have come across antagonistically,

    Rank amateur.

    Steve: You are not saying *no metaphysical assumptions* are needed, just a bare set which includes the things in your original list (induction, a mind, etc.). If you take this approach, science can be thought of as a game with rules.

    No metaphysics, just rules that we define as science.

    Steve: You did indicate induction would have to be presupposed.

    Induction follows from memory. Only memory (or making a reliable record) need be presupposed, and only if you want to claim something beyond "science says." But given the reasonable reliability of memory, you can make claims about the perceptual world, including that it exhibits certain consistencies.

    Steve: One cannot just do a logical evaluation, having supposed its existence, without also believing one's observations exist, one's predictions exists, and that matching exists. To assume logical evaluations IS to make claims about the existence of things.

    Logic can be done by computers, and they don't "believe" a whole of lot of anything.

    Steve: A computer can do matching if it has been programed by a person who assumes the metaphysical positions I have described.

    Yes, but it's irrelevant. The robot goes on about its business of comparing and matching. You can't then say comparing and matching requires belief.

    Steve: Finally, it should be noted that reducing the scientific method to a game by refusing to make metaphysical claims, even if it could be done, would render the scientist doing so unable to say if the "matching" they have done represents what is really going on.

    Many scientists, especially the human ones, have all sorts of metaphysical beliefs. But the question was whether certain specific beliefs are necessary to do science. They're not. Generally, it's much easier for people to believe in what they are doing, but that's just a human foible.

    You show up for work. You do your job. You go home, kiss the wife, play with the kids. You don't have to believe in any of it. You might be Zen. You might be a nihilist. You could be a robot. You might even be a Creationist.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Does a balance-scale or an abacus *actually* "compare" or "match?"

    Of course not.

    So, why are you imagining that a computer does? Why are you imagining that to speak of a computer program making a comparison is anything other than figurative language?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Hi Doublee,

    You wrote...
    "And science is relying on a breakdown in a biological process rather than the routine operation of that process. What is the difference between the whims of the gods and the whims of nature? Can anyone make predictions based on whims? Can whimsical processes build complex, orderly structures?"

    I like it. I think it is a reasonable argument for what I call "ID Science" as opposed to the "ID Movement".

    I would be interested to see how many (if any) ID proponents will argue their God (excuse me, "Designer") is just as "higgledy piggledy" as randomness.

    As tempting as it might be to give Zachriel a run for his money on this point, I will pass to see if anyone else is brave enough to take it on.

    I will be surprised to find out you are not an engineer. I could almost feel your frustration over Zachriel's changing laws. Engineers tend to be more humble than theorists. They have to be, they get bitten by Murphy's Law way too often.

    Engineers know it matters very little what we think we know. Fancy names and "Laws" is of minor consequence when the CPU chip goes up in smoke.

    I can empathize with your thoughts that the "laws of nature" are fixed whether we know them or not.

    It is similar to the riddle asking "What was the highest mountain in the world before Everest was discovered?"

    Zachriel seems comfortable the even diffusion of perfume in a closed room is just probability distributions playing out to the create the most likely results.

    While there is a chance all the perfume could "diffuse" to one corner of the room, we should not be surprised that we don't see it in a million lifetimes.

    IOW, God plays dice and rarely roles all snake eyes.

    Ironically, most ID proponents argue from a similar position. However, their God intervenes occasionally (i.e. God plays dice and cheats).


    I argue that God doesn't play dice, but he does play a wicked game of billiards (h/t TT's Joy).

    Quantum wavefunctions, tunneling electrons, spooky action at a distance and other Quantum Weirdness.

    Sir Roger Penrose has indicated he gets extremely obsessive when facing a puzzle. The big puzzle he had been focused on is merging Relativistic Reality, with Quantum Reality AND with our every-day reality.

    I think he is close to understanding the answer.

    Getting there practically necessitates Quantum Consciousness and generally having life be quantum-based.

    I'm with you, there probably is a fixed "law of nature" orchastrating all the quantum effects which, in turn, causes order in the universe.

    However, chances are the law in non-deterministic and we will never know for sure it isn't "higgledy piggledy" randomness or even "higgledy piggledy" deities.

    Got to run, talk to you later.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Zachriel:

    “We should always start with what we can establish with some confidence; in this case, we know that dinosaurs share a common ancestry, and that they descended from ancestral non-dinosaurian reptiles.”

    Now, don’t get me wrong; I have no problem with common ancestry per se. I do have a problem with how much confidence we can place in common ancestry. I have read a few articles that discuss genetic comparisons and the fact that different comparisons lead to different cladograms. Then there is Jonathan Wells’ illustration. If we dug up two human skeletons from the same location we would not know if they were related without a DNA comparison.

    The real problem I have with the “argument from common ancestry” is that it can tell us nothing specifically about the mechanisms of evolution. The most that can be said is that common ancestry is consistent with the theory. There is also the problem of the “abrupt appearance” of many fossils. So I don’t think common ancestry is a good place to start.

    Zachriel regarding a heuristic for historical science:

    “Hypothesis testing.”

    I asked for a heuristic that specifically applies to historical science. Your answer applies to science in general. This implies that you see no difference between laboratory (or field) science and historical science. Of course, historical science requires hypothesis testing, but I submit that it requires a different kind of hypothesis testing. The problem is that you can’t go into the lab and directly test your hypothesis. You can compare your hypothesis with competing hypotheses and determine which one best explains the phenomenon in question. However, the results will always leave a “truth seeker” uncomfortable, because there will always be legitimate doubt that the best explanation is the correct explanation.

    Zachriel:

    “Yes, that's exactly right! You postulate. Then you test for its empirical implications. So if you think that whales descended from land mammals, you might look for whales with hind limbs in strata associated with the transition. This lends support to the hypothesis.”

    I have read some articles on whale evolution and frankly I found the evidence to be quite impressive. But as you might guess, I am still not convinced. There is so much missing from the story, and so many unverifiable assumptions that would have to be made. One question I have (and it leads to many others) is given the known mutation rates (i.e., what we know today) is it plausible that the transitions observed in the fossil record could have occurred in the time available? (Of course it is plausible; the transitions are there, aren’t they?)

    In order to answer the question with any degree of confidence science would have to know what changes are required to “re-engineer” a land mammal into a sea-going creature. I may not be up-to-date, but it is my understanding that science does not yet know how the information in the genome and information that may reside elsewhere in the zygote is used to build an animal.

    Science is still far away from having a credible theory of evolution.

    Zachriel:

    “Again, you have to start with Common Descent to make any sense of the evidence.”

    I disagree. You have start with the basic claim of the theory of evolution and demonstrate that random processes can build complex things. Telling me that perfume will eventually disperse through a room just doesn’t quite do it for me.

    Attempts to do this so far have failed. For example, evolutionary algorithms that ostensibly show that evolution can work do no such thing. The algorithm must be provided with a target or the algorithm must be guided in some way by code added by the programmer.

    ****
    Note to Thought Provoker:

    Click on my screen name and your suspicions will be confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Doublee: I have read a few articles that discuss genetic comparisons and the fact that different comparisons lead to different cladograms.

    The biggest problems areas are found at the root of the tree. The concept of a distinct organism may not apply to primoridal life due to the ubiquity of horizontal evolution. Once the Darwinian epoch began, and vertical inheritance became dominant, then life formed the familiar phylogenetic tree.

    Doublee: Then there is Jonathan Wells’ illustration. If we dug up two human skeletons from the same location we would not know if they were related without a DNA comparison.

    That's not quite correct, but note that you chose two individuals from the same species. They are closely related! Humans, in particular, went through relatively recent bottleneck events. And what's wrong with a DNA comparison?

    Doublee: The real problem I have with the “argument from common ancestry” is that it can tell us nothing specifically about the mechanisms of evolution.

    That is incorrect. It puts significant limits on plausible mechanisms. They have to work incrementally, for instance.

    Doublee: There is also the problem of the “abrupt appearance” of many fossils. So I don’t think common ancestry is a good place to start.

    Because the evidence for Common Descent of most taxa is so important and encompasses data from so many different fields of study, from geology to genetics, this really needs to be resolved before discussing plausible mechanisms of those changes. In other words, if we can establish that mammals evolved from reptiles—which we can—, then that is the pattern the posited mechanism must be able to explain.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Doublee: I asked for a heuristic that specifically applies to historical science.

    Yes. It's called hypothesis-testing.

    Doublee: This implies that you see no difference between laboratory (or field) science and historical science.

    Of course there's a difference. It's like astronomy. You can only look, but not touch the past. But you can still propose and test hypotheses.

    Doublee: However, the results will always leave a “truth seeker” uncomfortable, because there will always be legitimate doubt that the best explanation is the correct explanation.

    "Truth seekers" in science seek confidence. Confidence comes from testing hypotheses with different observers and different methodologies consistent with other supported findings. Just because it's historical doesn't mean we can't develop confidence.

    We discussed the claim that Dinosaurs roamed the Earth. For some reason, you didn't think this was significant. Very odd.

    The nested hierarchy is a very important pattern observed in organisms and traits, extinct and extant, morphology, biogeography, genetics, embryonics. From this we can make all sorts of predictions of what we can expect to see.

    If you have an organism with mammary glands, we can predict it will have a complex eukaryote cell structure with organelles, ingest other organisms for nourishment, bilateral symmetry, alimentary canal, have a bony head at one end with an array of sense organs, vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, integument, jaw, ribs, four limbs during at least at some stage of life, neck, neocortex, endothermic, internal fertilization, four-chambered heart, lungs with alveoli and a muscular diaphragm, two eyes, three ear bones in each of two ears, hair or at least hair follicles at some stage of life, sebaceous glands, most will have heterodont dentition, etc.

    Think about it. We might be able to tell if an organism cared for its young just from a single jaw bone! A single lower jaw bone is a unique characteristic of mammals, and as you know, mammals nurse their young. So from an old bone, we can predict the maternal behavior of a long extinct organism.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Hi Doublee,

    You wrote...
    "Click on my screen name and your suspicions will be confirmed."

    Ok, now I feel foolish.

    When you are done playing with Zachriel, I would be interested in hearing what you think of the life-is-quantum-base hypothesis.

    BTW, for those who didn't know or couldn't figure it out, the answer to my riddle is "Everest".

    ReplyDelete
  104. Doublee: One question I have (and it leads to many others) is given the known mutation rates (i.e., what we know today) is it plausible that the transitions observed in the fossil record could have occurred in the time available?

    Rates of evolution can be directly measured, and they have been observed to be in the thousands of darwins. This is much, much faster than required to explain any historical transition.

    Zachriel: Again, you have to start with Common Descent to make any sense of the evidence.

    Doublee: I disagree. You have start with the basic claim of the theory of evolution and demonstrate that random processes can build complex things.

    Common Descent *is* one of the fundamental claims of the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, there is only one diagram in Darwin's Origin of Species, and it's of a phylogenetic tree.

    Doublee: The algorithm must be provided with a target or the algorithm must be guided in some way by code added by the programmer.

    There has to be a fitness landscape of some sort. So?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Thought Provoker:

    I didn't mean to make you feel foolish. I have caught myself many time failing to investigate the "obvious".

    I think I am done "playing" with Zachriel. It seems that he never quite answers the questions I am asking, and my attempts to probe more deeply into his answers has led to more of the same. Nevertheless, I appreciate that it was a polite exchange, and I have certainly been challenged by the exchange.

    I can offer no comments on life-is-a-quantum based hypotheis, since I know virtually nothing about quantum theory. My only contact is a course in "Atomic Phyics" I took way back in the mid-60s.

    I do recall reading a conjecture by William Dembski, who posited the idea that God could interact with nature by affecting quantum states.

    I found that interesting, because one of my first questions from a long time ago was that if God does interact with nature, how does he does he do it?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Hi Doublee,

    I will warn you up front. I am generally considered an ID critic, because I am indeed critical of the ID Movement. I believe the movement, as promoted by the Discovery Institute, is mostly religious with a goal of replacing "...materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
    (see http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf )

    I got interested in ID by following the Dover trial. The following quotes are from Dembski's Expert Witness Report
    (see http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Report_Dembski.pdf )

    "How, if at all, does quantum mechanics challenge a purely mechanistic conception of life? The intelligent design community is at the forefront in raising and answering such questions."

    "...there is now growing evidence that consciousness is not reducible to material processes of the brain and that free will is in fact real. Jeffrey Schwartz at UCLA along with quantum physicist Henry Stapp at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory are two of the key researchers presently providing experimental and theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain."

    One of my engineering professors constantly admonished us to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. It stuck with me enough to thoroughly investigate ideas before discarding them.

    As part of my investigations, I started commenting on Uncommon Descent with honest inquiries, but was immediately banished. I ended up becoming a regular at Telic Thoughts. Unfortunately, Telic Thoughts has devolved into mostly political stone throwing in the same vane as most Culture War blogs.

    I can't say my investigations were a waste of time because it motivated me to become better informed on Quantum Mechanics after TT's Joy pointed me to the idea of Quantum Consciousness as a possible ID hypothesis.

    I ended up reading Sir Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality (1000 page book available in paperback). It was fascinating. It gave me a headache as I struggled to understand it but it was still fascinating.

    I finally got a working understanding of four dimensional space-time. I can now explain the geometry behind the twin's paradox and show it isn't a paradox at all. I can derive Schwarzschild geometry (and its radius) from "simple" 4D space-time.

    Penrose had a debate with Hawking in 1994. It is an interesting read. Penrose's main focus was to explain the commonality of the three different sub-realities most people think of as separate, Relativistic, Macro and Quantum. The Macro reality is the "For all Practical Purposes" (FAPP) we deal with every day. When the pitcher throws a baseball it doesn't suddenly become multiple baseballs in superposition displaying both wave and particle properties (as photons do).

    Rather than continue my soap box preaching, I will provide a link to a Quantum Primer I recently found...
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1001/1001.3080.pdf

    The paper doesn’t reach a conclusion and it is even critical of Penrose’s OR ideas. I suggest it is fairly balanced and informative.

    I think Penrose has an intuitive feel the unifying answer to the big puzzles is as simple as possible (but no simpler). He is suggesting there is no need for more than four dimensions (ala some string theories) or multiple universes (ala Many Worlds) and that massive “objects” act differently from small, light “objects” because of their mass.

    In general, Penrose’s answer is accepting reality consists entirely of interconnected wavefunctions in 4D space-time and Quantum Consciousness.

    ReplyDelete
  107. TP: "I will warn you up front. I am generally considered an ID critic, because I am indeed critical of the ID Movement. I believe the movement, as promoted by the Discovery Institute, is mostly religious with a goal of replacing "...materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
    (see http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf )
    "

    So, by your own word, you're not really a critic -- you're a would-be censurer. You’re engaging in motive-mongering (which is a logical fallacy), and attempting to declare ID to be invalid on the basis of your perception of the motives of the IDists.

    ReplyDelete
  108. TP: "As part of my investigations, I started commenting on Uncommon Descent with honest inquiries, but was immediately banished."

    Let me guess; that Dave fellow banned you? They *finally* had the sense to get rid of him.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Diogenes (top comment), IDists don't say, "Gods may have mimicked evolution." They say that evolution is incapable of doing what is claimed for it - in which case, to mimic evolution would be to create a sterile planet.

    To make your boulder analogy fit the ID position, the boulder should be uphill from the outcropping, or in the shape of David, but with some imperfections and inconsistencies that preclude the possibility of a singular, omniscient sculptor.

    --DarelRex

    ReplyDelete